DEBATES AND DOCUMENTS IN ANCIENT HISTORY

Rome and its Empire,

AD 193–284

OLIVIER HEKSTER
Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284
 DEBATES AND DOCUMENTS IN ANCIENT HISTORY

 
Emma Stafford, University of Leeds, and
Shaun Tougher, Cardiff University

Focusing on important themes, events or periods throughout ancient

history, each volume in this series is divided into roughly equal parts.
The first introduces the reader to the main issues of interpretation.
The second contains a selection of relevant evidence supporting
different views.


Diocletian and the Tetrarchy
Roger Rees

Julian the Apostate

Shaun Tougher

Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

Olivier Hekster with Nicholas Zair

 
Roman Imperialism
Andrew Erskine

Sex and Sexuality in Classical Athens

James Robson

The Emperor Nero

Steven Green

Justinian and the Sixth Century

Fiona Haarer
 Rome and Its Empire,
ad 193–284

Olivier Hekster with Nicholas Zair

Edinburgh University Press

 © Olivier Hekster, 2008

Edinburgh University Press Ltd

22 George Square, Edinburgh

Typeset in Minion
by Norman Tilley Graphics Ltd, Northampton
and printed and bound in Great Britain
by CPI Antony Rowe, Chippenham, Wilts

A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 978 0 7486 2303 7 (hardback)

ISBN 978 0 7486 2304 4 (paperback)

The right of Olivier Hekster

to be identified as author of this work
has been asserted in accordance with
the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
 Contents

Series Editors’ Preface vii

Preface ix
Acknowledgements xii
Abbreviations xv
Maps xvii

Part I Debates
Introduction: History and Narrative 3
Chapter 1 A Capital and its Provinces 11
Chapter 2 Economy, Armies and Administration 31
Chapter 3 Law and Citizenship 45
Chapter 4 Development and Perception of Emperorship 56
Chapter 5 Christianity and Religious Change 69
Conclusion 82

Part II Documents
1 Cassius Dio: Roman History 89
2 Herodian: History of the Empire after Marcus 94
3 Historia Augusta 97
4 Sextus Aurelius Victor: Book of the Caesars 98
5 Eutropius: Breviarium 101
6 Festus: Breviarium 107
7 Zosimus: New History 108
8 Publius Aelius Aristides: To Rome 109
9 The Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle 110
10 Res Gestae Divi Saporis 112
11 Lactantius: On the Deaths of the Persecutors 114
12 P. Herennius Dexippus: Scythica 114
13 Dexippus Inscription 116
14 Odaenathus Inscriptions from CIS 117
15 Augsburg Inscription 117
16 Inscriptions from CIL 118
vi Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

17 Ağa Bey Köyü Petition 121

18 Papyrus of Isis to her Family 122
19 Command of the Egyptian Prefect 122
20 The Constitutio Antoniniana 123
21 Digest 123
22 Damnatio Memoriae in a Papyrus 123
23 Oxyrhynchus Papyri 124
24 Inscriptions from Aphrodisias 125
25 Acclamation at Perge 126
26 The Feriale Duranum 127
27 Trajan to Pliny: Letter 10.97 130
28 Libellus of the Decian Persecution 130
29 Cyprian: To Demetrianus 130
30 Cyprian: Letter 80 134
31 Passion of Perpetua and Felicitas 135
32 Marcus Minucius Felix: Octavius 139
33 Epistle against the Manichees 140
34 Ban on Magical Consultation 141
35 Wall of Aurelian 143
36 Rock Relief at Bishapur 144
37 Arch of Galerius, Thessalonica 144
38 Arch of Septimius Severus, Rome 145
39 Arco degli Argentarii, Rome 146
40 Palmyrene Sarcophagus 146
41 Syrian Togate Portrait 147
42 Distribution of Third-Century Imperial Coin Types 147
43 Coins of Elagabalus 148
44 Trilingual Coin from Tyre 148
45 Coins of Philip the Arab 149
46 Decius’ Consecration Coins (250–1) 150
47 Coins of Gallienus 151
48 Coins of Aurelian and His Opponents 152
49 Imperial Busts 153

Emperors and Usurpers 155

Further Reading 157
Essay Questions and Exercise Topics 162
Internet Resources 165
Bibliography 168
Glossary 177
Index 179
 Series Editors’ Preface

Debates and Documents in Ancient History is a series of short books

on central topics in Greek and Roman history. It will range over the
whole period of classical history from the early first millennium bc to
the sixth century ad. The works in the series are written by expert
academics and provide up-to-date and accessible accounts of the
historical issues and problems raised by each topic. They also contain
the important evidence on which the arguments are based, including
texts (in translation), archaeological data and visual material. This
allows readers to judge how convincing the arguments are and to enter
the debates themselves. The series is intended for all those interested in
the history of the Greek and Roman world.
In this volume Olivier Hekster explores in particular the condition of
the Roman empire in the third century ad, prior to the emergence of the
dominating figure of the emperor Diocletian (ad 284–305). This period
has been categorised as one of crisis for the empire, since it witnessed
intense political, social, economic, military and religious upheaval.
Most obviously the empire experienced severe imperial instability and
pressure on its northern and eastern frontiers. However, the degree of
crisis the empire was facing is a matter for lively debate, which makes it
an ideal topic for this series. In addition, one of the key problems facing
historians of the third century ad is the lack of primary evidence.
Olivier Hekster thus provides a vital service in bringing together in one
volume a range of literary and material evidence on which interpret-
ations of the period can be based, such as histories, speeches, oracles,
inscriptions, Christian tracts, papyri, legislation, letters, monuments,
statues and coins. He draws on all of these to provide a thoughtful
and balanced consideration of Rome’s history from ad 193 to 284. This
volume should provide an invaluable tool for students, teachers and all
those interested in the history of the Roman Empire.

Emma Stafford and Shaun Tougher

November 2007

vii
 Preface

Large stretches of the monumental walls with which the emperor

Aurelian surrounded the city of Rome are still standing. Nowadays, they
are an imposing relic of the greatness of imperial Rome. Yet the decision
in ad 271 that the city needed walls marks an important moment in
Roman history. The empire could no longer guarantee peace in its
heartland. The period between ad 193 and 284 is often described as a
time of crisis, an era in which everything went wrong that possibly
could have gone wrong. But even after years of near-continuous
fighting, in spite of everything, Rome and its empire had survived
almost entirely intact. When Diocletian took up power in ad 284, the
Roman Empire was in many ways still the same as it had been at the end
of the second century. There was change, of course, but continuity too.
The third century is a confusing period of Roman history, in which
events took place at an incredible pace, major battles were lost but wars
were won, and two of the most recognisable legacies of Roman history
came to full growth: Christianity and Roman law. After years of relative
neglect, it is also a period which now receives academic attention.
Historians ask new questions, or give different answers to old ones,
partly by using different sources from those earlier scholars had access
to. These historians, as so often, disagree with one another, giving rise to
fierce debates. This books aims to highlight some debates relating to
Rome and its empire, and the ancient sources that are referred to in
these debates.
Since so much happens in the ‘short third century’ (the ninety-one
years from ad 193 to 284), Part I (Debates) starts with an introduction
which very briefly discusses the main events of the times, in Rome
and its empire, followed by a short presentation of the main sources.
Here one can find the first cross-referencing to the sources in Part II
(Documents). Throughout Part I, cross-references to the sources under
discussion are indicated by bold type in brackets: for example (II. 5)
refers to the fifth section in part II, and (II. 5 9.1) refers to a subsection
(9.1) within that fifth section. References to modern literature are

ix
x Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

indicated (also in brackets) by author and year of publication. The

bibliography supplies further details. In some cases, references are made
to ancient sources which are not in Part II. These are also in brackets.
Maps (pp. xv–xvii) and a list of emperors and usurpers with their years
of reign (pp. 155–6) may also be of help.
Part I is divided into five chapters, each dealing with an important
theme in third-century history. Though it elaborates to some extent on
the narrative framework given in the introduction, especially in the first
two chapters, it does not aim to supply a full overview of events. The
guide to further reading which follows Part II gives directions on where
to look for more information. Instead, Part I introduces some of the
main debates surrounding Rome and its empire, and aims to give the
background that is necessary to follow the debates. Continuously, the
sources which are of importance to understand the third century are
discussed and explained, hopefully in a way which makes both the
debates and the documents more comprehensible to the reader.
Inevitably, a short book like this has to exclude much that is relevant to
the subject, in both parts. Especially regrettable was the need to omit,
for reasons of space, events outside of the Roman world. That does not
deny the importance of understanding how and why external threats
increased as much as they did during the third century. Again, some
references can be found in the guide to further reading. Also for reasons
of space, almost all of third-century philosophy has been left out. The
debate on whether or not there was a third-century crisis is only briefly
discussed in the conclusion.
This book would never have arrived at the press in time (if at
all) without Nicholas Zair, who is responsible for almost all of the
translations, and whose good humour and accuracy have been a great
support. Only very few of the translations have been expanded or
slightly adapted by me. For the Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle (II. 9) I
have used the translation by David Potter (Potter 1990), and am most
grateful to him for his permission to reproduce it. The translation of the
Res Gestae Divi Saporis (II. 10) is by Richard Frye (Frye 1984). I thank
both him and the publishers, Beck, for their permission to use it. Freke
Remmers has helped me at various stages of the editorial process, and
I am thankful to her, as I am to Carol MacDonald at Edinburgh
University Press, and to the series editors Shaun Tougher and Emma
Stafford, without whom this book would not have been written. In
obtaining the right maps and images I have received kind help from
John Nichols, Jon Coulston, Nathalie de Haan, Maria Brosius and Ted
Kaizer, the last of whom also read (and improved) parts of the text. I am
 Preface xi

grateful to the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Rom (DAIR), the

Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, the Martin von Wagner Museum and the
Compagnie Generale de Bourse (CGB) for their permission to use
images from their collections. If the book serves its purpose, that is in
no small part thanks to the third-century research group at Nijmegen.
Lukas de Blois, Daniëlle Slootjes, Martijn Icks, Erika Manders, Inge
Mennen and (our temporary resident) Matthias Haake have taught me
most of what I know about the third century. Most of all, however, I am
grateful to Hannah for delaying the publication of this book, first by
being born, and then by distracting me as much as she could; and to
Birgit, for taking care of both of us when I needed to be at the library or
in my study, and for so much more.

Olivier Hekster
Arnhem, July 2007
 Acknowledgements

Grateful acknowledgement is made to the following sources for

permission to reproduce material. Every effort has been made to trace
the copyright holders, but if any have been inadvertently overlooked,
the publisher will be pleased to make the necessary arrangements at the
first opportunity.

Map 1 Map © copyright 2007, Ancient World Mapping Centre

(www.unc.edu/awmc)
Map 2 Map © copyright 2007, Ancient World Mapping Centre
(www.unc.edu/awmc)
Map 3 Courtesy of J. Nichols/University of Oregon
(darkwing.uoregon.edu/~atlas
Map 4 Courtesy of J. Nichols/University of Oregon
(darkwing.uoregon.edu/~atlas)

II. 9 Translation by David Potter

II. 10 Translation by Richard Frye (1984), courtesy Beck
II. 14 Translation by David Potter
II. 35 a. Photo N. de Haan
b. Photo J. C. N. Coulston
II. 36 Photo D. Mitchell
II. 37 Photo J. C. N. Coulston
II. 38 a–b. Photos O. Hekster
II. 39 a–b. Photos DAIR 70.993, 70.1000
II. 40 Photo T. Kaizer, courtesy A. Schmidt-Colinet
II. 41 Photo K. Oehrlein, courtesy Martin von Wagner Museum der
Universität Würzburg, Leihgaben inventar ZA 111
II. 42 Courtesy E. Manders
II. 43 a. Courtesy British Museum London, BMC 273
b. Courtesy CGB, r16.0248

xiii
xiv Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

II. 44 Courtesy British Museum London, BM 1970, 9-9-242

II. 45 a–b. Courtesy CGB, brm.09724 b, r16.0029
II. 46 a–d. Courtesy CGB, r09.0116, r09.0110, r09.0122, r09.1023
II. 47 a–b. Courtesy CGB, r16.0334, r16.0344
II. 48 a. Courtesy CGB, r16.0391
b. Courtesy CGB, r16.0395
c. Photo R. Abdy, courtesy British Museum London
d. Courtesy CGB, r15.0013
II. 49 a. Photo DAIR 54.794, courtesy Sovraintendenza Comunale,
Roma
b. Courtesy Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek Copenhagen, IN 2028
c. Photo DAIR 69.2168, courtesy Sovraintendenza Comunale,
Roma
d. Courtesy Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek Copenhagen, IN 818
e. Photo DAIR 55.13, courtesy Sovraintendenza Comunale,
Roma
f. Courtesy Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek Copenhagen, IN 832
g. Photo DAIR 67.501, courtesy Sovraintendenza Comunale,
Roma
 Abbreviations

AE L’Année Epigraphique
AncSoc Ancient Society
ANRW H. Temporini and W. Haasse (eds), Aufstieg und Niedergang
der römischen Welt (Berlin 1973–)
BJ Bonner Jahrbücher
BMCRE H. Mattingly, Coins of the Roman Empire in the British
Museum (London 1965–75)
CAH Cambridge Ancient History
CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum
CIS Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum
CJ Codex Iustinianus
CTh Codex Theodosianus
Dig. Digest
GRBS Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies
HSCP Harvard Studies in Classical Philology
HTR Harvard Theological Review
IG Inscriptiones Graecae
ILS H. Dessau, Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae (Berlin 1954–52)
JJP Journal of Juristic Papyrology
JRA Journal of Roman Archaeology
JRS Journal of Roman Studies
LTUR E. M. Steinby (ed.), Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae
(Rome 1993–9)
Pan. Lat. Panegyrici Latini
P.Diog. P. Schubert, Les archives de Marcus Lucretius Diogenes et
textes apparentés (Bonn 1990)
P.Dura C. Bradford-Welles et al., The Excavations at Dura-Europos:
Final Report V.1. The Parchments and Papyri (New Haven,
CT, 1959)
P.Giss. O. Eger et al., Griechische Papyri im Museum des ober-

xv
xvi Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

hessischen Geschichtsvereins zu Giessen (Berlin and Leipzig

1910–12)
P.Oxy. B. P. Grenfell et al., The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (London
1898–)
P.Ryl. Catalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyri in the John Rylands
Library, Manchester 34 BAN
P.Thmouis S. Kambitsis, Le papyrus Thmouis 1, colonnes 68–160 (Paris
1985)
P.Yale Yale Papyri in the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript
Library
PSI Papiri greci e latini. Pubblicazioni della società italiana per la
richerca dei papyri greci e latini in Egitto (Florence 1912–)
RIC H. Mattingly and R. Sydenham (eds), Roman Imperial
Coinage (London 1923–67)
RN Revue Numismatique
SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum
ZPE Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik
Map 1 Ancient Italy
Map 2 Legionary bases in the Roman Empire (reign of Septimius Severus)
Map 3 Military advances from Septimius Severus to Gordian III

Map 4 Military advances from Papienus to Diocletian

 Part I

Debates
 INTRODUCTION

History and Narrative

When, on 1 January 193, the news started to spread through the city of
Rome that the emperor Commodus had been assassinated the previous
night, many senators must have been happy. Their relationship with
the emperor had been problematic, and they will have hoped that any
successor would take their interests more into consideration. They
were wrong. The following century would limit senatorial influence
beyond what could have been imagined. Almost twenty-five years after
Commodus’ death, in April 217, the first non-senatorial emperor was
proclaimed (Marcus Opellius Macrinus), who reigned for fourteen
months but never showed himself in Rome (II 5 8.21). Nearly twenty
years later, the first professional soldier, a man of equestrian and not
senatorial rank, became emperor (Maximinus Thrax, 235–8), again
avoiding Rome throughout his reign (II 5 9.1). Another forty-five
years passed before even the last gesture was abandoned. The emperor
Carus (282–3) did not even ask for senators to acclaim him – his
emperorship was based wholly on the support of his troops. The power
to appoint emperors lay wholly with the soldiers, as was famously
announced by the fourth-century author Aurelius Victor (II 4 37). Only
shortly after did Diocletian (284–305) come to occupy the throne, and
change the whole system of emperorship in the process. A new era had
started.

Rome and its emperors

From 193 to 284 the Roman Empire knew over twenty-five more or less
legitimate rulers, and an approximately equal number of usurpers who
managed to take control of parts of the empire for at least some time.
To say that there was a lack of dynastic stability is a massive under-
statement. Still, some chronological demarcations are possible. First,
there is the period up to 235. With the accession of Macrinus as an

3
4 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

aberration, the period was still dominated by dynastic tendencies. The

death of Commodus was followed by a year of four emperors, much as
had happened after Nero’s suicide in 68. The ultimate victor of that
struggle for power, Septimius Severus (193–211), founded a dynasty
as Vespasian (69–79) had done before him. Even if the Severan dynasty
consisted of a brother killing his brother (Caracalla, 211–17), a young
transvestite presenting himself as the chief priest to a black stone
(Elagabalus, 218–22), which was even depicted on coinage (II 43 a, b;
II 5 8.22), and a fourteen-year-old boy who was dominated by his
mother (Severus Alexander, 222–35), their claim to rule rested on
descent from the Severan dynasty. In fact, those supporting the claims
of Elagabalus (whose actual name was Varius Avitus Bassianus) in
218 even said that their candidate was Caracalla’s bastard son, thus
fabricating the closest possible link to the deceased emperor. This fake
blood-line explains why Elagabalus is referred to as the ‘false Antoninus’
(II 1 79.36).
From 235 onwards, no single dynasty dominated Roman politics,
though many rulers tried to establish one. Thus, there were as many as
three Gordians. Unfortunately for them, the first two (who were father
and son) were proclaimed emperor together and ruled for all of three
weeks (238), whereas Gordian III (238–44) became emperor whilst
thirteen years old. He died aged nineteen, possibly in battle after utter
defeat, as is emphasised by the most important eastern source
remaining, the great trilingual inscription of the neo-Persian ruler
Shapur I at Naqsh-i-Rustam in Iran, in which he records the deeds
achieved during his reign (II 10 3–4; cf. II 36) in Middle Persian,
Parthian and Greek, so that all would be able to read the record of his
greatness. Alternatively, Gordian died because of intrigues and army
unrest. The latter is stated by Roman sources who all emphasise that
Gordian obtained great success in war, but was ‘betrayed by a
companion’, the later emperor Philip the Arab (244–9) (II 9 13–20; II 5
9.2; II 4 27) (Millar 2004: 162–3). More unfortunate even was Philip II,
the son of Philip the Arab, who was appointed heir by his father six
months after the latter gained the throne, and became joint Augustus
before reaching the age of ten (247). It is hardly surprising that the son
did not survive his father’s death. Continuous attempts by emperors to
have their sons rule with them only made ever more certain that an
imperial son would not survive his father’s fall from grace. An exception
to the rule was the emperor Gallienus (253–68). He ruled longer
without his father Valerian (253–60) than with him – notwithstanding
the problems that arose when Valerian became the first ever Roman
 Introduction: History and Narrative 5

emperor to be captured in battle, eventually coming to a gruesome end,

possibly having his body skinned as a trophy after years of humiliation
(II 4 32; II 5 9.7; II 6 23; II 11 5.3–6).
During Gallienus’ reign, problems seemed ubiquitous, leading to the
onset of a Gallic counter-empire (260–74) – complete with emperors
and usurpers – and a similar claim from Palmyra, with queen Zenobia
a most infamous adversary (267–72). Gallienus was succeeded by a
group of so-called ‘Illyrian’ emperors (268–82) (named after their
general area of birth) who tried to impose order, with only limited
success. Still, some problems were addressed by the emperor Aurelian
(270–5), who once more unified the empire. Military men now ruled
the realm. The Illyrian trend was broken by the emperor Carus (282–3)
who, once again, attempted to establish a dynasty. It failed. Singularly
unlucky to be struck by lightning (although some sources suggest his
death was caused by illness, or simply by a man covering his tracks by
setting Carus’ tent on fire and blaming lightning), he was succeeded
by his two sons Carinus and Numerian, both of whom seem to have
died through betrayal and treason (Numerian’s body was even carried
around for several days in a closed litter, before the odour emanating
from it made some soldiers wary enough to open it). Still, the constant
claim to continuity by repeated attempts to found dynasties within a
dynastically discontinuous chaos shows how certain habits die hard,
even in the face of clear resistance. Eventually, the habit was broken by
the commander of the imperial guard, Diocles, who took up power and,
as Diocletian (284–305), insisted on many administrative and ideo-
logical innovations. According to some, he even changed the empire
beyond recognition.

Politics and the provinces

Clearly, then, emperors found it problematic to control their realm.
Internal struggles were only one reason for this. The situation was
aggravated by pressure on the north and east borders of the empire.
Changes among Germanic tribes around the end of the second century
led to conflict and invasion across the Rhine and Danube, where tribes
such as the Alamanni and Franks made life difficult for the Romans –
even invading substantial parts of Gaul around 275 (maps 3–4).
Towards the East, similar problems existed with invasions by the Quadi,
Vandals, Sarmatai and Goths. Again, problems were not limited to the
borders alone, with fighting taking place in the Balkans and on the coast
of Asia Minor (maps 3–4).
6 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

On top of that, in 226 the Parthians lost control of their empire

(consisting roughly of modern-day Iran, Iraq and Armenia and parts
of Turkey, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and
Tajikistan) to the so-called new Persians, reigned over by the Sassanid
dynasty (II 10 1–2). All through Rome’s history, the Parthians had been
Rome’s most feared enemy, the one real empire to exist beyond Rome.
Continuous diplomacy and occasional border conflicts had, however,
assured a fair measure of stability. Ironically, the fall of Rome’s most
feared enemy would lead to much more severe problems. The Parthians
had ruled their empire as a sort of federation, with a large measure of
autonomy for the diverse regions. The Sassanids were much more
centralistic – and expansionistic. Their second ruler, Shapur I (240–72),
would fight major campaigns on (the borders of) Roman territory from
252 to 264. Most of the time, the Persians were winning (II 10 3–16),
most famously capturing Valerian in ad 260. In fact, the new Persian
Empire would remain dominant for centuries, only ceasing to exist
around the middle of the seventh century.
Clearly, the picture that arises is one of a century of upheaval. But
that need not have had serious repercussions for all of the inhabitants
of the empire as a whole. Certainly, people living in areas in which
actual fighting took place would suffer, but throughout the third
century there were zones in which the political and military unrest had
remarkably few consequences (see below, Chapters 1 and 2). Yet even
there, some indirect effects of the upheaval could affect daily life. The
Antonine plague, which broke out in the Roman Empire towards the
end of the second century, resurfaced again and again throughout the
third century, and killed in places up to 20 per cent of the population.
This, on top of further economic problems, led to changes in the
structure of society (and the military) that had an impact beyond the
areas in which depopulation took place (see below, Chapter 2).
In other areas, struggles between emperors and counter-emperors
exacerbated the already precarious situation. Rampaging armies dis-
rupted social and economic life, whether they were Roman or foreign
armies, fighting each other or amongst themselves. Once normality was
disrupted, it was often difficult to restore the balance – and impossible
if soldiers were still (or again) roaming round (see below, Chapter 2).
Some areas certainly suffered more from this than others. The period
under discussion thus saw military and socio-economic disasters in
some of the empire’s territory, and even (temporary) fragmentation of
its very geographic existence. At the same time, the empire also reached
the height of its unification: the Constitutio Antoniniana (II 20; and see
 Introduction: History and Narrative 7

below, Chapter 3) of 212 granted Roman citizenship to almost all free

inhabitants of the Roman Empire. Though this formed a culmination
of earlier processes, it also brought with it important changes. The
universalisation of Roman citizenship had implications for the status of
Roman law. It also made the imperial cult a semi-state cult (see below,
Chapter 4). After all, if all inhabitants were citizens, they all ought to
participate in Roman cults, which included the imperial cult. The ruling
emperor Caracalla even professed that uniting his people under the cult
of Rome and the Roman gods would ensure pax deorum. That support
of traditional Roman gods had been placed in doubt in both Rome and
the provinces by the major religious changes which took place in the
third century. The rise of Christianity may have been the most striking
example, but it should be viewed alongside the development of other
religious and philosophical schools, and continuing pagan ritual (see
Chapter 5).

Historiography
Transitions tend to lead to discussion. Many people do not like change,
and if change does occur, people want it to be to their advantage.
In most situations, this is to the disadvantage of others. Inevitably,
descriptions of events become highly biased, and sometimes politically
laden. A change in dominance in socio-economic status can be a
disaster or the final coming about of justice, depending on whose point
of view is taken. On top of this, changes can be masked as continuity,
whilst continuity can also be portrayed as change – depending on the
purpose of the person presenting the picture. This makes it important
to realise the point of view of the individuals producing texts and
documents. Unfortunately, for the third century, this is often highly
problematic.
For the ninety years or so between the death of Commodus and
the accession of Diocletian a number of historical accounts by ancient
authors exist. None of them gives a complete overview, nor is any of
them particularly trustworthy. The beginning of the period is best
catered for. The Roman History of the Bithynian senator Cassius Dio
(II 1) (who lived from c. 163/4 till shortly after 229), which runs up to
229, is valuable, since the author witnessed many events himself, even
being consul in 205/6 and then again, together with the emperor
Severus Alexander, in 229. It is hardly surprising that his work is written
with a senatorial bias. He also has a bias against soldiers (and emperors
who boosted military interests too much), possibly because he was
8 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

forced out of Rome by the praetorian guard during his second

consulship. More problematic than the bias (which can after all be taken
into account) is the fact that almost all of the work was transmitted in
much abbreviated versions through eleventh- and twelfth-century
‘highlights’ (epitomes) by the Byzantine monks John Zonaras and
John Xiphilinus. Another contemporary history, by the non-senatorial
Herodian (c. 175–250), describes the period between 180 and 238 and
is transmitted whole. Herodian came from the East – possibly as a
freedman from Antioch – and was a minor official at Rome. His writing
is often anecdotal and not always reliable, since ‘novelistic’ choices
sometime ignore factuality (II 2). Still, as an eye-witness he can show us
at least how matters were seen at the time. Added to this, there is the so-
called Historia Augusta (also known as the Scriptores Historiae Augustae).
The work purports to be a multi-authored collection of biographies of
second- and third-century emperors (Hadrian to Numerian). It thus
gives an overview of all emperors and usurpers from the period under
discussion (II 3). But the work is notoriously unreliable and is used
sparingly here. Current consensus holds that the texts were written by a
single author in the late fourth century and that much of the content is
pure fiction, including invented documents, events and (probably) even
some of the usurpers. Still, the earlier ‘lives’ give some useful infor-
mation, probably because the unknown author of the Historia Augusta
based himself on better original sources for the earlier period. On the
whole, anything that can be found solely in the Historia Augusta should
be used only with extreme caution. Where there is literary or archae-
ological backup, the Historia Augusta can be used to supply interesting
details. However, recent finds of coins by a usurper who had – until
these coins were found – been thought to be a fabrication of the Historia
Augusta show that one can also be overcautious. A certain Domitian
attempted to come to power, exactly as we were told (II 48 c; II 3a 2.6;
and see Chapter 4).
For the period after 235, historians have mainly to rely on non-
contemporary texts, such as (apart from the Historia Augusta) the three
short chronological overviews by Aurelius Victor (Book of the Caesars;
31 bc–ad 360) (II 4), Eutropius (Brevarium; 753 bc–ad 364) (II 5)
and Festus (Breviarium; 753 bc–ad 364) (II 6). All worked in Roman
administration and published their books in the second half of the
fourth century. Of these, Eutropius is used here at length in order to give
a literary overview in the limited space available, whereas Victor and
Festus are used for complementary – or indeed contradictory – infor-
mation. A similar abbreviated overview is the Epitome de Caesaribus, by
 Introduction: History and Narrative 9

an unknown author. Much later still are the accounts by Byzantine

authors such as the Syrian Zosimus (late fifth century) (II 7) or Zonaras
(late eleventh century – mid-twelfth century), who both incorporate
earlier sources in their histories of the world, such as the earlier
mentioned epitomes of Cassius Dio, and the writings of the Athenian
Dexippus, who wrote a history up to the death of Claudius II (ad 270).
Dexippus was a member of an important Athenian family and
participated in the politics of his time, which might explain why his
life and views are known through various inscriptions and literary
fragments (II 12–13). Alongside these texts other literary sources exist,
with a wholly different kind of bias. These are what could be dubbed
‘religious texts’; that is, written from a clear religious point of view,
which can be historical, anecdotal or ritualistic. Prime amongst these
are Christian writings, such as those of the Carthaginian bishop
Cyprian (II 29–30), but also including interesting works like the Book of
Pontiffs, which gives biographies of the first ninety bishops of Rome. In
this category, one could also include prophetic books, of which the most
influential are the notoriously opaque Sibylline Oracles. This corpus of
texts consists of oracles predicting the future, written long after the
event. The most important text for the period under discussion is the
so-called Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle, which was assembled after Egypt
was conquered by the Arabs in ad 646, but composed at various times
in the actual periods it discusses. The main part (lines 89–154) was
probably written in the summer of ad 253, the earlier lines before that.
Its primary importance is that, with the great trilingual inscription
of Shapur I, mentioned above, it is the only contemporary account
covering the political events of the Roman Empire between ad 238 and
the reign of Constantine (II 9; Potter 1990). Perhaps a more unexpected
‘prophetic’ work is the Bible – sections of which reflect ancient con-
cerns, and can be an interesting historical source. Finally, much can be
learned from legal texts, which can often be dated to individual reigns.
Material evidence is also an important source for the modern
historian. Some of this can be textual, such as inscriptions and papyri.
They can provide glimpses of life in other levels of societies, and on the
periphery of empire. Funerary inscriptions, for instance, often show
careers (cursus honorum) of individuals ignored by literary texts, such as
soldiers or officials who did not quite make it to the top. Through
papyri, wholly different sets of information have survived, ranging from
private letters to wills (II 19; II 23) and important legal documents
(II 20). Though at first sight these documents are much less biased than
the literary ones, points of view and contexts must again be taken into
10 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

consideration; people are unlikely to put career failures on funerary

monuments, and not all wills and private letters are equally represen-
tative. Furthermore, the ‘epigraphic habit’ of the third century was
much less pronounced than in earlier periods (MacMullan 1982),
which means that there are simply fewer inscriptions to work with.
Different kind of biases, often much less pronounced, must be taken
into account when looking at non-literary texts. Archaeology allows us
to reconstruct both public and private buildings, and can also give
indications about the size (and fertility) of plots of agricultural land or
the date when city walls were constructed. Unfortunately, the data that
are produced are not always as straightforward as many historians
believe, and are very much dependent on the starting point of the
archaeologists. Other kinds of material sources, such as statues, reliefs
or coins, have ideological purposes – which are not always self-evident.
On top of that, it is not always clear who had these sources constructed.
Again, caution must be used before reconstructing the Roman world
from these sources with too much confidence.
All of this is not to say that a reconstruction of a history of Rome
and its empire in the years from ad 193 to 284 is impossible. There are,
however, many uncertainties, and much that is left open to debate. Not
the least of these debates focuses on the relationship between the city of
Rome and its provinces.
 CHAPTER 1

A Capital and its Provinces

The Roman Empire, essentially, started as a city state growing out of

proportion. This remained noticeable in the prime position in the
empire of the city of Rome until at least the great reforms of Diocletian
and his Tetrarchy (Rees 2004: 24–45). Up to the third century, however,
Rome could have defended its position by pointing to the relative peace
the Romans had brought. It is true, of course, that the first two centuries
of imperial Roman rule had seen some rebellions, but the vast majority
of these had been conflicts limited to restricted geographical areas
(Pekáry 1987). Where rebellions had been more pronounced, few
people (if any) had survived to tell the story. Rome did not suffer dissent
lightly. Yet overall there had been little dissent, with provincial loyalty
being the rule rather than the exception (Ando 2000). Equally import-
antly, Rome had managed to keep its frontiers safe, and from the reign
of Augustus (31 bc–ad 14) onwards, it was a long time before any
enemy forces marched on Roman soil. Whatever people may have
thought of Roman rule (and life under Rome could be very brutal and
unfair), this pax Romana must have been generally appreciated. This
can be illustrated by a famous speech by Aelius Aristides (II 8), though
one must remember that it was delivered in front of the emperor –
which rarely leads to criticism.
Rome’s prime position, as a result, was rarely challenged. Yet the
certainty of Roman peace started to erode from the middle of the
second century onwards. Marcus Aurelius (161–80) had to spend a
substantial part of his reign at the frontiers, keeping different enemies
at bay, in which he was severely hampered by the so-called Antonine
plague, which started in the mid 160s and flared up again and again in
the late second and early third century, in places taking the life of up to
20 per cent of the population (Duncan-Jones 1996: 116–17, 120–2).
With fewer men to take up arms, his son and successor Commodus
(180–92) chose to settle, rather than to fight. But even his attempts to

11
12 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

keep the peace could not avoid widespread disturbances in the mid-
180s in Britain, Gaul, Germany and Illirycum – going as far as the
besieging of a Roman legion, the legio VIII Augusta, in ad 185 (Hekster
2002: 62–3). At the same time, however, peace in Spain, Africa and most
of the East of the empire continued unabated. Central government still
supported local cities in difficulties. When in need, the empire still
turned to Rome.
The death of Commodus, and with it the end of the Antonine
dynasty, temporarily upset peace in most of the empire, but did not
shatter it. With no obvious successor, four aspirants aimed for the
throne, Septimius Severus defeating his last competitor only in ad 197.
One should never underestimate the disruption that civil war causes,
and it had been 124 years since the last one, but there was every reason
to believe that the victory of Severus would restore normality. Still, at
the end of Severus’ reign, he is alleged to have told his sons to take care
of soldiers especially, and ignore everyone else. Those at least are the
words of Dio, who lived at the time (II 1 77.15.2). Did this foreshadow
the military bias of the soldier emperors? Likewise, it has been suggested
that the reign of Severus marks the rise of the East. Towards the end of
the second century, more new senators than ever came from the East
(Halfmann 1979: 78–81), but that had not yet resulted in any emperor
born east of the Adriatic. Septimius was born in Lepcis Magna (modern
Libya), and never hid the fact (II 5 8.18). He had major building work
undertaken in his town of origin, and emphasised its two patron deities,
Melquart-Hercules and Liber-Bacchus, in many ways (LTUR 3, 25–6;
BMCRE 5, 505–7; Scheid 1998: 16–17, 20–1). In fact, there have been
notions of Septimius Severus as an ‘African emperor’. These can be
roughly separated into attempts to emancipate (Carlisle and Carlisle
1920; Jones 1972), which imply the importance of ethnic identity,
and more historical ideas in which people from the same region are
supposed to have known each other, and hence cooperated (Birley
1969). In any case, the debate on how ‘African’ Severus was, and how
influential his ‘African’ friends, is, in the end, of only minor importance
in comparison to the massive changes that the relationship between
centre and periphery of the empire underwent in the third century.

A capital in trouble
In ad 193, the unthinkable happened for only the second time in
Roman imperial history. The city of Rome was marched upon. At the
time, four men claimed the throne (II 1 74.14.3): Didius Julianus in
 A Capital and its Provinces 13

Rome, and Septimius Severus, Clodius Albinus and Pesecennius Niger

in various parts of the empire. Cassius Dio, who was present in Rome
at the time, describes the defence measures taken by Didius Julianus,
Septimius Severus’ predecessor, with ridicule. Soldiers from the fleet
were brought in for work they were not fit for, elephants that were
supposed to carry heavy loads threw off their riders, and Julianus even
strengthened the palace, so that he could lock himself in if everything
went wrong (II 1 74.16.1–4). It is, of course, possible that this was how
Julianus organised matters, but is more likely that here Dio betrays
his bias. Julianus’ behaviour as an emperor is described through a
combination of commonplaces for bad rulers. Possibly he was a bad
emperor, but Dio had also to portray him negatively to make Septimius’
actions look good. Yet the main problem Dio had with Didius Julianus
was the way in which the latter had come to power. In contravention of
what Dio thought of as the grandeur of Rome, in 193 the emperorship
was sold off by the praetorians, as if in an auction, and Julianus had
been the buyer. The praetorians, who were the only soldiers present in
Rome, simply decided to support the man who was going to pay them
the most, a bidding war which Didius Julianus won (II 1 74.11.2). By
making Julianus look bad, Dio made Severus’ march on Rome under-
standable. But however justifiable some authors could portray Severus’
reasons for marching on the capital to be, the fact is that for the first
time since the start of the Flavian dynasty, Rome became a battlefield.
Following the fighting in ad 69, there had been a conscious effort by
those in power to re-establish the image of Roman supremacy, through
emphasis on peace and stability, and the victories of the new dynasty
(Hekster 2007: 97–8). Up to a point, Severus did the same, obtaining
victories in the East in the years following his accession, and em-
phasising these (and his dynasty) in Rome through monuments and
festivals. For instance, during the celebrations of the Secular Games in
ad 204, Septimius and his sons took centre stage, as did, perhaps more
surprisingly, the patron deities of Lepcis Magna (Scheid 1998: 16–17,
20–1). Perhaps this would have been sufficient, if their subsequent rule
had been characterised by glorious peace. It was not.
To illustrate, one might take the point of view of an inhabitant of
the city of Rome who lived up to the age of fifty. This was not an age
that most third-century Romans could expect to reach, with a life
expectancy at birth of about twenty, and of just under fifty for people at
the age of ten. That is information which can be deduced from a list
supplied by the jurist Ulpian, which gives multipliers to establish tax
values of pensions – thus guesstimating probable life expectancy (Dig.
14 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

35.2.68 pr.; Frier 1982, 1999: 88). If our fictitious fifty-year-old had been
born in ad 150 and died in ad 200, his life would not have been without
disturbances. He would have been lucky to survive the Antonine plague,
which reached Rome in ad 166 and thrived in the city’s urban crowds,
so that according to Dio sometime during Commodus’ reign ‘two
thousand persons often died in Rome in a single day’ (Dio, 73.14.3),
translating as up to 300,000 deaths in total (Scheidel 2003: 171). Apart
from the eccentric behaviour of Commodus, life would otherwise have
been fairly tranquil, up until a massive fire in the city in ad 191, and the
march on Rome and civil war mentioned above following Commodus’
assassination, which would have lasted until just before the fictitious
Roman’s death. A further characteristic would have been that in thirty-
four out of fifty years, the emperor would have been present at Rome,
often for protracted periods of time (Halfmann 1986: 210–23).
Still, that life might have looked like a golden age for someone living
in Rome in the period ad 200–50. He would have seen two brothers,
both emperors, fight what came near to a civil war in the very city of
Rome itself (II 2 4.4; see also Chapter 4); a soldier becoming emperor
and not visiting the capital (ad 218); and the traditional supreme gods
of Rome being made subsidiary to a black conic stone (II 43 a, b). To top
it all, he would then have lived through a year of six different claimants
to the throne (ad 238), in which several magistrates, including the
urban prefect (praefectus urbi), were actually slain (II 4 26). The course
of events was extraordinary and is transmitted through Herodian
(7.5–7.10), Eutropius (II 5 9.2) and Aurelius Victor (II 4 26–7). In 238,
the elderly Gordian I was proclaimed emperor in Africa, though
Maximinus Thrax was still alive. The senate, however, declared him an
enemy of the state (hostis) and sided with Gordian. When rumours
arrived at Rome that Gordian had died, the senate was in difficulty, and
formed a committee of twenty advisors. After Gordian’s death, with
Maximinus still alive, the senate chose two members of that committee,
Clodius Pupienus and Caelius Calvinus Balbinus (Aurelius’ mentioning
‘Caecilius’ is a mistake), to become emperor. Though Maximinus was
killed shortly afterwards, making them sole emperors, their reign would
be brief. The military and the inhabitants of Rome much preferred
dynastic succession, and Gordian III, the young grandson of Gordian I,
was made Caesar. Within three months Pupienus and Balbinus were
killed by the praetorians, and Gordian III was sole ruler (Haegemans
2003). By that stage, Rome was also at war with Shapur, and Gordian
died following a calamitous Roman invasion in Mesopotamia. Only
the Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle (II 9 7–20) describes these events in
 A Capital and its Provinces 15

somewhat glorious terms, equating Gordian with the god of war. Even
this oracular text, however, had to note how the fighting ended with
Gordian’s death, though, as mentioned above, the details are disputed
(p. 4). His successor would perhaps have boosted spirits by the great
festivities which marked Rome’s millennium celebration in 248 (II 5
9.3), but even these were marred (and delayed) by the unrest in the
realm at large. Our Roman would, in any case, have died just before new
fighting broke out in Rome itself, with the pretender Valens Hostilianus
trying (possibly on the insistence of the plebs) to claim the throne. In
our man’s lifetime, emperors would have been present in the capital in
twenty-one out of fifty years, for stays which would be much shorter
than before (Halfmann 1986: 221–36).
Applying the same system to ad 250–300, emperors would have
been present for a total of eighteen out of fifty years, but most of these
stays would have been extremely short ones in between campaigns
(Halfmann 1986: 236–44). Disease would again strike Rome, the
symptoms of which were particularly unpleasant (Cartwright 1972:
20–1). Hoping for divine support, coins were even minted for Apollo
Salutarus – the old favourite god of Augustus, portrayed in his healing
capacity. Whilst the outbreak of disease was in progress, Rome was
marched upon again (ad 253), though fighting took place just north
of the capital. In the end the reign of the victor Aemilian lasted only
eighty-eight days, and was characterised by Eutropius in the most
dismissive phrase possible (II 5 9.6).
The next eventful years were ad 259–60. In spring 260, the Persians
captured Valerian (see pp. 4 and 6). This was a shocking event, described
metaphorically in the Sibylline Oracle (II 9 155–71). In this confusing
passage, the man ‘show[ing] forth the number seventy’ is Valerian. In
Greek, his name started with the letter omicron, which was also the sign
for that number. Similarly, the man ‘of the third number’ is Gallienus,
whose name starts with gamma, the third letter of the Greek alphabet.
The emperor is described as a bull, and the Persians, who famously used
dragon banners, must then be the serpent (Potter 1990: 328–9). Shapur,
for obvious reasons, was much more explicit, emphasising how the
Roman emperor was taken prisoner (II 10 10). This event was out-
rageous, but did not take place in Rome. In the preceding winter,
however, Germanic hordes (the tribes of the Semnoni and Juthungi)
invaded Italy itself, taking thousands of captives. An inscription (II 15;
and see below, p. 26) which was found at Augsburg mentions how
Roman troops defeated these tribes on their return from the Italian
peninsula, and freed the Italian prisoners. This important inscription
16 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

forms material evidence that the situation was as bad as literary sources
indicate (Bakker 1993). It should, however, be stressed that incursions
into Roman territory happened more often, even if not in the heartland:
in 177/8 Moorish invasions in Spain were met only by raising auxiliaries
there, and a (probably) Severan inscription at Rhodes praises a man for
the protection he supplied against pirates whilst strategos (official in
charge of the area; Gordon et al. 1997: 226).
Ten years later, in the winter of ad 270/271, problems were again
close to Roman experience when Alamanni and Jugurthi devastated
northern Italy, causing the emperor Aurelian serious problems. Our
imaginary Roman may have been distracted from this by fighting
within the city itself. Aurelian’s own official for the Roman mint, his
rationalis Felicissimus, occupied the mint on the Caelian Hill and used
it as a stronghold – possibly because he was held responsible for the
ongoing debasement of coinage, or even for desecrating the emperor’s
image on the coins. After some fighting, Aurelian restored order,
apparently with a vengeance. Eutropius’ comment that the emperor’s
‘savagery’ was necessary for the time shows how the situation in Rome
had changed from the previous century (II 5 9.14; Bird 1994: 150).
Even more momentous must have been the construction of the grand
Aurelian wall (LTUR 3, 290–9; II 35; II 7 1.49.2). This new wall, con-
struction of which started in 271, was 19 km long, and protected
approximately three times the surface which was enclosed in the much
earlier Republican walls. On the one hand, its construction showed the
continued importance of Rome, now better protected than any other
city in the empire; on the other hand, it showed the bankruptcy of the
pax Romana in its traditional form. If Roman armies could no longer
be trusted to guarantee even Rome’s safety, why would people look to
Rome for help, when help was needed? Carus’ decision in ad 281 not
even to ask for senatorial acclamation was insult added to Roman
injury, but should not have been completely unexpected.
It is clear that life in Rome from ad 193 to ad 284 was rife with
problems. However, it should be observed that this was the case in the
city for most periods from the start of Roman imperial rule onwards. In
fact, apart from the period ad 50–100, most fifty-year stretches saw
civil unrest, exceptionally cruel rulers, disease and/or massive fires. This
lends some weight to the famous statement by the great eighteenth-
century historian of Rome, Edward Gibbon, that:

If a man were called to fix the period in the history of the world, during
which the condition of the human race was most happy and prosperous, he
 A Capital and its Provinces 17
would, without hesitation, name that which elapsed from the death of
Domitian to the accession of Commodus. The vast extent of the Roman
Empire was governed by absolute power, under the guidance of virtue
and wisdom. … A just but melancholy reflection imbittered, however,
the noblest of human enjoyments. They must often have recollected the
instability of a happiness which depended on the character of a single man.
The fatal moment was perhaps approaching, when some licentious youth,
or some jealous tyrant, would abuse, to the destruction, that absolute power,
which they had exerted for the benefit of their people. (Gibbon 1776: I,
ch. 3)
Even if this ‘happy and prosperous’ period would mainly have applied
to the city of Rome (and not even there to all inhabitants), it is worth-
while to observe that though in the period under discussion life in
Rome was visibly more unstable, it seems to have been stability that was
the exception.

An empire at large
The problems in the capital are clear enough. Yet before the third
century these had not led to problems in the relationship between
capital and provinces. When looking at the problems that beset the
Roman Empire in the third century, emphasis therefore needs also to be
placed on the problems in the empire at large. These range from the
embarrassing to the devastating, and vary wildly from region to region.
First, the embarrassing: this category entails problems such as
brigandage, of which the actions of a man named Bulla Felix are the
most apparent. This robber ravaged the Italian countryside for over two
years, frustrating an emperor who had just left for Britain to put an end
to the rebellion of barbarians there (Birley 1988: 168–70). Dio, who
was a contemporary, describes the story at length (II 1 77.10). It is
a wonderful account, with Bulla variously pretending to be a city’s
magistrate and a centurion, freeing his own men after they are captured
and escaping authorities for a long time. Only through the help of a
husband whose wife Bulla slept with was the latter tricked into capture.
Yet in between the lines of the narrative, some points are striking. Bulla
apparently led a group of several hundred men, and was sufficiently
organised to trace movements around Rome, and the important
Brindisi harbour (II 1 77.10.1–2; II 77.10.5; map 1). Also, it took
personal action by the emperor to set matters right, after two years of
disturbance in Rome’s immediate hinterland (II 1 77.10.6). There had
been brigandage before, occasionally even truly embarrassing moments
like the one in which the hydraulic engineer of the third legion, Nonius
18 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

Datus, was confronted by brigands and stripped down to the waist

(II 16 8.2728). The inscription in which this is described shows that the
events happened in ad 152, when Datus was sent to the town of Saldae
in Africa to solve a technical problem: workers had started digging a
tunnel through a mountain from two different sides and had somehow
failed to meet in the middle. These sorts of organisational problems,
like brigandage, can be traced throughout Roman history, well before
the third century. Brigandage, however, seems to have become truly
widespread under Severus, who tried to put a stop to it, without proper
results (Grünewald 2004).
Still, the situation was reasonably tranquil in several areas of the
empire. The situation only becomes serious when problematic events
accumulate within a certain region; the embarrassing in itself is
only problematic when compounded by other upsets. In this respect,
attention should be given to problems caused by military men, who,
rather than easing the pressures of brigandage, seem to have caused
problems themselves. For instance (II 17), at Ağa Bey Köyü, in Lydia
(Asia) in the early or mid-third century, agents of the military police
took nine inhabitants of this imperial estate hostage and released one
of them only after receiving a substantial ransom. After turning to the
procurators without result, the inhabitants addressed the emperor at
Rome, either Septimius Severus or Philip the Arab, as had happened for
centuries when there were problems. We do not know how the emperor
reacted. It is, however, impressive to see that – even in the dire situation
of the third century – the members of the estate were so organised that
they could muster common resourses of some magnitude (Hauken
1998: 46–7). Similar problems arose in the town of Skaptopara (in
modern Bulgaria), during the reign of Gordian III (II 16 3.12336). Here,
soldiers, private visitors, and even the procurators and governors
with their staff confiscated goods and demanded accommodation, all
without payment. This is related to the more general notion of angareia
or vehiculatio, a system which obliged provincial subjects to provide
transport and lodging for official Roman travellers based in the
provinces. This system was problematic enough in itself, but Skaptopara
was apparently so attractive, with its spa-like water, that ‘official’ guests
from afar came to the town, and demanded hospitality. Again, people
turned to local authorities, in this case the governor, who forbade the
military agents to continue the abuses, but without result. As in Ağa Bey
Köyü, the town sought help from the emperor to end this hopeless
situation. As this petition from 20 December 238, however, makes clear,
the emperor sent the townspeople straight back to the governors
 A Capital and its Provinces 19

(Hauken 1998: 98, 117). However awkward the situation was, the
emperor was not getting involved.
Secondly, there were devastating problems, demonstrated clearly by
fighting at frontiers (maps 3–4). Here, the differences from earlier
periods are more pronounced. Most striking are the major frontier
problems up to and including the capture of Valerian – by most
definitions a momentous occasion, unsurprisingly mentioned by a
barrage of sources (see above, pp. 4, 15; II 4 32; II 5 9.9; II 6 23; II 11
5.3–6). When set in rough chronological order the list of major military
engagements is startling: in ad 209, Septimius Severus fought the
Caledonians in Britain, who had rebelled in ad 207 (map 3; II 1
77.15.2), whilst in ad 213 Caracalla defeated invading Cenni and
Alamanni, later to invade Parthia (ad 216). Ten years later, the Sassanid
dynasty took over in the East, and started to reconquer territory from
Rome. From the 230s onwards, the Alamanni raided the area on the
Rhine, Dacians and Thracians started fighting along the Danube, and
Mesopotamia fell to the Sassanids (ad 237). A Gothic invasion in
Moesia was repelled. The 240s were dominated by fighting between
Romans and Persians, with changing fortunes. In 243 the battle of
Resaina in northern Mesopotamia was a great Roman success for
Gordian III and his father-in-law, the praetorian prefect (praefectus
praetorio) Timesitheus (map 4). That success, however, was greatly
diminished by the Persian victory at Fallujah on the Euphrates a year
later, and Gordian’s death (above, pp. 4, 15). Philip the Arab even ended
up signing a treaty with Shapur.
The extended section on Philip in the Sibylline Oracle (II 9 21–34)
wrongly states that Philip comes from Syria and – as nearly always in the
oracles – identifies him by the numerical value of the first letter of his
name. Both the office starting with the first letter (a = augustus) and the
twentieth (k = Caesar) will be filled by a name which starts with the
equivalent of five hundred (ph = Philip) (see above, p. 15; Potter 1990:
219). The treaty which Philip and Shapur made in ad 244 is also
mentioned, as an oath between the wolves (the Persians) and the dogs
(Philip and his son) who are the guardians of the flock (the inhabitants
of the Roman Empire). The treaty is similarly mentioned by Shapur
(II 10 4), who in his account of all campaigns continuously stresses the
enormous losses of the Romans, both in terms of manpower (II 10 4, 9)
and in terms of cities and areas that were captured and destroyed (II 10
5–9, 11–15). The names mentioned in the inscription have been used to
reconstruct the various campaigns between the Romans and Persians,
but more than anything else they show the immensity of the area that
20 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

was affected by the fighting between these two superpowers. Shapur

gives details of the treaty, stating that that Rome paid 500,000 gold coins
(aurei) and became tributary to the Persians. It seems clear that Shapur
deemed Philip to be in his debt from an important rock relief at
Bishapur, just south of the modern town Faliyan in Iran (II 36). The
relief is somewhat damaged, since a stone aqueduct was built along the
rock, but the image is still recognisable. It shows the great victories of
Shapur I (seated on a horse) against Rome. Trampled under the horse’s
legs lies Gordian III, whom Shapur claims he killed. Standing behind
the Persian king, held by him, is the captured emperor Valerian (see
above, p. 15). The third Roman emperor depicted in this relief is Philip.
He is kneeling in front of the king’s horse, showing his allegiance.
Similar friezes were carved elsewhere in Persian territory. That need not
mean that all which Shapur proclaims in his victory inscriptions and
reliefs is wholly true. It was in his interest to show himself in the best
possible ways, ignoring any possible setbacks. Still, it cannot be doubted
that the Sassanid Empire was making life very difficult for Rome.
At the same time, trouble along the Danube continued, something
that is again emphasised in the Sibylline Oracle (II 9 35–49). Rome
(the Roman Ares) is at war with German tribes and will win, whilst
simultaneous war will not bring victory to the Persians. In fact, the
oracle proclaims, the Persian shall not obtain victory as long as Rome
holds on to Egypt, the nurse of the Italians at the Nile, supplying Rome
with grain. As it was, fighting with Goths and Germans seemed finally
to quieten down in ad 248/9 (partly through an important victory by
the emperor Decius), only to flare up again in the 250s (map 4), when
Goths crossed the Danube, and ended up killing Decius at the battle of
Abrittus in ad 251. This was the first time a Roman emperor was killed
fighting barbarians and it must have been noted throughout the empire
(II 9, 100–2). Still, Eutropius (II 5 9.4) simply states that Decius and his
son were killed in barbarian territory, omitting to state whether they
were killed in battle or through treachery. Now trouble really started. In
ad 252 the Persians under Shapur I attacked. In 254 the Goths under
their king Kniva followed. Within a few years Syria and Armenia (to
the east of modern Turkey) were overrun, Thrace was sacked and
even Pannonia, just northeast of the Italian peninsula, was devastated
(map 4).
Sources are universal about the dreadfulness of the reigns of Gallus
and Volusianus (described as the bastard son in the Thirteenth Sibylline
Oracle). Plague and famine worsened a situation already going wrong
(II 9 103–12; II 5 9.5). This in turn was exacerbated by Frankish
 A Capital and its Provinces 21

invasions into Germania Inferior, Gaul and Spain from 254 to 261. Forts
along the Lower Rhine were destroyed – including the stone fortress
of Gelduba, whose whole cohort, the cohors II Varcianorum equitata,
was annihilated. A mass grave, probably with the soldiers’ bodies, has
been excavated in a temple of Mithras. Of the important towns, only
Colonia Agrippina survives (Eck 2007: 36–7). In ad 260, the Franks
even managed to invade northern Italy (II 5 9.7–9.8), following the
Alamannic example of ad 258, and reached the town of Ravenna
(map 1). In the same years, the Goths ravaged Asia Minor and Juthungi
crossed the upper Danube. Finally, and most shockingly in Roman eyes,
in ad 260, after some years of reasonable peace in the East, the eastern
part of the Roman armies – weakened by plague – were obliterated
at Edessa by Shapur’s troops. Valerian – as mentioned above – was
captured, according to Shapur alongside many generals and senators,
and the Roman armies were destroyed (II 10 9–11). This moment is
often, and perhaps rightly, described as the low point of the Roman
Empire. Rome seemed a byword for instability, rather than the peace it
had guaranteed for centuries (II 5 9.7; II 5 9.8). To this new situation,
different regions reacted in different ways.

Reactions to Rome
Of course in many areas people kept looking for help from Rome, and
notwithstanding the difficulties, the Roman military was very often
successful. But in other areas, people took their own initiatives. Just a
few years after the capture of Valerian, in ad 267/8, Goths and Heruli
invaded and overran large parts of Greece. They are said to have come
with over 300,000 men on 6,000 ships (Zosimus 1.42–3; II 3a 13.6–8)
and, whatever their true number, certainly caused massive devastations
in Thessaly and Greece – as the archaeological record makes clear. For
instance, at Olympia, a defence wall was created surrounding the main
temple to Zeus, in which the most valuable statues were collected.
Likewise, in Athens a last line of defence was created (the Valerian wall)
which included only a small area north of the Acropolis (Millar 2004:
293). In these dire circumstances, the historian P. Herennius Dexippus
(above, p. 9) excelled as general and repelled the barbarians –
knowing that the imperial fleet was coming to help, and encouraging
his men through emphasis on the Athenian patriotism of old. From
the posts and functions which are recorded on the most important
inscription connected with him, Dexippus was clearly a member of an
important Athenian family (II 13). The most senior position he had
22 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

held was the archonship, but he is also praised as a writer of the history
of his own age. Important to note is the absence of any Roman offices.
Dexippus and his family could well have sought office at Rome, but
must have decided to remain at Athens and focus on their position there
(Millar 2004: 283). In his own account of the event, Dexippus describes
his rallying speech at some length and, unsurprisingly, emphasises its
importance in hardening the minds of men (II 12). The speech stresses
the locality of the fighting. Not only are the Athenians in an advan-
tageous position because they hold the high ground, they also have
more to lose, and will therefore fight more bravely than their enemy.
The emperor’s fleet is mentioned so as to emphasise that the situation is
not hopeless, but greater emphasis by far is on the glory, not just for the
individual, but also the city, and indeed the whole of Greece. Fighting
for the freedom of Greece is a role the Athenians have inherited from
their forebears, or so Dexippus claims. The enemies of the Roman
Empire, in this instance, became enemies of Athens, who were to be
repelled by Athenians, led by a local man, defending local history and
honour.
There are other examples of civilian resistance to the unrest, mostly
through rapid construction of walls enclosing limited parts of cities, but
occasionally also through actual force – as indicated by inscriptions
celebrating the repelling of enemies (AE 1928. 38; Millar 2004: 296).
This process is not always straightforward. For instance, when Shapur I
was attacking the Roman Empire for the third time in the 250s, his
advance was stopped short when ‘rustic slingers’ from the neighbour-
hood managed to defeat his army. Had Roman troops arrived in time
and managed to defeat Shapur’s troops themselves, the local slingers
might well have been described as brigands. In this case, however, the
rustic slingers carried the day. They were called upon by the local priest
Sampsigeramus, who has been identified with the usurper Uranius
Antoninus (Malalas XII; Rubin 1995: 134–5). A locally important
person managed to rally the troops and inflict defeat upon the enemy;
he then made an even bolder demand. It could even be argued that
sometimes the claim for the throne was necessary to obtain the prestige
that was necessary to order people around and defeat the enemy.
There was, in any case, always the risk that local ‘saviours’ would set
their sights too high. Indeed, many of the usurpers were generals who
had been unusually successful. The prestige gained by great victories –
especially in a period when great victories were no longer the rule –
could catapult generals into (near) power. That risk in itself was not
new. It may have been fear of a victor’s prestige which caused Nero to
 A Capital and its Provinces 23

order the great general Corbulo’s suicide in ad 66 (Griffin 1984: 117).

More recently, Marcus Aurelius had been confronted by a confusing
rebellion by his erstwhile confidant Avidius Cassius, whose military
powers had been substantial (Hekster 2002: 34–7). What was new,
however, was the prolonged disturbances in many different areas of the
empire simultaneously – and the fact that central authority could no
longer prevent problems, even if it often could solve them. For some
regions, local ‘saviours’ became the first point of reference, and it would
only be a question of time before these ‘saviours’ became the people to
adhere to.
In two cases, however, the next obvious step – claims to the
supremacy in the empire as a whole – was never taken, since the
‘usurper’ claimed supremacy only in a more limited area. To be precise,
following Valerian’s capture two parts of the empire claimed autonomy
from, but no authority over, Rome.

Peripheral centres
In the first half of the third century, certain parts of Roman territory
suffered more unrest than others. The eastern frontier, increasingly
pressed by the Sassanids, was clearly one of the areas suffering more.
In such troubles, the rich and somewhat peripheral caravan city of
Palmyra in Syria (map 4) was of importance to Rome, all the more after
the capture of Valerian. The importance was increased further through
clever manoeuvring by the Palmyrene Septimius Odaenathus, who had
become senator, occupying some formal position at Palmyra, possibly
even becoming the magistrate in command of the province (legatus) of
Syria Phoenice (Potter 1990: 380–94; Millar 1993: 165) and who both
helped Gallienus fight Shapur (apparently recovering Mesopotamia)
and killed the usurper Quietus. After Shapur’s victory over Valerian, the
Persian troops wreaked havoc on Syria, Cilicia and Cappadocia (II 10
11). In doing so, Shapur divided his army. This is clear from the fact that
the cities mentioned in Shapur’s Res Gestae (II 10 12–15) cannot have
been taken by a single army in the stated sequence, whilst at the same
time, areas in the Res Gestae are named in the order in which they were
taken. From the organisation of the cities in the inscription, David
Potter has rightly argued that Shapur split up his main force into three
sections (Potter 1990: 338–40). These sections then ran into trouble
against Roman ‘counter-measures’, which are mentioned in the Thir-
teenth Sibylline Oracle. One of these was led by Macrianus, who is
described as a ‘well-horned hungry stag in the mountains’, which
24 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

probably implies that he kept to the hills (II 9 155–71). Perhaps more
important even, a naval officer named Callistus (the bow-footed goat)
seems to have managed to seize Shapur’s gold and harem. Both of them,
however, as well as the Persian ‘venom-spitting’ beasts, are destroyed by
the ‘sun-sent, dreadful, fearful lion, breathing much fire’, Odaenathus
(II 6 23; II 5 9.10).
The latter’s position following this victory is the matter of fierce
debate, with different sources (and different modern authors) claiming
different things. Later (but unreliable) sources state that Odaenathus
received either emperorship or general command over the East. But
Palmyra remained a Roman colony (colonia) and there is no real
evidence for secession in the 260s. Although near-contemporary
inscriptions call Odaenathus ‘restorer of the whole east’ (on a statue
base from a colonnade at Palmyra; II 14 2.3946) or even ‘king of kings’
(on a milestone of Vaballathus; II 14 2.3971), which was later reused
under Diocletian, the evidence is posthumous, when Palmyra had
certainly changed course (Millar 1993: 170). It seems that, though he
was de facto ruler of the East, Odeaenathus stressed his allegiance to
Rome. Gallienus may have held little actual control in Palmyra and
its wider surroundings, but Rome could still claim to be its emperor.
This changed after Odaenathus’ murder in ad 267/8, with the ensuing
advancement of his second wife Zenobia and their son Vaballathus.
They too may have temporarily accepted Roman supremacy, but the
problematic status quo seems only to have been possible for a person
with Odeaenathus’ prestige and accomplishments. To make this claim
hereditary – and even place power in the hands of a woman – was
unacceptable to Rome, as is still reflected in the much later Historia
Augusta and in Festus’ text, though much less so in the account by
Zosimus, which is an important source for the whole affair (II 3a
13.1–5; II 6 24; II 7). The Historia Augusta stresses how Zenobia had the
strength and cunning of a man and outclassed many emperors in an
unwomanly way, making some detrimental remarks about Gallienus on
the way.
Lest the power of this ‘Palmyrene Empire’ be underestimated, their
forces, as Zosimus states, entered neighbouring Roman provinces (II 7
1.44.1, 1.50.1). In Arabia, a milestone celebrates Imperator Caesar Lucius
Iulius Aurelius Septimius Vaballathus Athenedorus, Persicus Maximus,
Arabicus Maximus, Adiabenicus Maximus, Pius Felix Augustus (ILS,
no. 8924). Zosimus is also right in claiming that Palmyrene influence,
though somewhat convoluted, stretched all the way to Egypt, since
Vaballathus and Aurelian were jointly acclaimed there (Rea 1972: 16). A
 A Capital and its Provinces 25

coin minted at Antioch in ad 271 depicting Vaballathus on the obverse

and Aurelian on the reverse shows power relations in that important
city (II 48 b). What had started as a helpful reaction against a threat to
Roman rule had become a threat to that very rule itself. Authority had
become too obviously fluid, and Aurelian, who in many ways would
temporarily restore order in the empire, in ad 272 mounted a campaign
against what had only recently been an integral part of the empire
(Watson 1999: 70–5). Again, Zosimus’ account is illuminating. It shows
(II 7 1.49–1.50) quite how difficult the beginning of Aurelian’s reign
was, with problems near Italy as well as further afield. It also emphasises
nicely the precarious balance between Rome and the Persians. When
Zenobia is losing heavily her solution is to cross the Euphrates, which
was the furthest limit of Roman power, to ask the Persians for help (II
7 1.55.1–2). Zosimus may be right in stating that it was Zenobia’s escape
that worried Aurelian, but he may well have been more uncomfortable
about a possible new fight with the Persians. In the end, Rome won,
re-establishing supremacy. But the necessity of doing so was telling.
Nor was the eastern unrest without consequences. Take the city
of Apamea in Syria; fully rebuilt after an earthquake in ad 115 had
destroyed it, with exceptionally long colonnades (Balty 1988: 91), it was
the home of over 100,000 inhabitants, including the future emperor
Elagabalus’ father. The Persian wars made it an important Roman
military base – and even the winter headquarters of the legio II Parthica.
The many military inscriptions found in consequence make the
Museum of Apamea one of the world’s foremost places for the study of
third-century legionary activities (Balty 1988: 99). Different units were
encamped at Apamea at one moment or another, as a result of the third-
century troubles: the legiones XIII and XIV Gemina, III Gallica, IV
Scythia and IV Flavia; the XIV cohors urbana and possibly the ala I
Flavia Augusta Britannica and ala I Ulpia Contariorum (Balty 1988:
102). These different units were to bring people from many different
origins together in one town. But records of this city life suddenly end
with Shapur’s invasion and taking of the town in ad 252. Though
Apamea was later to become the home of a famous Neoplatonist school,
and though Amelius Gentilianus from Etruria, who was Plotinus’ pupil,
settled there in ad 269, the days of military activity had suddenly ended.
Life would never be the same again.
Still, the ‘Palmyrene Empire’ had long accepted Roman sovereignty.
The same cannot be said for the ‘Gallic Empire’ which formed an
autonomous area within Roman territory for almost fifteen years
(ad 260–74). Again, as with Odaenathus, it was a military commander
26 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

under Roman authority who both solved and caused problems at local
level, in this case Marcus Cassianus Latianius Postumus, Gallienus’
commander on the Rhine. He rebelled against Gallienus’ son Saloninus
– allegedly because the latter had claimed for himself the booty of a
battle which Postumus had distributed amongst the soldiers. Soldiers
rebelled, and Postumus was proclaimed emperor. Cologne was marched
upon, and in the end the city handed over Saloninus, who was put to
death (II 4 33; II 5 9.9; Zosimus 1.38.2; Zonaras 12.24.10–12). It has
been often thought that in fact the direct cause of this usurpation was
the defeat of Valerian in 260. In this view, the humiliation of Rome
caused Postumus to take up arms. In 1992, however, as mentioned
above, an important epigraphic find at Augsburg, dated 11 September
260, provided new evidence (II 15). Erected by the otherwise unknown
Marcus Simplicinius Genialis, it is a dedication to Victoria for her aid in
destroying the Semnoni and Juthungi. These, as mentioned, were the
Germanic hordes who invaded Italy, taking many captives. On invading
the territory which Postumus was in charge of they were defeated,
enabling the commander to become a local saviour – taking up the
name Germanicus maximus in the process (Drinkwater 1987: 26, 89;
Jehne 1996). This might be the very battle about which the discussion
of booty arose, but is, in any case, yet another example of a locality
looking to its own for protection, rather than to Rome. It is, therefore,
more than coincidental that later sources praise Postumus for the fact
that he rescued Gaul when almost the whole empire was lost (II 5 9.9).
It was his local military pre-eminence which gave him a power base.
Unlike other usurpers, however, and for reasons that cannot be
retraced, Postumus recognised the limits of his power base, and refused
to march on Rome. Thus, he was able to become the ‘defender of the
West’, and create a Gallic Empire which survived his death. He even
organised his territory as a miniature Rome, using Roman titulature,
and minting coins which were recognisably Roman. These coins did,
however, include local legends, emphasising for instance Gallic epithets
of the demi-god Hercules, like ‘Deusoniensi’ (II 48 d). Still, this was
never going to be an acceptable situation for the ruler at Rome, and
Gallienus tried to remedy the problem. He failed, but after Aurelian
managed to restore order in the East, the West was his inevitable next
point of attention. In the summer of ad 274 he defeated Tetricus, the
last ruler of the Gallic Empire, and his son. In a triumph, Aurelian made
Zenobia and Tetricus walk before his chariot, depicting his victory (II 5
9.13; II 6 24). The fact that this moment is included in both Eutropius’
and Festus’ brief summaries of Aurelian’s reign may well show the
 A Capital and its Provinces 27

impact that this triumph had on contemporaries. The empire was

whole again.

Rome’s decentralisation
Under the emperor Aurelian, whose name has already surfaced several
times, unity was finally restored for a certain measure of time. His
immediate successors, with some success, tried to keep this relative
order, although the list of more or less legitimate emperors in the period
under discussion shows in how much chaos the Roman political system
still was. Together, the rulers from 268 to 282 are called the ‘Illyrian’
emperors, from their general area of birth (II 4 39). These were new
kinds of emperor, with different backgrounds from what had until not
too long before been the standard. This is clear from the emphasis by the
sources on the consular background of the emperor Tacitus, who was
made emperor in 275 (II 4 36; II 5 9.16). As it happened, proclaiming
the seventy-five-year-old Tacitus may have not been a clever move, but
it is his status as consul which Aurelius Victor emphasises. Tacitus,
by this account, was Rome’s attempt to reclaim the right to appoint
emperors from the soldiers; that he was killed only a few months later
showed that Rome was no longer in charge. The fact that holding
consular status had become the exception for an emperor shows how
much had changed in this respect since Macrinus’ emperorship. Even
Victor had to accept (II 4 39) that in dire times dire men were needed
to rule well. It is, in fact, telling that the notion that the senate chose
Tacitus for his status seems to have been an invention of Victor (Syme
1971: 238). Rome’s position in electing emperors had long gone.
A similar development can be seen within the armies. Being Roman
(or indeed from the Italian peninsula) had long become the exception,
with a massive differentiation of backgrounds the new norm. The
need for more soldiers had broadened the recruiting area, with ever
more men in the armies, as a letter from a certain Isis to her mother
Termuthion makes clear. In this Egyptian papyrus, Isis, who has
apparently just travelled from a small Egyptian town to the great city of
Alexandria, salutes many members of her family, and ends by stating
that there is no reason why Aio (who must be somehow related to her)
should not join the army – since everybody seems to go there (II 18). In
fact, Rome has started to look outside the empire for possible troops,
recruiting men from beyond the frontier. This has been described as the
‘barbarisation of the army’ (Speidel 1975: 203). Still, notwithstanding
the background of soldiers, the military language was Latin, as is
28 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

testified by, amongst other inscriptions, early third-century inscribed

Latin poems from two non-Latin centurions in the military outpost of
Bu Njem in the Tripolitania Desert (Adams 1999). All the same, the
difficulties in recruiting soldiers, and in keeping them happy, are also
obvious from the enormous pay rises in the third century, first a 50 per
cent rise under Caracalla, and then a staggering doubling of pay under
Maximinus Thrax in 235 (Speidel 1992: 106).
Both these developments will be discussed in more detail in later
chapters; for now it is important to realise that at all levels, the
dominant place of the city of Rome was disappearing. The emperor was
no longer from Rome, nor did he reside in the city. Without a clear
dynasty in Rome and without assured Roman-ness in the military, the
centrality of Rome and the permanence of the Roman Empire were no
longer a given. This changing attitude can be clearly traced in the
sources. Before the third century, there were no clear words indicating
the fortified boundaries of the Roman Empire. There was the notion
that soldiers based at the frontier made the empire secure, but this was
mainly to stress that the soldiers were not in the cities. Indeed, Aristides
in his famous address on Rome (II 8) emphasised that fortresses did not
need soldiers. In this way he stressed how well Rome controlled the
cities within its empire. There was no discussion about a threat from
without. The notion of a limes, which in modern literature has come
to ‘indicate permanent defensive structures or formal military and
administrative organization’ (Isaac 1988: 130), became possible only
after the many defensive wars in the third century. In fact, in the middle
of such defensive wars, the Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle explicitly equates
the borders of the empire with the walls of Rome (II 9 103–12). Before
these defensive types of wars, also, dedications on behalf of the safety of
the whole Roman Empire were unheard of. In the third century, there
are inscriptions which testify to existing fears for the continuation of the
empire as a whole. One is on an altar from Gressenich (near Aachen)
and can be dated to ad 238. The altar is dedicated not to the safety
of the ruling emperors, as is standard, but for the entire Roman Empire
(II 16 13.7844; Eck 2007: 33–4; cf. AE 1965.30).
This changing awareness had implications for the city of Rome. Its
centrality was still clear for Aelius Aristides (II 8). But the reforms of the
Tetrarchy would allow for four rulers of the empire, none of whom
ruled from Rome. The practicalities of keeping the frontiers in order
meant that Rome lost its automatic primacy. This did not happen
overnight, nor was Rome’s abandonment formally accepted. A
panegyric delivered in 289 explicitly expects the emperors to go back to
 A Capital and its Provinces 29

Rome once their work on the frontiers is completed. In doing so,

however, the author admits that Rome at that time was deserted (Pan.
Lat. 10(2).13–14). Likewise, a triumphal arch for the emperor Galerius
has a telling panel on the east face of the south pier, in which the goddess
Roma is still depicted as a personification of the realm but the city of
Rome is no longer one of the four major cities of the empire, which are
depicted behind the goddess (II 37). After the third century, the goddess
Roma was only rarely depicted on coins, and the she-wolf who nursed
Romulus and Remus almost disappeared from imperial iconography
(Hekster 1999: 722). Still, Rome remained of at least symbolic import-
ance. Under the Tetrarchy, it was no imperial residence, but still the
extraordinarily large baths of Diocletian were constructed. Also, as late
as 306 the usurper Maxentius could use Roman discontent about the
lessened importance of the city to bid for the empire for a substantial
period of time, by basing himself in Rome, and emphasising its primacy
in the empire (Hekster 1999: 724–37). Finally, as we shall see later (see
below, Chapter 3), the weakened position of Rome did not mean a
weakening of the sense of being Roman, or of the importance of being
Roman. It is telling that even Postumus organised his Gallic Empire in
Roman terms, and used Roman institutions.

At the beginning of this chapter, the question was put whether

Septimius Severus’ reign foreshadowed the rise of the east (or in more
general terms, the periphery) and his famous last words (II 1 77.15.2)
the rise of the military. Both of these developments will recur in later
chapters. Still, it must already be clear that the answer cannot be
straightforward. Severus won his victory with the aid of the eastern
legions, and the continuous warfare at Rome’s eastern frontier would
add to those legions’ importance (Millar 1981: 221–39). Yet earlier
emperors had won their victory from the East, and the continuous and
often calamitous events that occurred in the third century are hardly
connected with Severus’ rule. Furthermore, the debate on Severus as
‘African’ emperor may be of little importance, but it is essential to note
that emperors had their networks, and just as Severus used his ‘African’
connection, so third-century emperors would promote the men with
whom they were surrounded, and whom they trusted. This, combined
with continuous fighting at the borders, meant that – as we shall see in
the next chapter – military men from frontier zones gained prominence,
which limited in practice the importance of members of the traditional
families from Rome. Also, the position of Rome changed with the rise
of local ‘heroes’, who were essential in defending the empire, but also
30 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

showed that the pax Romana was no longer guaranteed by the city of
Rome. There had been local heroes before the third century, and also
troubles in the heartland, fighting at the borders, and emperors who
came to power from outside the Italian peninsula. As will be clear
throughout this book, there are precedents for almost every individual
event which together constitute third-century history. The culmination
of all of these events, however, would transform Rome and its empire.
Continuity could always be stressed, and was often stressed by the
powers that be. But people throughout the empire must have become
aware that there was now a continuous period of near-exception in at
least some parts of the Roman world. Not the least of these had to do
with the increasing importance of the armies for administration and for
developments in the economic framework of the empire.
 CHAPTER 2

Economy, Armies and

Administration

Increase in warfare, problems at the frontiers, empire-wide epidemics,

and a great many emperors in a relatively short period of time: it is
unsurprising that this situation was to have profound effects on Roman
society in many parts of daily life. First, of course, there were economic
consequences. One can trample land only so often, and lose only so
many men to work it, before plots begin to be laid bare. In a society
which is overwhelmingly rural, that is a serious problem. Second, this
economic effect was strongly linked to the armies. Who, after all, did
most of the trampling, and requisitioned food? The link between armies
and economics was also strong since paying the soldiers was the single
most expensive financial obligation of the Roman state – in practice of
the emperor. Third, the changed situation had repercussions for the way
the empire was run administratively, again with an increased role for
military men, whose experience was becoming increasingly important.
All three effects are much discussed in ancient and modern sources.

Economic disturbance and geographic differentiation

Many discussions on the economic situation of and changes in the
period from ad 193 to 284 start with a famous treatise by the Christian
Cyprian of Carthage (born c. ad 200), who was bishop of Carthage
from 248 till his death as a martyr in ad 258/9: the address To
Demetrianus (II 29). In it, he tries to refute the claim that the Christians
were responsible for the economic devastations of his time, at the same
time naming the economic (and other) problems people had to live
with (II 29 3). The picture he paints is very bleak. The world has grown
old; seasons have changed to man’s disadvantage, resources have grown
fewer. Furthermore (II 29 5), wars and illnesses are ever more common.

31
32 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

Yet this is simply the pattern of life, Cyprian argues (II 29 3). Everything
diminishes when it grows old, men as much as knowledge or discipline.
This, he continues, has always been the way of the world, and it would
be wrong to blame the Christians (II 29 4). The trustworthiness of
Cyprian as a source has often been discussed, with contradictory con-
clusions. He clearly related the events he witnessed as a foreshadowing
of Judgement Day. For instance, the increase of warfare and plagues is
directly linked to divine action; evils will multiply in the last days of
mankind, for God demands his worship (II 29 5). This mode of viewing
the world can either mean that Cyprian started from what he saw and
related that to his religious notions (so the events were there), or that
what he saw was coloured or even inspired by his religious notions, such
as apocalyptic commonplaces (so the events may not have been quite so
bad) (Alföldy 1973; Strobel 1993). The climatological changes which
Cyprian mentions cannot, in any case, be confirmed by ‘scientific’ data.
A recent attempt to trace solid evidence for environmental changes in
the third century found that the data were difficult to date exactly.
Through what could be dated, however, it seemed rather that Europe
was already getting colder and wetter in the second century. The
environment may have aggravated a problematic situation, but the third
century in this respect is not when the problems started (Haas 2006:
276).
The economic situation that Cyprian describes, however, is corrob-
orated by other types of sources. The number of inscriptions declined,
as did building dedications. Fewer shipwrecks in the Mediterranean
at the same time imply fewer ships, and less trade. The chronology of
dated wood – which is very exact – shows that at least in western
and southern Germany, building activity declined rapidly in the third
century. In the same areas, archaeological finds in general followed the
same pattern, with a peak in the early empire, and rapid decline in the
third century. More exotic even is the often-cited lower metal contents
in the Greenland icecap for the third century, when compared to the
earlier Roman Empire, which indicates a decrease in the use of metal.
Recently, even animal and human bones have been analysed, suggesting
that in the third century people were smaller and therefore not as well
nourished as in the previous period. Also, and more crucially, there
was a substantial drop in the precious metal content of coins, which at
first sight indicates unchecked inflation, with dire economic results
(Jongman 2007: 187–95; Witschel 2004: 250).
Indeed, the monetary problems were such that in the West banks
disappear from view altogether whereas in Egypt they continue to
 Economy, Armies and Administration 33

operate, notwithstanding a major crisis in ad 260, which is documented

in a famous contemporary papyrus (II 23 1.411). The strategos Aurelius
Ptolemaeus, a fairly high official, in charge of the administrative area
(nome) of Oxyrhynchus, on 24 November ad 260 ordered exchange
bankers to accept all genuine Roman imperial coinage, ‘the divine coins
of the empire’, issuing a warning to businessmen to do the same. This
means that they must have been unwilling to accept the coins without
such an order. Prices in Egypt, on the other hand, were fairly stable up
to ad 274, when papyri suddenly document a tenfold increase. This was
followed by price stability, and is taken as evidence for devaluation by
imperial decree, linked to the central currency reform known from
Aurelian’s reign. This reform meant that from now on the central
denomination was not an increasingly debased silver coin, but a silver-
clad coin. Looking at the monetary stability in Egypt for the remainder
of the third century, it seems to have been a success. The necessity of
changing the basis of a monetary system that went all the way back to
Augustus betrays the level of debasement that had been going on in the
earlier years of the third century. Indeed, whereas in the period between
the reigns of Nero and Caracalla there was hardly more than 5 per cent
deviation from the average weight of aurei, Rome’s most valuable coins,
in the third century, up to Aurelian’s reform, there seemed hardly any
standard left (Verboven 2007: 256). As the emperor had done when
building the great wall surrounding Rome (II 35; see above, p. 16),
Aurelian recognised that the Augustan system had come under too
much stress and made innovations within it, rather than stretching it
beyond its boundaries.
There may have been relative monetary stability in the later years of
the third century, but in the northwest provinces, the number of coin
hoards increased. This means that an increasing number of people
buried their money in order to keep it safe in difficult circumstances,
but then died before they were able to recover it (Howgego 1996: 88).
This, along with other archaeological evidence, is used to indicate a
demographic decline in the third century, worsened by the Antonine
plague, and with agricultural land lying unused as a consequence (Jaillet
1996: 338). Fallow land was all the more problematic, since taxes had
on the whole to be paid by towns on the basis of amounts of land.
Wasteland was still taxed, increasing the pressure on the people
cultivating the remaining land of an area. This could lead to land flight
(anachoresis) by people unable to pay their taxes, as the people of Ağa
Bey Köyü threatened to do in the above-mentioned petition (II 17).
Stating that they would be unable to remain on the land and at the
34 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

graves of their ancestors was not only a plea for mercy; it was also an
implicit threat. If they were to leave the imperial estate, it too might
become fallow land. The threat is even more explicit in the petition
from the inhabitants of Skaptopara (II 16 3.12336). Towards the end
of the third section of the text, the possibility that the inhabitants
might flee their land is directly linked with the great loss in taxes that
the Roman administration would suffer. These statements, it could be
argued, need not only show despair in a dreadful situation; they might
also be construed as the bargaining power that farmers had in times of
demographic decline. Still, people could be either incited or forced to
cultivate vacant plots, as had already been done by Hadrian in the early
second and by Pertinax in the very late second century (Duncan-Jones
2004: 24). For a great many peasants in the third century, life was
becoming increasingly harsh.
The Roman Empire, however, was vast and diverse. There were
massive differences in the climates of Tunisia and southern Scotland,
with very different agricultural systems as a result. Though in the third
century many parts of the empire were in upheaval, not all areas were
struck equally hard, nor did they all react in the same way, as the
previous chapter has already indicated. In short, it is extremely difficult
to make statements about the economic situation in the Roman Empire
as a whole. Regional differentiation needs to be taken into account –
as much of modern scholarship has argued. This applies even within
relatively limited areas. For instance, survey archaeology in the Liris
valley in Campania (map 1) shows that small rural sites disappear in
the third century, indicating concentration of landholding by elites.
Likewise, much further south, at San Giovanni di Ruoti, near Venosa
(map 1), there were twenty-six rural sites for the period ad 70–220, of
which only seven were still inhabited by the end of the third century. But
evidence from another survey near Venosa (in an area with more fertile
soil) shows that hardly any sites disappeared there in the third century.
Still, there is a general trend in the third century on the Italian peninsula
towards fewer sites (Duncan-Jones 2004: 28–31), although that does not
necessarily indicate massive depopulation of the countryside. There
were changes in the ownership of land – often meaning that peasants no
longer lived on the land they cultivated – which meant that they escaped
the attention of survey archaeologists. Some of the new villages that
arose were quite well appointed, even owning baths (Witschel 2004:
263). Widening the scope dramatically, similar surveys of rural settle-
ments in northern Syria, parts of Greece and Africa show a very
different pattern. In the first two areas, there was rural increase, though
 Economy, Armies and Administration 35

of course much land was laid waste in Syria as well, as the example of
Apamea (see above, p. 25) and further devastations by Shapur I (II 10
5–9, 11–15) make clear. In Africa, even more strikingly, the number of
sites increased almost continuously from the early second to the late
fifth century, whilst further evidence also suggests that in African cities
living standards remained generally high, with continuous building
activity (Duncan-Jones 2004: 34–5, figs 3–4; Mattingly and Hitchner
1995: 185). Economic life in Africa in the third century, it seems, was
more pleasant – or at least much less prone to change – than life on the
Italian peninsula, or in much of the rest of the empire.
Geographic differences become even more telling if they are
combined with chronological differentiation. Until the 260s, many
areas of the empire (especially those that were not directly touched
by warfare) changed little in terms of inhabitants, welfare and infra-
structure. The areas that have been thus defined by recent scholarship
include Italy, Gaul, Britain, Spain and of course northern Africa
(Witschel 1999, 2006: 145–9, 162–3). Likewise, as stated, papyri listing
prizes imply that until as late as 274 there was a reasonable stability of
prizes and that buying power of individuals may have increased –
notwithstanding the immense debasement and deviations in the
average weight of coins which became pronounced from the mid-third
century onwards (Verboven 2007: 256; de Blois 2002: 215–16; Rathbone
1996). Likewise, in Postumus’ Gallic Empire the coins struck at the mint
of Trier remained of higher standard than the central coins struck by
Gallienus at the same time in the rest of the empire. This was especially
noticeable in the Gallic aurei, which not only had more gold in them,
but also were of superb stylistic quality. The same quality can be seen in
his other coins (II 48 d). These coins may even have been a sign of an
‘image competition’ between the two rulers (Drinkwater 1987: 155–7;
Hekster and Manders 2006). At one time or another, almost all areas of
the empire were struck by economic hardship. This, like brigandage
or the presence of soldiers, was not new in the third century. Indeed,
papyri from the Egyptian town of Thmouis tell the chilling story of a
village deserted by those who could no longer pay taxes, ransacked by
bandits, who were driven out by soldiers. The latter killed many of the
remaining villagers, after which plague made life even more miserable
(P.Thmouis I). In the third century, there were still areas that were
thriving, but they were fewer and fewer. Diocletian inherited an empire
in economic chaos (Rees 2004: 37–45), and the basis for this clearly lay
in the third century. But it needs to be remembered that not all areas
were equally chaotic. Often, as we saw at Skaptopara and Ağa Bey Köyü,
36 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

or indeed in earlier times in Thmouis, the armies were a factor in

putting pressure on local economies. Increasingly, also, they became a
factor in running the empire.

Armies, payments and economics

It may not be a coincidence that the area of the Roman world with the
most stable economy was also the zone which suffered least from the
military unrest in the empire. With the Mediterranean in the north, and
the Sahara in the south, Africa was safe from enemy attacks. Brigands
roamed round on occasion, but they had already done so before the
third century, and created more embarrassment than disaster, as we saw
in the previous chapter (II 16 8.2728). More importantly, perhaps,
Africa was spared the large conglomeration of troops, which many
border regions of the empire suffered (Witschel 2006: 146–53). For
however devastating enemy troops could be, several scholars argue
that an even greater scourge were the soldiers of the Roman armies
themselves (Walbank 1969: 65). Certainly, in the third century soldiers
were given privileges that had previously been thought to go against
army discipline. Septimius Severus granted the soldiers the right to wear
the gold rings that indicated equestrian rank, and to be married
officially. More importantly even, he increased the soldiers’ pay sub-
stantially. Herodian (II 2 3.8.4–5), with the advantage of hindsight,
complains bitterly and directly links these measures to diminished
military self-control and an increased longing for riches, though this
may reflect a point to which Herodian paid particular attention
(Zimmermann 1999). In any case, the ban on marriage had never
restrained soldiers from starting families, but discarding the ban was
an important ideological step, and it might not be coincidental that
afterwards soldiers complained about serving far from their now official
families (Potter 2004: 131).
Whatever the consequences may have been for military morale, the
costs of the pay rise must have been staggering, leading to a shortage of
precious metal with which to mint it. It has been argued that soldiers’
pay had not really increased since the time of Domitian, and that the pay
rise could be defended on that ground. The military, however, had in the
meantime obtained the provision of free grain, and the increase in
stipend was a real and dramatic extra cost, and may well have set a
precedent. Soldiers were loyal to the man who paid them more than
others (Potter 2004: 130). The comparison with Didius Julianus, who
bought the emperorship from the praetorians, comes to mind (II 1
 Economy, Armies and Administration 37

74.11.2; and see above, p. 13). Even Cassius Dio, who is not at all critical
of Severus, having been one of the amici of the emperor (Millar 1964:
138–50), notes how desperately costs went out of control. In a passage
(II 1 79.36) in which the emperor Macrinus is trying to keep the ‘false
Antoninus’ (the later emperor Elagabalus; see above, p. 4) from the
throne, he speaks explicitly about the Severans’ undermining military
discipline, and the impossibility of raising the money that the Severans’
pay-rise had necessitated. Dio shifts the blame onto Caracalla (II 1
79.36.3), who is here referred to as Tarautus (the nickname of a
particularly ugly, reckless, bloodthirsty and insignificant gladiator), and
is referred to as a brother-killer for his murder of Geta (see below,
pp. 48–9).
Whether Septimius Severus or his son were to blame is largely
immaterial. At the beginning of the third century, soldiers obtained –
and henceforth expected – more pay and privileges. In a period of
economic turmoil, the consequences were difficult. Warfare itself, of
course, also cost money, especially when matters became problematic.
Shapur claimed, as we have seen above, that the treaty which Philip the
Arab was forced to accept after the death of Gordian III meant that
Philip paid off the Sassanids with 500,000 silver coins (denarii), and
that in the ensuing battle against Decius the Romans lost 60,000 men
(II 10 4; and see above, p. 19). This may have been an exaggeration.
Numbers in sources from antiquity are notoriously unreliable. Also, the
Romans certainly would not have agreed that they had become
‘tributary’ – though Sassanian superiority was emphasised in Sassanian
state art (II 36). In any case, the figures mentioned show the financial
strains the Roman Empire went through. This must explain the ongoing
deterioration of the silver coinage up to Aurelian’s currency reform,
and the increase in number of imperial mints in a wide range of new
locations. The latter development went hand in hand with the dis-
appearance of local provincial coinage. Up to well into the third century,
eastern cities expressed their economic and political autonomy, and
indeed their identity, by minting their own coins. Sometime between
the mid-century and Aurelian’s reign, that stopped (Lo Cascio 2005:
161–2; cf. below, Chapter 3).
The problems with the armies were not just financial ones. Soldiers
also became a common presence in areas where the military had
previously been absent. Auxiliary units and legions were repeatedly
transferred to deal with the difficulties at the frontiers. The many
attempts at usurpation also caused soldiers to be moved throughout the
realm. After all, generals who formed bonds with the soldiers could
38 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

become a threat to the ruling emperor. The third century saw a great
many examples of emperors being proclaimed by their troops (II 4 27,
32; II 5 8.23, 9.1, 9.2, 9.6, 9.12). Clearly, emperors had always been aware
of the threat that the military could form. Dio Cassius (II 1 80.4),
for instance, describes with horror how Elagabalus, here referred to as
Avitus (II 1 80.4.2), rather than his customary ‘false Antoninus’, kills a
number of men during his reign. The importance here lies not so much
in the full list of names as in the ‘official’ reasons for their executions.
Triccianus died for leading the Alban legion and Castinus for good
generalship and being known to the soldiers (II 1 80.4.3); Sulla because
he met up with soldiers from Gaul (II 1 80.4.5). In the case of Seius
Carus, still according to Dio, associating with soldiers was a fabricated
charge (II 1 80.4.6). If true, it would show more than anything how
crucial the role of the soldiers was becoming. For linking oneself with
soldiers must in that case have become a sufficient reason for execution.
The many coins emphasising the loyalty of the troops (II 45 a; II.48 c,
which claims concordia militum) indicate that such loyalty was no
longer a given.
Much better, in such situations, to keep the soldiers on the move. This
was necessary anyhow, if they were to fight in the many areas in which
Rome was under threat. But soldiers travelling the Roman roads were
bad news for those living in the vicinity, as has become clear from the
petitions from Ağa Bey Köyü and Skaptopara (see above, p. 18). This
had been the case before, as a papyrus from the reign of Hadrian shows
(II 19). From that text it is evident that, even in Gibbon’s happiest
of times (see above, pp. 16–17), for many in the empire, life was not
easy. Soldiers took what they wanted, with possible dire consequences
for those whose belongings were confiscated. In the papyrus from
Hadrian’s reign, however, the prefect of Egypt clearly judges the abusing
soldiers negatively, trying to block them from doing so again, and
scolding them for harming the reputation of the military. From one
papyrus, of course, it is impossible to say whether the actions of the
prefect had any effect. Still, there is a marked difference from the
reaction of Gordian III to the inhabitants of Skaptopara in the final
section of that petition, where he simply sends them back to the
governor (II 16 3.12336) (de Blois 2007: 506). New or not, to say that
the behaviour of many soldiers was less than exemplary is an under-
statement. Soldiers confiscated and scavenged, and abused inhabitants
of the areas they travelled through. As a result farmers fled their land (or
at least threatened to do so). Others were killed by enemies (and Roman
soldiers), or enlisted to make up for the shortfall of manpower which
 Economy, Armies and Administration 39

enemies and epidemics had caused (see above, p. 21). One long-term
consequence was that food supply on campaign became problematic.
Another consequence of these socio-economic upheavals was the
coin deflation mentioned above (though other reasons, like increasing
difficulties in mining gold and silver, also played a role). This in turn
meant that the soldiers’ pay lost its real value, leading to unrest amongst
them.
Still, the armies were crucial to the safety of the empire. The empire
survived the external threats on the eastern and northern borders as
well as it did at least in part because battles were still won by the legions
(approximately 165,000 men) and the increasing numbers of auxiliary
troops (approximately 150,000 men). The latter consisted more
than before of groups of people from the same ethnic background,
occasionally ‘barbaric’ tribes, who retained their original mode of
combat. In fact, detached units – with greater flexibility – became more
important within the military structure, as did cavalry units (Campbell
2005b: 111–13). Most important, perhaps, was the fact that the emperor
now fought with them. The accession of Maximinus Thrax, who was a
soldier, made explicit how important the military role was for anyone
who wanted to make a bid for the throne. This development, hardly
surprisingly, had already started earlier. From Domitian onwards,
emperors had led major campaigns in person, as had been done by
generals or members of the imperial family under the Julio-Claudians
and Vespasian. The emphasis on the emperor’s military qualities is
already clear from the great victory arch of Septimius Severus in the
Forum Romanum, erected in ad 203, following Severus’ triumph
against the Parthians. Both the larger panels that adorn the arch and the
underlying low-relief bands show the main events of the great city
conquests of the years 194–5 and 197–9: siege, battle and the com-
mander’s address to the military (adlocutio) (II 38a). Throughout the
imagery, soldiers and a group of officials are depicted as the core of the
army as a fighting machine, with the emperor as general at its head.
At the bases of freestanding columns, large sculptures show Roman
soldiers holding chained Parthian prisoners (II 38b).
Similarly, the short military hairstyle with which most of the third-
century emperors were portrayed emphasised their role as military men
(II 49d, e; see below, Chapter 4) Emperors fought, at least in theory,
alongside their men. And they had to be on campaign often, to deal with
the multifaceted problems that threatened the empire. As a result, as we
saw in Chapter 1, the position of Rome weakened. It also meant that
emperors, more than before, surrounded themselves with equestrian
40 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

men of military background. Even if Dio is simply blackening Caracalla

when he describes how that emperor surrounded himself with soldiers,
and gave them expensive gifts (II 1 78.9.1, 78.9.3), it would hardly
be surprising if, in periods in which warfare was becoming more
prominent, soldiers would gain easier access to the emperor. Rome had
always worked with a system of personal patronage, in which a man’s
position depended at least in part on whom he knew. This was no third-
century innovation, and it is once again worth stressing the continuity
in the way the empire functioned. In practice, however, this traditional
system now boosted the chances of gaining influence for military men
over the chances for others to do so. Also, troops who were stationed in
any particular area for a longer period of time would be a local force
to be reckoned with. For different reasons, then, the importance of
military men in administration was to increase in the third century.

Consequences of change
The petition from Skaptopara to Gordian III is often used, as it was
above (p. 18), to show how badly soldiers behaved. Yet, noticeably, the
inscription does not only show negative aspects of the military presence
(II 16 3.12336). The man who brought the complaints to the emperor,
as is clear from section II of the document, was a soldier who resided in
the village. Similarly, around ad 245, during the reign of Philip the Arab,
the villagers of Aragoe in Asia Minor sent a soldier, a certain Didymus,
to present the emperor with a petition, after abuse by soldiers and
military officers (CIL 3.14191; Hauken 1998: 150–3). A century earlier,
such protests were most likely to have been brought forward by an
orator. Now military men had taken on that function. This may partly
be the result of the growing links between soldiers and the territory in
which they were based. As stated above, soldiers could now officially
establish families, and thus more than before become part of a local
community – for which they would be willing to undertake action.
People work together with those whom they see on a daily basis.
Furthermore, the position of traditional local elites in areas with a
strong military presence may have become somewhat eroded. These, as
stated above, were zones in which land was trampled, products were
taken to feed the army, and land ended up lying fallow. This made
it more difficult for those whose finances depended on the land to
continue their traditional modes of financial patronage. Increasingly,
even members of the elite had to dodge their financial obligations (see
below, Chapter 3). Finally, in a period in which soldiers had become the
 Economy, Armies and Administration 41

most obvious protectors of the empire, it made sense to turn to the

military for help.
At a higher level, as is described above as well, this ‘who you see is who
you help’ notion also functioned. Emperors increasingly surrounded
themselves with military men. Again, however, this growing influence of
soldiers on the emperor in a period of war was nothing new. When
Marcus Aurelius was engaged in extensive warfare in the second half of
the second century, he appointed career soldiers to posts of importance.
One of them, T. Varius Clemens, was even made the official responsible
for the imperial correspondence (ab epistulis), and in that capacity
apparently in a supreme position to advise the emperor whom to
appoint to important positions. Unsurprisingly, he guaranteed other
equestrian military men social and political progress (Birley 1992). In
the third century, through actual warfare, military logistics, drastic
requisitioning of food, goods and services, and the restoration of law
and order in war-ridden areas, many emperors spent much of their time
in war zones, forging bonds with military men and imperial staff acting
in the provinces. The imperial government needed new types of skills,
mainly provided by the military middle cadre, who in this way obtained
access to higher functions (de Blois 2001b).
Eventually, senators would even be excluded from governing
provinces with military problems, and professional soldiers would
command the armies. The two are of course related, and must be seen
as an attempt to make sure that in these times of military insecurity the
armies had generals with a long and thorough military background. It
was promoting equestrians over senators not so much because of their
rank as because of their skills (Lo Cascio 2005: 159). Famously, Aurelius
Victor blames the emperor Gallienus for issuing an edict forbidding
senators to take military appointments (II 4 33, 37). There is, in fact
some evidence that from Gallienus’ reign onwards certain military
posts disappeared from senatorial career inscriptions and that military
commands were increasingly given to non-senators. This was, however,
similar to Marcus’ policies as set out above, and notwithstanding
Victor’s statement, there seems not to have been an actual edict by the
emperor, even if he did promote equestrians to provinces where the
governor had previously been a senator, and no longer appointed
senators as legates of the legions (Christol 1986: 38–48; de Blois 1976:
57–83). Victor’s statement, in any case, betrays a lack of awareness of
imperial reality. Equestrians could threaten Gallienus’ position as well
as senators – as the reign of Maximinus Thrax must have made clear.
Still, Aurelius Victor’s notion of an edict by Gallienus is under-
42 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

standable in the context of that emperor’s actions. More than almost

anyone before him, Gallienus changed some of the military and
administrative structures of the empire. First, he created a special
cavalry unit, which was independent of the legions and directly linked
to the emperor in person. This comitatus, which was based at Milan,
could be moved around much more easily. Milan itself was, secondly,
fortified, as were some other strategically important localities such as
Aquileia, also in northern Italy (map 1). These fortified areas were,
thirdly, defended by new garrisons of soldiers who were detached from
different legions. Gallienus, in this way, raised military forces outside of
the normal command structure. This, together with his tendency to
appoint capable equestrians as commanders of legions, or as a dux
commanding the new garrison, created a much more flexible system
of defence, foreshadowing the defence system of the later empire
(Campbell 2005b: 115; Potter 2004: 257–8; de Blois 1976: 30–4). It must
also have annoyed senators, who were de facto if not de jure excluded
from many important offices.
Aurelius Victor was not entirely wrong. Yet he was not entirely
right either. In provinces like Africa, where there were no long-term
problems, loyal senators kept fulfilling governorships. Equally, non-
militarily important positions in Rome and Italy went to members of
the traditional elite. This may have eased their annoyance somewhat
(Mennen 2007). Still, they were in most respects surpassed by new men
for major offices.
These new men, and indeed the new bodies of troops, were directly
loyal to the emperor. And ever more often, equestrian commanders
with special commands were sent to the provinces in which fighting had
to take place. When problems were substantial (which was often, as
Chapter 1 shows) there was even a tendency to unify military action
beyond the province boundaries. These occasional ‘provinces of war’
were under the command of single individuals (Lo Cascio 2005: 161).
Such individuals were men the emperor could trust – often direct family
– or ‘local heroes’ who had in practice gained the upper hand in an
area under threat, such as the ‘restorer of the whole East’, Odaenathus (II
14 2.3946; see above, pp. 23–4). In the case of Odaenathus, the centre
clearly lost control, but in general these new types of appointment
strengthened central imperial control. These new appointment struc-
tures, in the course of the century and beyond it, would lead to a new
organisation of official titulature. This new organisation, like so much
of what happened in the third century, had already started under
Marcus Aurelius. It now became more pronounced. Those with close
 Economy, Armies and Administration 43

links to the imperial court were addressed as perfectissimus, and this

status became the important one to have (Potter 2004: 258). There is
even some indication that certain equestrian posts carried as much
weight as senatorial offices, if not more. One could interpret in this way
the career inscriptions of Marcus Cnaeus Licinius Rufinus, which place
his equestrian status before his senatorial rank (Millar 1999: 94–5).
Similar growth of central influence happened in tranquil areas like
Africa, notwithstanding the continuous appointment of senators there,
through the expansion of imperial estates. The emperors had always
owned land all over the empire. Over time, through inheritance or
direct acquisition, these had grown immense and were an important
source of wealth for the emperor. This property was run by (equestrian)
procurators, who were direct appointments of the princeps and for that
reason could have disproportionate influence on the running of the
province in which these estates were placed. Ağa Bey Köyü, for instance,
was such an estate (II 17), and it was the procurator whom they first
approached with their problems. This makes their threat, in the last
lines, to abandon the estate (see above, p. 34) all the more problematic
for the emperor – he was to lose direct income if the land on his estate
became fallow. Through both military and non-military appointments,
then, the centre became more important in running the periphery
(Garnsey 2004: 148), though curiously enough at the same time the
importance of the city of Rome diminished (see above, Chapter 1). This
new, more ‘central’ government in times of military upheaval, with its
systematizing of offices, seems to have led to diminished leniency from
those who held office.
Ramsay MacMullen, who has written insightful work on almost all
periods of imperial history, pointed out about twenty years ago how
this came about, though he was discussing a period successive to the
one central here:

But when appointive rank hardened into its own structure of honors,
rewards and promotions that increasingly controlled a man’s decisions,
constituting his whole life, and when the imperial authority he represented
became gradually inflated and godlike, then he could feel no sympathy for
disobedient subjects. They were compelled to behave. Whatever force was
needed should be used. So I imagine the process of change. (MacMullen
1988: 139)

The third century did not yet have the rigid structure of promotions
that would characterise the later empire, and the ‘inflated’ authority
of the emperor was only gradually becoming ‘godlike’ (see below,
44 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

Chapter 4). But the process which MacMullen described took shape
in the third century. In ad 278, for the first time in Roman history,
disobedience to the edict of a ranking official was deemed a capital
crime. Not adhering to a decision about labour on dikes was grounds
for execution (MacMullen 1988: 139). For this, there is no precedent,
and it shows that notwithstanding all visible continuity, there was real
transformation as well. The number of military men that people living
in towns would encounter grew, especially in towns that were near
battlegrounds (MacMullen 1988: 145) but also increasingly in Rome
and the Italian peninsula (Busch 2007: 315–16, 341). Different people
now had to be approached when one was in trouble, and their reactions
could not always be anticipated. Of course, these changes appear minor
as compared to those encountered by people who, as we have seen
(Chapter 1), were deported or lost all of their possessions when whole
cities were destroyed in the many wars that were fought. And not all
administrative changes were disadvantageous to the inhabitants of the
empire. Notwithstanding all the misery, the third century also saw a
development that would strengthen the unity of the empire, and would
have profound effects on the Roman world. Indeed, the consequences of
the development of Roman law would long outlast even the fall of the
Roman Empire.
 CHAPTER 3

Law and Citizenship

In the third century there may have been economic problems in the
empire, and administrative changes which led to severe difficulties at
local levels, but it was not all gloom. In fact, ad 212 saw one of the
most important steps in the unification of the empire. In that year, the
emperor Caracalla declared (nearly) all free inhabitants of the Roman
Empire to be Roman citizens in the so-called Constitutio Antoniniana.
This was a move with major consequences, not the least of which was
a change to the status of Roman law. Yet this important change is
only marginally mentioned in the literary sources. Single phrases by the
lawyer Ulpian (in the Digest assembled much later, which lists the names
of the original author of a statement) and by Dio Cassius, together with
some later references, make clear that it was Caracalla who decreed this
(II 21 1.5.17; II 1 78.9.5). Discussion is, however, still fierce over the
details of the measure.
In this discussion, much emphasis has been on part of a heavily
restored papyrus text, which was reported in 1902 and published in
1910 (II 20). From its publication onwards, scholars have argued over
almost every part of the papyrus, including the question of whether or
not the text is a Greek translation of the Constitutio. In 1962, a list was
created of some ninety major discussions on Caracalla’s edict, most of
which are still current (Sasse 1962). There is, however, current con-
sensus on the fact that what we have in the papyrus is part of the original
text. That makes it an important document, though not all agree on
this:
The document has added little to the understanding of this act of Caracalla,
which can be evaluated independently of the papyrus … This remarkable
controversy, which has added singularly little to historical knowledge, has
been concerned more with the formulation of Caracalla’s pronouncement,
his motives and intentions, than with the practical effects of it in the Roman
world. (Sherwin-White 19732: 279, 380)

45
46 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

These words, by one of the great twentieth-century scholars working on

Roman administration, show the two different directions of scholarship
which are possible when analysing the Constitutio Antoniniana: one
choice is to look at ‘the practical effects of it in the Roman world’ whilst
another is to examine the emperor’s ‘motives and intentions’. Notwith-
standing Sherwin-White’s damming criticism in this instance, the latter
exercise is useful in its own right, and for this the papyrus is of the
utmost importance. In fact, both the effects of Caracalla’s remarkable
measure and its intentions are amongst the most debated aspects of
third-century history. As with all historical events, however, the issuing
of the Constitutio Antoniniana should be seen in the context of its time.

Lawyers and politics

The Severan dynasty, up to the death of Severus Alexander in ad 235,
is commonly seen as the great age of jurists. Famous jurists like
Papinianus, Paul, Messius, Ulpian and Modestinus not only became
classic authors, but also reached important administrative positions;
some of them even became praetorian prefect, which office, even after
the military and administrative changes that were discussed in the
previous chapter, remained the highest position for non-senators in
the Roman Empire (Syme 1970; de Blois 2001b: 138–40). This age of
jurists did not, however, last long. Aemilius Papinianus, who became
praetorian prefect in ad 205, was the first jurist to gain such high office
and Herennius Modestinus, who died sometime after ad 239, can be
considered to be the last. As we saw above, from the second half of the
third century onwards, other people – with more military and logistical
experience – gained influence in the imperial administration.
It was during the high tide of Roman jurists that the Constitutio
Antoniniana was proclaimed, which one should keep in mind. The rise
and fall of Roman jurists, however, is also telling in its own right. The
factors underlying their rise can be roughly summarised as follows
(de Blois 2001b: 144–58). First, and most simply, by the third century
there were so many legal appeals made to the centre that specialists were
needed to deal with them. Specifically, it became common to appoint
one praetorian prefect with legal knowledge, and one with military
experience (Honoré 1982: 3). Secondly, the emperor Septimius Severus
himself seems to have been particularly interested in law (Zwalve 2001:
159–62). Imperial interest tended to have empire-wide consequences,
and the boost to the jurists’ standing might well follow from the
emperor’s patronage. That patronage may have had a knock-on effect.
 Law and Citizenship 47

If the emperor supported jurists, others would do so too. In this way,

jurists became part of the emperor’s urban entourage – a reciprocal
network in which positions were bestowed through mutual recom-
mendations. As we saw above, the absence from Rome of later third-
century emperors combined with the changing needs for running the
empire explains the problems for later third-century jurists. Soldiers
became central in the emperors’ more peripheral entourage. It was
again not the system of patronage which changed, but the people who
stood in the best position to profit from it. The imperial absence from
Rome also meant that many judicial tasks of the emperors, which had
first been dealt with by high-placed jurists, were now taken over by
‘deputy-emperors’ (iudices vice sacra). These men used jurists for
advice, but took the need for jurists in high positions away (Peachin
1996: 164; de Blois 2001b: 148). As we have seen before, what at first
sight looked like a massive rupture was in fact only a combination of
smaller transitions. Jurists did not disappear, but became less visible
in more subordinate functions. The system of patronage, which had
temporarily boosted their fortunes, now boosted other fortunes. There
is no denying that there was change, but there was continuity within the
system as well.

Purpose of the Constitutio Antoniniana

The Constitutio Antoniniana made all free inhabitants of the empire
Roman citizens with the exception of the so-called dediticii. These were
people who became subject to Rome through a formal surrender in
war, and certain freed slaves (though there is discussion on the exact
definition, as on almost everything linked to the edict). Since Roman
citizens were bound by Roman law, a consequence was that one legal
system applied to almost all inhabitants of one of the larger empires in
world history: ‘From a municipal system that took account of the law
common to various Mediterranean peoples, the ius gentium, it became
the ius civile. Roman law now purported to apply to the whole civilized
world, claiming to be founded on reason and a basic nature shared
by all’ (Honoré 2004: 113). This fits well with a high tide for legal
specialists, and Ulpian at least seems to have promoted the edict. Yet it
is extremely unlikely that this was its primary purpose. There are, in
fact, two possible reasons for the Constitutio Antoniniana which are
explicitly stated in the ancient sources. Dio Cassius (II 1 78.9.4–5), as
always extremely critical of Caracalla, whom he blames for having
pampered the soldiers (see above, p. 37), mentions the most mundane
48 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

of them, arguing that the whole exercise was really a hidden tax-raising
measure. Though it is true that Caracalla’s financial situation was prob-
lematic, not least because the emperor (or his father) had substantially
raised the soldiers’ pay (see above, p. 36), this is not a sufficient
argument. Few of those who had not gained citizenship in the previous
centuries would have been wealthy, whilst the inheritance tax, which is
most often stressed as an important new revenue, had already existed at
least in Egypt, and possibly in other provinces as well (Sherwin-White
19732: 281). Dio’s comment is also suspect since it fits all too well in
a long literary tradition – especially strong in the third century – of
complaining about the burdens of taxation, and of imperial abuse of the
money that was raised through these taxations. Finally, even if Dio’s
statement is correct, it seems not to have told the full story.
The second motive may have been mentioned by Caracalla himself,
on the papyrus with the Greek translation of the text. He states that the
edict is an appeasement to the gods, who had saved him from a
conspiracy. It needs to be emphasised, though, that the actual words
‘when that conspiracy occurred’ are reconstructed by the editor of the
papyrus. The conspiracy in question, in any case, should perhaps better
be defined as a coup. Septimius Severus had left the empire in the hands
of his sons Caracalla and Geta, but the two famously did not get along,
both vying for sole power. Septimius’ renowned last words, as described
by Dio (II 1 77.15.2), had a certain irony in them, since the brothers
turned out to be all but ‘harmonious’. Herodian (II 2 4.4), who was a
contemporary, describes the situation at length, though he may well
have embellished a number of aspects of the story for rhetorical effect.
He suggests a situation in which the two emperors blocked each other
at every possible turn, and even if only a fraction of that description is
true, life at the court must have been very difficult indeed. In December
211, Caracalla eventually killed his brother. A melodramatic scene in
Herodian’s text states how Geta was stabbed whilst their mother, Julia
Domna, held him. Caracalla lost no time, but instantly sought the
support of the praetorians – being aware that the support of these
soldiers was crucial if he was to remain in power. Interestingly,
Herodian then states how Caracalla went into the sanctuary of the
praetorians, and started to make ‘sacrifices in gratitude for his
deliverance’. This, of course, is exactly what the Greek papyrus states as
the reason for bestowing citizenship on the inhabitants of the empire.
In the aftermath, Caracalla killed a large number of Geta’s supporters
(including the jurist Papinianus), and promised, as Herodian states,
very substantial amounts of money to his own supporters. This must
 Law and Citizenship 49

have further worsened the financial problems he was in.

Caracalla also had Geta’s memory condemned. This damnatio
memoriae was carried out throughout the empire – Geta’s name was
chiselled out from an enormous number of texts such as milestones and
more massive monuments. Famously, for instance, the image and name
of Geta were removed from the so-called Arco degli Argentarii in Rome,
after which the surface of the monument was smoothed over so as to
leave as little trace as possible (II 39 a, b). The damnatio even applied
to papyri (II 22). A birth certificate for the son of a certain Marcus
Lucretius Diogenes, named Herennas, which can be dated to ad 209,
mentions Septimius Severus (who was emperor at the time) and his two
sons. But Geta’s name was later deleted from the document (made
visible in II 22 by the name’s being struck through; de Jong 2007:
103–4). The erasure of Geta’s memory was probably as fierce as it was
because fratricide could only be condoned if the murdered brother had
been a monster, who had conspired against him. Granting citizenship to
all his subjects so that they could share in his good fortune and offer to
the gods on his behalf, so Caracalla argued, was his way of thanking the
gods for preserving him from this ‘conspiracy’. For such an important
victory only the great gods could be responsible, and they had to be
repaid through similar greatness. Only the full ‘majesty of the Roman
people’ would do.
To these explicitly mentioned motives, others can and have been
added. Granting citizenship to all may have been a way to boost Roman
identity. All subjects of Rome were to become truly ‘Romans’ – setting
them far above the invaders who were to disturb Roman borders. It also
gave clear political advantages to Caracalla, not only by explaining
Geta’s damnatio memoriae, but also by making a dramatic statement at
the beginning of his reign that cost little money (and perhaps gained
him substantial sums), and creating bonds with many subjects, who
were to become his namesakes, since Roman tradition dictated that new
citizens were named after the man who promoted their citizenship
(Potter 2004: 139). All of these motives, however, as stated in a recent
article by one of the foremost scholars of Roman law, point ‘at best to
the occasion of, not the deeper causes of, the extension of citizenship.
It is like explaining the grant to Scotland of a separate Parliament with
its own powers of legislation as a tactical move by the Labour party
to secure Scottish seats in the general election of 1997’ (Honoré 2004:
114).
Whatever the direct purpose of the Constitutio Antoniniana, its
causes ran deeper. The periphery was becoming central to the empire,
50 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

with jurists, senators and even emperors coming increasingly from, and
spending much of their time, outside of Rome (see above, Chapter 1).
The role of traditional senatorial families was diminishing (even if
their status continued), and through the edict, millions could now hold
public office who could not have done so before ad 212. Finally, citizen-
ship had already expanded substantially over the centuries. Giving
citizenship to all could be seen as a logical (though still radical) next
step. Unless more straightforward sources of information are found, the
‘true’ purpose of the edict will remain shrouded in mystery. For now,
it needs to be emphasised that the different purposes mentioned
above are not mutually exclusive. A combination of them seems the
most likely explanation for Caracalla’s actions in ad 212.

Consequences of the Constitutio Antoniniana

As mentioned above, ‘motives and intentions’ are one part of the debate
surrounding the Constitutio. Its practical effects are another. The most
obvious of these effects was, as stated, the fact that almost all free
inhabitants of the empire became citizens overnight. Roman citizens
had three names (the tria nomina), their praenomen (first name), nomen
gentile (name of the gens) and cognomen (nickname). It was customary
for someone becoming citizen to use as their nomen gentile the name of
the person who bestowed this new status on them. Many of the new
citizens of ad 212 therefore adopted the emperor’s name (Aurelius) as
their gentile name. Aurelius became the most common name in the East
of the empire, and ran a close second to the name Julius (which had
been established for centuries) in the West. In the register of the
praetorians in Rome of July 210 (CIL 6.1058) there were only thirty-
nine Aurelii out of 802 names (c. 5 per cent), whereas nineteen out of
twenty names from the same register on June 227 are Aurelius (CIL
6.2799). One papyrus from an auxiliary fort in Dura Europos, truly the
empire’s furthest corner, shows how from ad 193 to 212 there were eight
Aurelii, twelve other Romans, and thirty-three non-Roman names,
whereas from ad 214 to 217 it lists fifty-five Aurelii versus nineteen
other names (P.Dura 98). There were even people who had already held
Roman citizenship before the edict and still added Aurelius to their
names, although there were also inhabitants (especially many peasants)
who continued to use their old name (II 23 10.1274; and see below,
p. 53). Apparently there was some lack of clarity on how to implement
the Constitutio, giving rise to local variation (Sherwin-White 19732:
386–7; Salway 1994: 133–6).
 Law and Citizenship 51

The changes in names also seem to indicate a growing sense of being

Roman – at least for the new citizens. Specific tokens of Roman-ness
can for instance be found in as remote a place as Palmyra, where
shortly after the Constitutio Antoniniana a (perhaps new) Roman
citizen explicitly had himself depicted in a toga – the ultimate symbol
of Roman status – on his sarcophagus (II 40) (Schmidt-Colinet and
al-As’ad, in press). He is the central figure making the offering.
Similarly, a life-size portrait from Commagene, from the area near
Nemrud Dağ, shows a young man with short beard and moustache
(II 41). The style is somewhat provincial, but the scene it depicts is
Roman. For in the portrait, the man is clearly visible with his head
covered (capite velato). Covering the head with a toga whilst performing
ritual is a very Roman tradition. The portrait has been dated to
Caracalla’s reign, which would form an indication that after obtaining
Roman citizenship this Syrian young man started even to worship the
gods in Syria by Roman methods (Simon 1995). Even a whole city could
respond to the new situation. In the Egyptian town Ptolemais Euergetis
in the Fayum area, for instance, a temple to Zeus Kapitolios was rapidly
constructed, clearly referring to the supreme god of Rome who was
worshipped on the Capitol. This cult had previously been common only
in towns with a special link to Rome, and is the only example of a cult
to a clearly Roman god in Egypt – using a mainly Roman ritual calendar.
In this temple to the new Roman-nesss, however, local traditions were
not forgotten. There were festivals to the crocodile god Souchos, to
Harpokrates, Sarapis and the Nile; all specifically Egyptian gods (Beard
et al. 1998: 362–3). This local religious response to the Constitutio
Antoniniana is characterised by the same mixture of rupture and
continuity which seems to define third-century developments. Local
identity was reshaped by everyone legally becoming Roman, but it did
not disappear.
Possibly the most eloquent testimony to this is a local coin minted at
Tyre (Phoenicia) during the reign of Gordian III (II 44). Its obverse
shows the emperor, with standard Latin titulature, but on its reverse the
coin depicts the local myth of Dido founding Carthage, with the Greek
name ‘Dido’ in the Greek alphabet, and her Phoenician name ‘Elishar’
in Phoenician. Being Roman went hand in hand with remaining Greek
and Phoenician (Howgego 2005: 14). Local coinage is, in fact, an ideal
source type for analysing the relationship between Roman and local
identities. Yet, as could perhaps have been expected from the ongoing
‘centralisation’ of offices, the third century saw a slow but sure dis-
appearance of provincial cities minting their own coins. The political
52 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

and military instability and the proliferation of imperial mints at

different places will have played a role in this (see above, Chapter 2), but
central attempts to present the realm as unified and whole will also have
been of importance. How otherwise to explain that henceforward ‘the
Genius of the Roman people in Latin [was] chosen as the symbol for the
whole empire’ (Howgego 2005: 16)?
When looking at the consequences of the Constitutio Antoniniana
for the development of Roman law, again a mixture between Roman
and local habits can be observed. Numerous local customs continued,
without the Roman administration trying to impose Roman law from
one day to the next. The importance of tradition for the Romans
applied to law as well, and both before and after the universalisation of
Roman law, jurists stressed the importance of local customs explicitly
(II 21 1.3.33, 1.3.40). Custom supplemented Roman law, as stated by
the high-profile jurists Ulpian and Modestinus, who both emphasise
the importance of custom as a source of law. No emperor – not even
Caracalla – issued an edict that Roman law should be applied
everywhere.
In the period directly following the issuing of the Constitutio, groups
who might have been disadvantaged by the new legal reality could have
their ancient rights confirmed. That at least, unsurprisingly, happened
to the military. Soldiers had always had specific (much more lenient)
rules for validating their wills, and – in some cases – the new situation
could put an end to that. Immediately, a case about the inheritance of a
soldier, the brother of a certain Florus, was put forward to the imperial
chancery to test the ground. Caracalla decided that in this case common
law did not apply. For soldiers, all remained as it had always been
(Zwalve 2007: 367–72). Furthermore, the Constitutio Antoniniana
seems to have had an explicit clause guaranteeing the rights of local
laws. Also, there were few experts in Roman law in the Greek East,
hindering the Romanisation of local law (Garnsey 2004: 146–7). For
instance, Gregory Thaumaturgus (c. 213–75), who was converted to
Christianity by the great philosopher Origen, and became an important
example for later Christians, studied law in Beirut. Even he found it
burdensome that Roman law was all in Latin. But he also commented
that all who wanted to have a career in the imperial administration now
tried to get into the Beirut law school. Roman law was there for the
long run, and the old rhetorical institutions of Antioch, Athens and
Alexandria saw their position weakened (Zwalve 2007: 371). For quite
some time after the Constitutio was issued, there seems to have been a
transitional period in which Roman law and provincial rules remained
 Law and Citizenship 53

mixed. There were no concerted efforts to bring Roman law to all levels
of provincial society (Cotton 1993). Still, Roman private law seeped
through into daily practice, even if it was understood differently from
one place to another (Stolte 2001: 176–7). There may be much dis-
cussion about how general citizenship boosted Roman law, but it seems
clear that it did.
In Egypt, for instance, after ad 212 women could apply to the prefect
to be granted their right to act without a guardian. It was much easier
for Roman citizen women to gain this ius liberorum, which carried with
it also inheritance rights. In order to obtain this status, a citizen woman
needed to have three children, and would probably have needed to
prove the existence of her children. Illuminating is the papyrus (II 23
12.1467) of the Egyptian Aurelia Thaisous, who also uses the Greek
name Lolliane. Greek was a common language in Egypt, and having
names in two languages was not exceptional. Nor, in the light of the
Constitutio Antoniniana, is the name Aurelia surprising. This Lolliane
wrote to the prefect in ad 263, applying for her right to transact business
on her own and asking the prefect’s office to make sure there would
be no problems. She emphasised that she was able to write herself. This
was no necessity for acting without a guardian, but it did show her
independence. The office filed her application – presumably to be able
to refer to it if any questions arose. As it happens, a later papyrus records
how Aurelia Thaisous conducted business and explicitly referred to her
ius liberorum (P.Oxy. 12.475; Pestman 1994: 245).
Even if women did not have three children and could not apply for
their legal independence, Roman law was present. A papyrus from the
mid-third century (II 23 10.1274) describes the situation of a certain
Aurelia Aristous who lost her husband Achillion and had a guardian
appointed ‘according to Roman custom’. Striking is the dominance of
‘Aurelius’ in the names of all concerned, and again the use of double
names, one of which is in Greek. The late husband, however, seems not
to have used his Roman name, although he fulfilled a not unimportant
function, as basilicogrammateus (the deputy of the strategos) in the
area near Alexandria. The papyrus, like the one discussed above, also
shows the high-level administrative organisation of Egypt, carefully
registering property and information on the rights of individuals. The
Laetorian law which is spoken of was an old Roman law to protect
under-age individuals against financial abuse. It made void any debts
contracted under the age of twenty-five.
The high-level organisation, and indeed Roman citizenship, could
also be problematic. After Caracalla’s great reform, more people than
54 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

before were obliged to take up public office. This of course raised

one’s status, but was also highly expensive. One sign of the financial
difficulties for many in the third century was an increasing tendency
to dodge these expensive obligations. Members of local elites were no
longer willing or able to continue the tasks they had undertaken in the
early empire. One way in which this wide-ranging phenomenon
becomes visible is, again, in Egyptian papyri. From the Constitutio
Antoniniana onwards, property was increasingly bought in women’s
names. When men had a certain amount of property, after all, they
would have to take up public obligations. Forfeiting these obligations
would result in confiscation of that very property. Women, however,
could not hold office, and placing property in female hands was a mode
of escaping unwelcome duties, though the legality of the construction
could be questioned. An ad 223 papyrus, written on behalf of a woman
named Julia Dionysia from Oxyrhynchus, makes clear that the con-
struction was suspect (II 23 1.77). The highest-ranking local official
(gymnasiarch) of the town, Aurelius Ammonius, was as prytanis
responsible for appointing men to take up public office. He apparently
questioned whether Julia’s husband did not in fact own more property
than was officially stated, which would have meant that he could be
nominated for a suitable office. Julia Dionysia had already sent petitions
to Ammonius declaring that a specific house was hers and not her
husband’s, but clearly she had to reiterate that claim, under oath, to
satisfy the gymnasiarch that nothing had been falsified (Bassiouni 1989:
239–41). Whether or not Julia spoke the truth is immaterial in the
greater scheme of things. The number of papyri emphasising that
certain possessions really did not belong to the man of the household
indicates that substantial numbers of people were trying to use a
loophole to get out of new obligations.
At the same time, this must have strengthened the position of
women, who now obtained more property in their own right. Roman
citizenship thus sometimes bolstered women’s rights. On the other
hand, Roman law sometimes made women’s position worse than it had
been under local law. For instance, Severus and Caracalla issued a law in
ad 197 which stated that women could not accuse men of adultery (CJ
9.9.1), which under local law they sometimes could. Still, more far-
reaching laws on adultery were cancelled because there were too many
indictments (II 1 77.16.4), as Dio experienced first-hand when he was
consul. Caracalla’s personal behaviour cannot have promoted con-
formity with the laws (II 1 78.16.4), though perhaps Dio’s story to this
effect should not be taken at face value, since he accuses all emperors
 Law and Citizenship 55

that he dislikes of sexual abuse.

Two more indirect consequences of the Constitutio Antoniniana
should be mentioned, both of them important for the functioning of
the empire post-ad 212. One is related to religion (and indeed the
worship of the emperor) and will resurface more extensively in the next
two chapters. In short, the enlargement of Roman citizenship made the
Roman gods and the Roman emperor more central than they were
before and to an extent paved the way for edicts like the one of Trajan
Decius in ad 249, which ordered all inhabitants of the empire to
sacrifice to Roman gods and started the first empire-wide persecution
of Christians. A second consequence is related to the increased sense of
being Roman, already mentioned above. It was this increased Roman-
ness which made inhabitants more part of the empire than ever before.
Though this never did fully replace local identity, it made rebellion
against the empire from within less likely. It is perhaps more than
coincidental that, as mentioned above (Chapter 1), the only two
surviving inscriptions which are ‘for the safety of the empire’ stem from
the third century, and are from the periphery. One is from Apulum, in
modern Romania (AE 1965.30), whilst the other is from the area near
Cologne (II 16 13.7844). As stated, the inscriptions are important
because they show that at least some people felt the empire to be under
sufficient threat to sacrifice on its behalf. But equally, they show that
the empire as such had become a clear entity, in which all inhabitants
took part. Even Postumus’ Gallic Empire (see above, Chapter 1) was
organised as if it were still Roman. The Constitutio Antoniniana as such
is mentioned only in very few literary sources. But its direct and indirect
consequences are many and become evident through different types of
sources. If nothing else, this should be a warning that the absence of
literary evidence about an event does not necessarily mean that the
event was unimportant. Absence of evidence, as is well known, is no
evidence of absence.
 CHAPTER 4

Development and
Perception of Emperorship

To a large extent, Roman imperial history was defined by emperors – at

least in the eyes of the Romans themselves. This can be said to have
started as early as Augustus’ reign, with the emphasis in contemporary
writing on the first princeps, and was made abundantly clear by the time
of the second century. Suetonius wrote biography, and therefore divided
history into the different members of the ruling dynasty, whilst Tacitus
– apologetically – pointed out how ‘with equality cast aside, all looked
to the orders of the princeps’ (Tacitus Annales 1.4). It is, therefore, not
surprising not only that the changes described in the previous chapters
had a profound effect on the development of emperorship, but that this
aspect of third-century history has received abundant attention. In
brief, two points stand out when looking at emperors from ad 193 to
ad 284. Firstly, there were very many of them. Secondly, most of them
were soldiers. These obvious observations, however, hide further (and
perhaps more far-reaching) developments.
At the end of the period under discussion, there had been a major
shift away from emperorship as it was defined in the first and second
centuries. Under the Tetrarchs, individual imperial features were
suppressed in imagery, to emphasise the cohesion of the imperial
college, with much attention given to divine aspects of rule (Rees
2004: 46–56). Two emperors (Augusti) and their second-in-commands
(Caesares) were presented as a homogeneous group of (near-)divine
rulers. If one compares this with earlier, highly individualised
presentations in which – on the whole – imperial divinity is mentioned
much more subtly, if at all, the change becomes apparent. Again, as with
the development of citizenship and the position of Rome, there appears
at first sight to have been a massive rupture from the beginning of the
period under discussion to its end. Yet, as before, change took place

56
 Development and Perception of Emperorship 57

gradually, with much emphasis on continuity. It is hardly surprising

that imperial representation changed in a period which was charac-
terised by a lack of stable and clearly established central power; in which
various rulers, with different degrees of success, tried to establish
control over the empire, and deal with its crises. In the third century, it
became increasingly difficult to present the emperor as the natural focal
point of society, since his position was hardly ever unchallenged. Yet the
emperor’s role as focal point was instrumental in keeping the empire
together (Hopkins 1978: 197–242; Ando 2000: 373–405), and emperors
often emphasised their traditionalism – even, or especially, in the face of
overwhelming evidence to the contrary. How, then, did the change
come about?

Soldier emperors?
Describing the events of ad 69, the year of the four emperors, Tacitus
famously stated that ‘the secret of the empire was now disclosed, that an
emperor could be made elsewhere than at Rome’ (Tacitus Histories 1.4).
This became abundantly clear in the third century, culminating in
Carus’ decision not even to ask for acclamation in the Roman senate.
The regular attempts by army units to make their commander the
supreme commander of the realm – outside of Rome – are indeed often
seen as the key characteristic of emperorship in the period from Severus
Alexander to Diocletian. As was stated in an influential thesis on the
so-called ‘awful revolution’: ‘the theory of an elected emperor was a
constant incitement to ambitious army leaders, and these were
frequently able to exploit the devotion of the troops to whom the State
as an object of allegiance was meaningless’ (Walbank 1969: 64). Michael
Rostovtzeff, in one of the seminal works of twentieth-century scholar-
ship on the ancient world, went even further and spoke of:
a systematic militarization of government … A militarized bureaucracy was
the watchword, and at the head of this bureaucracy a monarch with
autocratic power, hereditary in his family, his power being based on the
allegiance of the army and the state officials and on the personal worship of
the emperor … [the old upper classes] were replaced by a new military
aristocracy. Like the emperors themselves, this aristocracy sprang from the
ranks of the Roman army and, like the emperors, it was subject to perpetual
change. (Rostovtzeff 1957 2: 448–9)
The idea of soldier emperors, acclaimed by their troops, fighting against
each other and external enemies, dying (stabbed in the back) on the
battlefield, remains a popular one, as testified by the title Soldatenkaiser
58 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

(soldier emperors) for a recent short history of the third century

(Sommer 2004).
Of course there is truth in the notion. But becoming emperor
through military acclamation was nothing new. Amongst emperors
who gained power in this way are well-established ‘good’ emperors such
as Vespasian and Septimius Severus. Even Nerva’s adoption of Trajan in
ad 97 may well have resulted from military pressures (Bennett 20012:
46–7). Famously, emperors tended to start their letters to the senate
with the words: ‘I and the legions are in good health’, and a well-known
anecdote recounts how, when the rhetorician Favorinus was reproached
by friends for yielding to Hadrian in a matter of grammar though being
in the right, he responded that the ‘most learned man is the one who has
thirty legions’ (Hekster 2007: 91). The real change in the third century,
at least from the death of Severus Alexander onwards, was that –
through the sheer number of usurpers – ruling emperors no longer
managed to impose themselves and their dynasty for any considerable
length of time. Military qualities appeared to have become sufficient
qualities to gain the purple, rather than just necessary ones. Yet that
the emperors as a group could with some justification be described as
‘soldier emperors’ does not mean that individual emperors wanted to be
so described, nor that views on what an emperor ought to be changed
alongside common practice.
In order to find out how, in fact, emperors wanted to be seen, central
Roman coinage is an essential source of information. Side-stepping
the question of whether these coins were a means of ‘propaganda’ and
whether they were under direct imperial control, it is commonly
accepted that central coins at least generally follow imperial wishes
(Levick 1999). Changes in the way the emperor was portrayed on coins,
then, show how the reality of emperorship (continuous unrest and
problems of legitimacy) was reflected in its image. As mentioned above,
military qualities had always been an important aspect of imperial
representation. Virtus (manly courage and military daring) and provi-
dentia (the foresight required to safeguard the state) together comprised
a quarter of all imperial virtues as displayed on denarii between ad 69
and 238. Virtus alone accounted for 13 per cent. From 238 to 284,
however, the number of virtus coins struck seems to have risen steeply
among the coin types displaying imperial virtues. At the same time,
aequitas (tranquility, justice), which had constituted 24 per cent from
ad 69 to 238, was depicted substantially less often (Noreña 2001: 156;
Hekster and Manders 2006). Emperors, then, in their coins as in reality,
were judged by different standards.
 Development and Perception of Emperorship 59

That also becomes obvious from images on coins of the emperor in a

cuirass (II 47 a; II.48 a). This type of depiction had a long history, going
back to Nero’s reign, and had become a common type from the reign of
Antoninus Pius (138–61) onwards. In the third century, however, the
type becomes dominant, showing, like the increased emphasis on virtus,
that different qualities were now necessary to become a successful
leader. Most strikingly, this is clear from a recent analysis of all centrally
minted third-century coin types. These types can be grouped together
in thirteen different categories (though some coins cannot be fitted into
these), such as, for instance, dynastic or military representation, divine
association, emphasis on imperial virtues or the message that the
Golden Age was coming about (II 42; Manders 2007: 285, 289–90). The
military category, referring to the armies, victories, subdued areas, or
depicting the emperor as a general or victor, is the single largest group,
and comprises over 20 per cent of all coin types. The ‘Golden Age’
category, which emphasises the peace and prosperity that the emperor
will bring about, comprises nearly 20 per cent of coin types. Some
17 per cent stresses the imperial virtues – within which military
qualities had risen in status. In the third century, then, approximately
every other coin showed the emperor as someone who would bring
military glory or peace. In substantial periods of third-century history,
the difference would have been hard to tell. Still, the qualities that were
stressed on these coins had always been present, and the modes through
which they were stressed were familiar ones.
Something similar can be seen when looking at third-century im-
perial busts (Kleiner 1992: 361–76). Typically, a lot of these, especially
in the second half of the century, were characterised by a very short
haircut, similar to the one soldiers had (II 49 d, e). This was a more
military image, often with a short beard instead of the fuller beard that
had become standard from Hadrian’s portraiture onwards (II 49 a). The
difference from these earlier Antonine portraits and their elaborate
haircuts is clear for all to see. This change, however, took some time in
coming. Caracalla (II 49 b) was the first to break with tradition, creating
an image that has been regularly interpreted as more soldier-like than
that of his predecessors, with his shorter beard and frowning look.
He may have started the search for a new imperial image. Macrinus
(II 49 c) hearkened back to the Antonine beard, but combined it with
a soldier’s crop. Maximinus Thrax (II.49 d) unsurprisingly showed
himself strong, muscular and soldier-like. This image was further
developed in the Capitoline bust of Decius (II 49 e). This emperor
seems to have been supported by the Senate, which would explain
60 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

Eutropius’ positive attitude towards him (II 5 9.4). Perhaps encouraged

by that support, Decius added ‘Trajan’ to his own name, associating
himself with the ‘best of all rulers’, as the second-century emperor was
commonly considered. Yet notwithstanding this return to tradition, his
portrait has the cropped military hairstyle, and a short beard which is
similar to Caracalla’s. At the same time, this wonderful sculpture, which
must have been made by a master artist, shows the emperor as a man
with concerns and anxiety, though this may also be in the eye of the
beholder. There is always a risk when stylistic arguments are used to
describe a ruler’s mentality.
Much stronger – though perhaps no clearer – conclusions can be
drawn form Gallienus’ portraiture. His reign saw (see above, pp. 15–16)
some of the worst moments in Roman history. But rather than reacting
to this by depicting himself through portraiture which emphasised his
military qualities, Gallienus used a wholly different mode of represen-
tation. One mode was hearkening back to better times (II 49 f). A
colossal marble portrait from Greece or Asia Minor, which is dated to
approximately ad 267 and is now in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek in
Copenhagen, bears a marked likeness to Hadrian’s portrait. This may be
linked to the message of a Golden Age, which was so common on third-
century coinage. Rather than emphasising his military status – which
after Valerian’s imprisonment would look rather shaky – Gallienus
referred to happier times that under his leadership would return. On
some of his coins the message was, however, more directly related to the
military troubles Rome was in at the time. For instance, a coin minted
in Rome in ad 263/4 stressed the safety of the world (securitas orbis),
which Gallienus, depicted in cuirass, had brought (or was about to
bring) about (II 47 a). But a wholly different mode of representation
becomes clear from an earlier marble portrait (c. ad 260–5) which was
found in the house of the Vestals in the Forum Romanum (II 49 g).
Here, the emperor is looking upwards, his idealised features depicting a
youthful beauty. Indeed, scholars have interpreted this as a more
charismatic depiction of emperorship. This would link nicely with
the last large category of imperial coin types: associations with the
divine, which seem to have increased in the course of the third century
(II 42). Indeed, on Gallienus’ coins a number of gods are put forward
as conservator Augusti – placing the emperor under their special
protection.
In ad 267/8 there was even an ‘animal series’, depicting gods with
their symbolic animal (de Blois 1976: 160; Weigel 1990). Gods who are
so depicted are Diana, Jupiter, Sol and Apollo (II 47 b). The latter has as
 Development and Perception of Emperorship 61

his ‘animal’ a centaur holding bow and arrow. This may be linked with
the centaur Chiron, who was taught archery by Apollo, and taught the
latter’s son Asclepius medicine in turn.
Confusing as these images might be, they show that there were
still alternative representations for emperors to use, even if most rulers
depicted themselves in warrior style. The emperors as a group might
have been ‘soldier emperors’, but that need not mean that this was the
way in which all emperors presented themselves. Equally important,
though there are (notwithstanding the individual differences) marked
changes from second- to third-century portraiture, the difference from
Tetrarchic images (Rees 2004: 192–6) is far more pronounced still. In
the Tetrarchy, perhaps, ‘a militarized bureaucracy was the watchword’,
but many of the soldier emperors of the third century still placed their
changed message in a traditional framework. This is exemplified by
Philip the Arab, whose forced treaty to buy off the Persians was depicted
on his coins as the creation of proper peace. These coins (II 45 b)
showed the emperor on the obverse with a standard radiate crown, and
emphasised through the reverse legend how Philip had guaranteed the
safety of the world (securitas orbis), much as Gallienus would do later in
the face of overwhelming chaos. The coins might have easily have been
struck much earlier in the principate. Only those in the know could
perhaps read the changed reality between the traditional lines.

The emperor as centre of the world

Changes in the ways emperors managed to get to the throne and
changes in the ways they presented themselves are of course important.
Yet they need not tell the full story. Military men who temporarily gain
their position through civil war and backstabbing do not seem the most
obvious points of reference for the many non-military men who lived
in the empire to send requests to. Roman emperorship, however, was for
a great part defined by responding to exactly these kinds of requests
(Millar 19922). Who the emperor was, and how he had gained power,
might have been less important than how easily he could be approached
by his subjects to settle their differences and solve their daily life
problems. Talking about ‘soldier emperors’ may lead to ignoring this
day-to-day functioning of emperorship in the third century.
In fact, responding to requests remained an essential part of
emperorship. As supreme ruler, the emperor was the ultimate judge,
and was in this capacity approached by a substantial number of his
subjects. One should not underestimate their number. For example, in
62 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

Severan times, an Egyptian strategos named Serapion seems to have

heard and answered (though not, one would think, in person) the
staggering number of 1,804 cases within three days in March 209 (P.Yale
I, 61). If anything, the problematic economic situation in different areas
of the empire, and the occasional lack of clarity concerning who at local
level could still deal with the problems of the lower levels of society (see
above, Chapter 2), must have led to more petitions to the emperor. It is
perhaps not coincidental that the only inscription giving the whole
text of an imperial petition is the already discussed petition from the
villagers of Skaptopara to Gordian III in ad 238 (see above, Chapters 1
and 2). The problems – abuse by soldiers and other officials who should
have been there to protect their interests – have already been set out
above. But the fact that villagers continued to go to the emperor
indicates that notwithstanding all the problems and changes in empire
and emperorship, the emperor remained, for many, the centre of their
world, the supreme point of reference. That does not mean they always
got what they wanted. The reaction of Gordian III to the petition from
Skaptopara, simply to refer the petitioners back to the governor, was
clearly a disappointment. The inscription, as a result, seems to have
been put up not by the town to show the emperor’s beneficence, but
rather by the bearer of the petition, the praetorian soldier Aurelius
Pyrrhus, to show the efforts he had undergone for his hometown
(Hauken 1998: 82). Ironically, the long and frequent imperial absences
from Rome (see above, Chapter 1) may well have boosted the number
of petitions. Emperors had always been expected to move through the
realm and make themselves visible and approachable to their subjects.
The extent to which this mobility was taken in the third century may
have been unwelcome to Rome, but it did make it easier for provincial
subjects to present petitions to the emperor, and certainly stimulated
them to do so (Fowler and Hekster 2005: 13; Hauken 1998: 151; Birley
1988: 138). The emperor remained central to the realm, even when
Rome became less so.
Requests by individuals are not the only way through which the
continuous – or perhaps even increasing – centrality of third-century
emperorship becomes clear. Cities as a whole, too, acclaimed and made
requests to rulers. In fact, from the late second century onwards such
acclamations were more and more often recorded verbatim in inscrip-
tions including, from the reign of Caracalla onwards, inscriptions
on milestones. At the same time, cities started to issue coins with
acclamations of emperors on the reverses (Roueché 1984: 185–6). This
increasing tendency to record acclamations shows how it had become
 Development and Perception of Emperorship 63

more important to show public approval to the powers that be, a

development which was eventually recognised by Constantine, who
encouraged provincials to praise (and blame!) officials by acclamation.
These acclamations were then reported to the emperor himself (CTh
1.16.6). Passing a decree to congratulate new emperors also showed the
cities’ allegiance, and this was much appreciated, as imperial responses
to decrees from the city of Aphrodisias make clear (II 24 20; Reynolds
1982: 131–3). Gordian III in ad 239 (the second year of his tribunician
power) responded favourably to a message which the Aphrodisians
went to some length to get to the emperor. They sent a certain Claudius
Hegemoneus to the emperor to make sure that the latter was aware that
they had passed a decree of congratulations. The emperor, in turn,
explicitly praises the townsmen for their behaviour, and confirms all
their rights. A very similar event took place eleven years later when, at
the start of the joint reign of Trajan Decius and his son Herennius
Etruscus, two ambassadors who are not otherwise known were sent to
the emperors to inform them that Aphrodisias had marked the
beginning of their rule with a decree of congratulations (II 24 25;
Reynolds 1982: 140–3). Again confirmation of all its rights, and even a
promise of future goodwill, are the result. Both letters were included
amongst the inscriptions in the so-called ‘archive wall’ in the theatre of
Aphrodisias – clear for all to see. Positive imperial reactions to the praise
of towns was not new, and there had been embassies going to the
emperors to express gladness at their accession (and so retain good
standing) from the beginning of the imperial era (Millar 19922:
410–20). Yet in the third century, with its rapid turnover of emperors,
there were risks in too readily greeting an emperor. Aphrodisias, as it
turns out, did well, but in the aftermath of the year ad 238 (see above,
p. 14) there may well have been some who felt that officially con-
gratulating Gordian III might not have been the safest course of action.
A safer way in which a town could request maintenance of its
standing, or ask for further privileges, was to accommodate imperial
wishes, as many towns seem to have done when Caracalla wanted to be
crowned for his many ‘victories’ (II 1 78.9.2). Alternatively, cities could
acclaim the emperor at a later stage. This seems to have been the case
in the instance of the longest acclamation inscribed on a single stone,
from Perge in Pamphylia during the brief reign of Tacitus (ad 275–6)
(II 25), which has been analysed expertly by Charlotte Roueché. The
acclamation seems to coincide with the bestowal by Tacitus of the title
‘Metropolis of Pamphylia’ on the city, which was also celebrated on local
coinage. This acclamation was probably recorded at a gathering of
64 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

townspeople, and may well have been a copy of a document sent to

the emperor (Roueché 1989: 208). Imperial power may have changed in
the third century, but in the fierce inter-town competition, imperial
approval was still of utmost importance. The emperor remained the
central figure who could bestow honour in a way nobody else could.
The honours which Perge chose to mention are also interesting, and
can sometimes be contested. For instance, the town of Side, the most
important neighbour of Perge, also had right of asylum and also
claimed to be the crown of Pamphylia – its most important city. Being
‘Metropolis of Pamphylia’ may have given Perge the upper hand in this.
The penultimate line of the acclamation may be a reaction to that claim,
or to Side’s assertion to be a six-time neokoros, having been given the
right to built a temple to the imperial cult six times, outranking Perge’s
four (see below, p. 65). Perge also links itself to the emperor by being the
assize centre, and (possibly) the place where the provincial officer of the
imperial fiscus resides (Roueché 1989: 209–15). Finally, it is noteworthy
that, though the acclamation is in Greek, the goddesses who are
mentioned are referred to by their Latin name ‘Diana’ – again stressing
Perge’s strong Roman links. Again, being Roman remained important
even when Rome lost its uncontested superior position.
This Roman-ness was also boosted by the Constitutio Antoniniana
(II 20). Its importance for Roman law and citizenship has been exten-
sively discussed in the previous chapter. But universal citizenship also
had repercussions for the position of the emperor. All citizens were now
bound by Roman law, which had become universal. Also, as we have
seen, most new citizens had somehow become the emperor’s namesakes
by including his name in their own. Even if Dio’s claim that the
Constitutio was mainly a means to get more taxes was right, the
ideological aspects ought not to be forgotten. Caracalla explicitly
wanted to include all of his subjects in what he presented as the
preservation of his safety. In this way, then, all citizens became linked to
the figure of the emperor, for whose well-being they were led ‘to the
sanctuaries of the gods’. The welfare of the emperor had become central
to all his subjects (Potter 2004: 138–9).

Worshipping the emperor

In the course of the third century there seems to have been an increased
military presentation of emperorship (though within a traditional
framework). At the same time, the figure of the emperor became
increasingly important to more subjects, most of them in the provinces.
 Development and Perception of Emperorship 65

Yet few, if any, emperors had full control over what happened in the
empire. This difference can hardly be better illustrated than by the case
of Domitian II. This third-century usurper ruled around ad 271 for
such a short period of time and over such a small area of territory that
the only traces left of him were some passing comments in the Historia
Augusta (II 3a 2.6). His emperorship was properly confirmed only in
2003, when a bronze coin was found at Chipping Norton, near Oxford,
depicting Domitian as emperor on the obverse and proclaiming
Concordia militum (‘harmony of the soldiers’) on the reverse (II 48 c).
This was the second bronze coin which was found of Domitian II’s, but
the first had been deemed a forgery and was discarded as evidence
(Abdy 2004). The example shows how scholars are occasionally too
prudent, rejecting ancient statements which end up being true. Equally
important, it shows that in the second half of the third century, there
really were an extraordinary number of usurpers with a certain measure
of success. One might even argue that the many usurpers further
suggest the importance of the emperor in the third century as an
ultimate focal point. All local zones wanted to have their own Roman
emperor whom they could refer to. The many third-century ‘local
heroes’ were obvious candidates. These, however, could only present
themselves one-dimensionally since they simply did not have the
time to do otherwise. None of them, therefore, could really impose
themselves upon the empire. Still, the sheer number of such usurpers
influenced the popular perception of emperorship and must have made
the limits of imperial power clear.
One way of bridging the gap between a reality in which the emperors
had only limited control over their realm and an image in which they
were central to every aspect of its functioning was turning to the divine.
This was not new. From the beginning, Roman emperorship had held
divine connotations. Throughout the empire, people built altars and
temples to the emperors and offered them supreme worship. Nor was
this a small-scale phenomenon, with over 150 imperial temples and
shrines catalogued for Asia Minor alone (Price 1984). The geographical
diversification was such that one cannot speak of the imperial cult, but
should speak instead of imperial cults. In these cults, worship of the
emperor was often placed within local religious traditions (Beard et al.
1998: 348–52, 360). This practice continued in the third century, as
did the competition between towns about who was most faithful to the
emperor. The latter is clear from the emphasis a town like Perge
places on being four times neokoros (II 25). To an extent, however, the
increased centrality of emperorship in combination with a diminished
66 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

reputation of individual emperors would change the system. Increas-

ingly, the emperor would be linked to a specific god, the choice of which
could depend on the emperor’s personal religious notions. For instance,
the emperor Elagabalus worshipped the eponymous chief deity from his
home town Emesa in the shape of a black stone (II 43 a, b; II 5 8.22). He
explicitly presented himself as high priest and servant of a powerful god
who would strengthen his position. The emperor was in this way linked
to the god who was presented as the new chief deity of the empire (Icks
2006). This behaviour was exceptional and much commented upon
even in the early third century, but in previous times it would have
been unthinkable. Furthermore, it was not so different from the later
behaviour of Aurelian, who in ad 274 held his triumph for bringing the
empire together again, and then dedicated a splendid temple to the sun
god, which he filled with treasure (II 5 9.15; Gradel 2002: 351–2). In the
same year, he also depicted Sol on his coins, linked to his victories in the
East (II 48 a). Oriens was part of the empire again, thanks to an emperor
who is shown in military gear, and the sun god who helped him achieve
this (Watson 1999: 183–96). This was one step in the trajectory that
would lead to worship, not of the emperor as such, but of the emperor
as a servant of an ever higher supreme being.
Another crucial aspect of emperor worship, and for the perception of
emperorship as a whole, was the worship of divi, emperors who had
been deified after their deaths. The importance that those divi had in
Roman daily life becomes clear from the so called Feriale Duranum
(II.26; and see below, Chapter 5). This is a religious calendar from the
reign of Severus Alexander, found amongst papyri belonging to an
auxiliary cohort which was based at Dura Europos, a town on the
Euphrates, the furthest eastern frontier of the empire. It is noticeable
how numerically dominant the sacrifices for the divine emperors and
indeed empresses are, though the latter only received public prayer, as
opposed to an ox for the emperor. Sacrificing an ox was expensive –
especially in times of economic constraints – but this seems not to have
hampered sacrifices to the divi. A beautiful and extremely important
description of how the apotheosis of an emperor worked at his funeral
can be found in the works of Herodian. He describes the burial of
Septimius Severus (II 2 4.2), an occasion he was most probably present
at. With the accounts of the apotheosis of Augustus and Pertinax, it
is one of only three such descriptions (Zanker 2004). Herodian’s text
stresses the tripartite division in the period between the emperor’s death
and his deification. In the first stage, a wax pendant of the emperor’s
body was displayed on the Palatine from the emperor’s death up to the
 Development and Perception of Emperorship 67

day of his funeral. This body double would be treated as if it were a

patient, allowing for ritual festivities (and doubtless for people from
far afield to come to Rome). Then, in the second stage of the ritual, the
body double is taken in procession first to the Forum Romanum and
then to his pyre on the Campus Martius – with, as we know from other
texts, representatives of the whole of the Roman world forming part of
the pomp. The third and final stage, as recounted by Herodian, sees the
wax body placed in the pyre, and set alight. This set in process the
presumed transformation from human emperor to immortal god –
symbolised by an eagle which flew up from the pyre.
It is remarkable how similar the description of Severus’ deification
is to those of Augustus and Pertinax. Herodian, however, omits one
noticeable fact: the decision to deify fell to the senate, who could thus
give honour to worthwhile rulers. Notwithstanding the similarities
between Augustus’ and Severus’ apotheoses, there was a clear difference
as well. Whereas with Augustus this system of deification was new,
by the third century there were already a great many divi who were
worshipped. Twenty are mentioned in the acts of the Arval Brethren –
a priestly college in Rome – in ad 224, and that number probably
excludes some of the members of the imperial household who had
simply received the title divus or diva, as opposed to the ones who
received a temple and priests as well (Gradel 2002: 355–6). In the
further course of the third century, then:
Doubts about the system of deification must have been aggravated by
the steadily increasing number of Divi, gods of little or no power. The
decreasing influence of the Roman Senate, whose role and function was of
decisive importance to the didactic point of deifying dead emperor and
empresses, must have added even more pressure. (Gradel 2002: 356)

It may, in this light, be telling that the last emperor to receive his own
state temple was Marcus Aurelius, and that from ad 180 onwards there
were few temples constructed to the goddess Roma and the deified
emperors. There is perhaps even some evidence that shortly after the
Feriale Duranum was composed, the worship of divi suffered a severe
setback. In Herodian’s fierce attack on Maximinus Thrax (II 2 7.3.5)
he mentions how this ruler took as much money as he could, not
even sparing temples and the statues of the gods. This may have
been sacrilege, but it did not hamper cult activities. The divi, on
the other hand, were robbed of their ‘honours’, which in this context
usually means cult activities. Apparently Herodian means to say that
Maximinus took the temple funds or discontinued the cults as a whole
68 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

(Gradel 2002: 357). Even if the situation was not quite so drastic, the
fact that cults of the deified emperors are singled out in Herodian’s
account means that they had lost status in comparison with the cults of
‘ordinary gods’. A short statement in the Historia Augusta describes how
the emperor Tacitus – who was senatorially chosen and thus approved
of by the unknown author of the text – built a temple to the deified
emperors of undisputed reputation (II 3b 9.5; see above, Chapter 1) so
that they could be worshipped on their birthday, the birthday of the city
(the Parilia, 21 April), and when vows were taken for the emperor’s
health on 3 January. The construction of such a temple makes sense
only if the original temples in which these ‘good’ divi were worshipped
had closed sometime before (Gradel 2002: 363).
The deified emperors had, however, already returned to the centre of
attention, if only briefly, during the reign of Trajan Decius. He issued
coins depicting all male divi. On these coins obvious good examples
like Augustus and Decius’ new namesake Trajan (see above, p. 60)
were shown (II 46 a, b) but also more disputed rulers like Commodus
(II 46 c). The series ends with the divine Severus Alexander (II 46 d). All
coins show on the obverse the image of the divus. The legend reads:
‘to the deified Augustus/Trajan/Commodus/Alexander’. On the reverse,
they show that these are consecration coins, stating so explicitly, and
depicting a lighted rectangular altar. The emperors of old were import-
ant again. This return to a traditional worship of the deified emperors
was combined with an edict ordering that all inhabitants of the empire
had to sacrifice to the traditional Roman gods – an edict that would give
rise to the first persecution of Christians. This, however, can only be
understood within the wider context of religious developments, as will
be addressed in the following chapter.
 CHAPTER 5

Christianity and
Religious Change

There is hardly a subject in third-century history which has been

debated more frequently and more intensively than that of centrally
organised Christian persecutions. Christianity is, even more than
Roman law, the most instantly recognisable inheritance from the
Roman Empire. Persecution and martyrdom, furthermore, have
been a near constant part of Christian history. Christians were often
persecuted by others: Romans of course, and Persians, but as late as
850 there were also martyrs in then-Muslim Cordova. In addition,
Christians have persecuted other Christians whom they regarded as
heretics, from at least the Constantinian age onwards.
As a result, the ideal of martyrdom has remained alive in world history, since
its first formulations by Jews in mid-second century bc. Christianity has
never lost it, and it was probably through contact with Christians, not Jews,
that early Islam picked up its analogous language and theology for those
who die for the faith. The legacy is still tragically fresh. (Lane Fox 1986: 420)
This claim, from an important analysis of the relationship between
Christianity and paganism, now holds more true than ever. Recent
years have once again made clear how fundamentally the notion of
martyrdom can impact on world history. The Christian notion of
martyrdom was much developed during the third century, when, for the
first time, persecutions became centrally organised. At the same time
Christianity had always been a problematic religion for Rome. Being
Christian made it impossible to take part in Rome’s public sacrifices,
which placed Christians on the wrong side of social custom, if not the
law. That did not mean they were persecuted. Famously, in an exchange
with Pliny, the emperor Trajan (II 27) had stated that acknowledged
Christians who did not repent should be prosecuted, but not searched

69
70 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

out. Before ad 249, there had been occasions on which Christians were
killed for their belief, but these had been local affairs, like the executions
in the arena of Christians at Lugdunum during the reign of Marcus
Aurelius (Birley 1987: 202–4). At a local level matters went awry, and
individuals sought a party responsible for the disturbance of divine
support. Christians were obvious candidates (Clarke 2005: 616). This
would change dramatically with Decius’ decree about a universal
sacrifice to the gods of the empire in ad 249, paving the way for centrally
organised persecutions (de Ste Croix 1963).

Decius’ decree: purpose and consequences

The edict of Trajan Decius obliged all inhabitants of the Roman Empire
to sacrifice to the gods. Though the text itself has not survived, much
can be surmised from other sources, such as the so-called libelli (II 28).
These are certificates following a fairly consistent format. They state
that individuals (amongst whom are many with the name Aurelius; see
above, Chapter 3) performed sacrifices before officers, and are dated
exactly and signed by witnesses. The sacrificers also testify to their
loyalty to the gods by swearing that they have been zealous in sacrificing
before. All inhabitants of the empire seem to have had to do so on a
specified day, much as in the system of census registration or tax
collection (Rives 1999: 149). Forty-four of these libelli have been found
so far, and their consistency in format seems to imply that they were
prescribed within Decius’ edict (Knipfing 1923; Rives 1999: 135–6).
Also, there are the writings of Cyprian (see above, Chapter 2), who was
bishop of Carthage at the time but went into hiding during the
persecutions which followed Decius’ edict, and of the Alexandrian
bishop Dionysios, preserved through quotations of the church historian
Eusebius, who was born just after the event. As often, the Thirteenth
Sibylline Oracle provides (somewhat minimal) clues (II 9 81–8).
Describing the reign of Trajan Decius, it refers to the emperor’s Dacian
descent (though he was actually born in Pannonia) and his assuming of
the name ‘Trajan’ (T = 300). It places Decius in the fourth race, which
could either imply the fourth kingdom before world’s end, as in the
biblical vision of Daniel (Daniel 7) or the Hesiodic Race of Iron. It
explicitly states that ‘the faithful’ (the Christians) are killed, and gives as
reason ‘the former king’. This might refer to Philip the Arab’s alleged –
almost certainly apocryphal – Christianity, which would make Decius’
order specifically aimed at Christians, in order to distance himself from
his predecessor (Potter 1990: 258–68). The latter point cannot be of real
 Christianity and Religious Change 71

importance (and is most likely simply wrong), but on the question of

whether the purpose of the edict was specifically anti-Christian, there is
substantial debate.
That the edict making sacrifice obligatory, and checking this
administratively, had terrible consequences for Christians in the Roman
Empire is beyond doubt. Whereas before Christians had been at worst
local scapegoats, they would now suffer the explicit disapproval of the
imperial court. Decius, as discussed at the end of the previous chapter,
gave renewed attention to the deified emperors. He is also honoured as
restitutor sacrorum, ‘restorer of sacred matters’, which probably refers to
rites (AE 1973. 235). It may well have been that in times of difficulty,
he was making a concerted effort to guarantee divine support. The
millennium festivities (delayed to ad 248), or more specifically the
worries that the passing of a millennium can cause, may have played a
part in this (II 5 9.3; Potter 2004: 243). Minds needed to be put at ease.
Yet Christians could not act accordingly. They would not sacrifice to the
(unspecified) gods, and were thus openly opposing the emperor. They
were sought out, put on trial, and – unless they renounced their faith –
suffered the consequences. Many were imprisoned, tortured and killed
(Clarke 2005: 632–5).
That does not mean it was Decius’ explicit aim to act against
Christians. Two recent expert analyses of the events take diametrically
opposed views. On the one hand, it is argued that Decius’ decree shows
above all the increase of central power as described in previous chapters.
Christianity suffered as a side-effect:
About Decius’ edict there is, however, a foretaste of that autocracy which
marks fourth-century government: directives are being issued from above
affecting the lives of the entire empire as the central authorities attempt
to grapple with the problems of commanding and controlling an unwieldy
and extremely diverse empire. There is here a presage of those centralist
pressures for conformity and homogeneity … But it is clear that an attack
on Christianity as such was not the object of the legislation. (Clarke 2005:
626)
Only when Christians refused to conform were they ‘persuaded’
to comply, with the death penalty only sometimes the ultimate
consequence.
This view is not shared by all, however:
It is debated whether [Decius’] order was from the outset targeted against
the Christians, or whether it was simply the refusal of (some) Christians to
comply which unleashed persecution on them. The latter view seems oddly
72 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284
academic to me: no emperor or his administration in the mid-third century
could have been so utterly uninformed as to be unaware that Christians,
or some of them, would be the only substantial group of the empire who
would either refuse to comply or betray their beliefs (Jews were specifically
exempt from the order). So I take it as obvious that the original edict was
indeed from the outset targeted against Christians, though they were not
mentioned in it. (Gradel 2002: 368)
In this second view, then, isolating a group of ‘outsiders’ would
guarantee a return to the support that the gods had given Rome before.
Eradicating Christians would bring back the pax deorum.
However contradictory these two views may seem, in both cases the
main purpose of the edict is a return to better times by pleasing the
gods. Alternatively, Decius’ main reason for the edict may have had
more to do with his own rather weak position as emperor in times of
near-continuous usurpation, himself a usurper who had betrayed his
emperor. By making everyone sacrifice to the Roman gods including the
emperor, Decius guaranteed loyalty. The motives behind the decree, in
this reading, are somewhat similar to one of Caracalla’s reasons for the
Constitutio Antoniniana (see above, Chapter 3) (Potter 2004: 241–3;
Bleckmann 2006). Whatever the motive, the decree was extraordinary,
perhaps a reflection of extraordinary times. Still, as with the Constitutio
Antoniniana, no ‘true’ objective can be stated and a combination of
motives should be kept in mind. Perhaps Decius even put less thought
into issuing the decree than modern scholars have into finding the
reasons why he did so (Rives 1999: 151).
The consequences of Decius’ orders are less disputed. First, it
strengthened those who had worried about Christians in the belief that
they were to blame for all that went wrong in the world, which was one
cause of the persecutions. It may not be coincidental that shortly after
Decius’ death, when it turned out that his successor Gallus did not
continue the edict, Cyprian wrote his famous address to Demetrianus.
In it, Cyprian refutes a pagan who blames Christians for all the famine,
war and illness that plagued parts of the Roman world (see above,
Chapter 2). The fact that Christians do not worship pagan gods is
explicitly mentioned (II 29 3). One reason that Cyprian has to offer for
the evils in the world is that it is simply growing old (II 29 3–4), but he
goes further (II 29 5); the true reason is that pagans do not worship the
Christian god. Clearly, the complaints about Christian non-sacrifice
needed answering. At the same time, the tone Cyprian chooses is not
cowering. On the contrary, he explicitly holds paganism to blame for
what befalls men – the revenge of God. Perhaps this was also to convince
 Christianity and Religious Change 73

wavering Christians of the rightness of their belief, and what the wrath
of God could be like. Christians will have wavered even more during
persecutions, since part of Trajan’s advice to Pliny (II 27) still held. If a
Christian repented and denied the Christian god, all was forgiven. This,
in fact, gave rise to a second consequence of Decius’ edict. Many chose
to live rather than to remain faithful. Afterwards churches had to deal
with readmitting the fallen. A long legacy of disputes and bitterness
within the Christian communities followed the end of Decius’ per-
secutions (Clarke 2005: 635). That, perhaps, explains the bitter tone of
Cyprian – who also gave a sermon ‘On the lapsed’ – in his address on the
‘practicalities’ of the trials.
In this sermon (II 29 13) the difference between a religion of ritual
and a religion of belief comes eloquently to the fore (Price 1984: 9–15).
Cyprian does not understand – or in a playful argument purports not
to understand – why concealing true belief should guarantee freedom
from persecution. Concealing the true belief in Christianity ought to
be punished, he argues, not encouraged. Of course such concealment
would in practice mean sacrifice, and thus conformity to ritual
tradition. In fact, Roman officials often sought for modes of sacrifice
that would be acceptable to Christians, and were astonished at what
could only be interpreted as supreme (and illogical) stubbornness (Lane
Fox 1986: 421). Cyprian (II 29 13) describes a Christian who heroically
defies Rome publicly, stays true and is only punished in the flesh, and
mockingly asks Rome the question why public denial makes the crime
worse; a question the relevance of which many Romans could not have
understood. Yet the number of martyrs was always only a fraction of
those who lapsed, or, like Cyprian during Decius’ persecutions, simply
hid. Perhaps some of Cyprian’s tone was overcompensation for his own
not exemplary behaviour – though he would die a martyr’s death in the
end. A third consequence of the measure was recently recognised in
a splendid article on Decius’ decree (Rives 1999: 152): by making
participation in a centrally proclaimed cultic act obligatory for all
inhabitants of the Roman Empire, the decree paved the way for what
could be called ‘the religion of the Roman Empire’, as opposed to the
variety of local religions which had up to then defined the religious
framework. This was not centred on the emperor, since imperial cult
was at best of secondary importance in the persecutions (Millar 1973).
Nor was it, yet, centred on a particular deity. It was defined by sacrifice.
Ultimately, the religion of the empire would turn out to be Christianity.
Ironically, the first steps towards this also created the framework for
persecutions.
74 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

Christian persecutions and their context

Decius’ decree may have affected Christians only as a side-effect. Under
the emperor Valerian, Christians were targeted explicitly. Again,
Cyprian is an important source, though this time the bishop would not
survive the persecution. Apparently (and in the face of the problems the
empire was facing, understandably) under Valerian there was renewed
stress on homogeneous worship of the gods who guaranteed the
security of Rome. Christians seem to have replied that they already
prayed for the well-being of empire and emperor. This was not accept-
able. Whatever the precise circumstances, in ad 257 Valerian forbade
Christian gatherings and entering of their cemeteries. Christians had to
conform to Rome. The higher clergy were to be arrested and had to
sacrifice. If they did not, they were to suffer the consequences. Unclear
about what these consequences were, the senate asked Valerian what to
do with those who disobeyed (Potter 2004: 255; Clarke 2005: 637–42).
Valerian’s response left no room for doubt. We know of it from a letter
of Cyprian to his fellow bishop Successus (II 30), his ‘brother’ within the
Christian family, from ad 258. Clearly, Christians had been aware for
some time of rumours about anti-Christian events: being ‘under threat
of the arena’ clearly referred to a martyr’s death. Cyprian sent men to
Rome to find out, showing the Christian information network that had
developed following the Decian troubles, as is also clear from the last
paragraph, in which Cyprian asks Successus to spread the news (Alföldy
1973: 481–2). These men heard Valerian’s answer to the senatorial
question. Leading Christians should be executed, unless they were
men of high standing. Even these would have only temporary respite
before suffering the death penalty. Women, too, were targeted, even
those connected to ‘Caesar’s household’, meaning those working at the
imperial court (including slaves and freedwomen). They were sent to
imperial estates – here meaning the mines, from which few if any came
back alive.
This imperial reaction was made known to governors of the
provinces, leaving them no alternative but to start arresting Christian
clergy. How serious the consequences would be is also clear from
Cyprian’s writing: Xistus, that is, pope Sixtus II, was martyred in Rome
at the cemetery of St Callistus alongside four deacons. Cyprian himself
would be martyred shortly afterwards. Many martyrs would follow,
although, in reading the sources, one should always keep in mind that
only a minority volunteered to die. Theirs, however, were the stories that
were seen as heroic by the ‘fallen’ and overlooked. These latter groups
 Christianity and Religious Change 75

celebrated and took courage from the accounts of the martyrs (Lane
Fox 1986: 444–5). Valerian had written his response to the Senate from
outside Rome (II 30). In ad 258 he was already in the East, where he
would suffer his great defeat. Shortly afterwards, the Palmyrene and
Gallic Empires would show how fragmented the Roman Empire was
becoming (see above, Chapter 1). Perhaps Gallienus realised that this
was no time for internal division, and he issued an edict of restitution
(de Blois 1976: 177–85), which was celebrated as a victory for the
Christian god by later Christian authors. As it was, there would be more
– and much more intensive – persecutions later, but these were to take
place in the Tetrarchic age, and should be seen in context (Rees 2004:
66–71).
For emperors, and indeed for local communities, Christians were a
problem because they would not sacrifice on behalf of the empire.
Roman polytheists could not understand the exclusivity of Christian
worship. For Christians, at the same time, this exclusivity was the root
of their religion. Cyprian makes this clear, for instance in his above-
discussed address to Demetrianus. Those who do not worship the true
god cannot know the truth (II 29 3). Indeed, for Cyprian, the pagan
inability to understand that there is only one god is at the root of the
problems in the world (II 29 5). In a passage that must have been
nothing short of offensive to a Roman readership, free citizens are even
compared to slaves, showing how omnipotent the Christian god is
(II.29 8). For third-century Christians, the end of the world was nigh, it
could even come in their own lifetime (II.29 5, 9). The latter notion was
debatable; Cyprian in his writing shows a development from thinking
that Judgement Day was about to come to the view that the world would
continue for a while after all (Alföldy 1973: 482–90). But even if the
Empire of God had not yet arrived, it was the soul that was important.
Punishment of the flesh was as nothing compared to sins of the souls
(II 29 9, 13).
The importance of purity of the soul, in combination with the
inspiration which lapsed Christians could take from the accounts of
heroic deaths, explains the importance of the martyr account for the
development of early Christianity. Some even stated that provoking the
authorities into acting, becoming a voluntary martyr, was the best way
to honour god (de Ste Croix 1963). Martyrs’ accounts could become
very popular, as is shown by perhaps the most important of these texts,
the Passion of Perpetua and Felicitas (II 31). The popularity of the text
was such that it was still read often in church towards the end of the
fourth century, though it was written as part of the Montanist move-
76 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

ment in Christianity, which had by that time been declared heretical

(Shaw 1993: 37–41; Grig 2004; Butler 2006). Perpetua was a well-born
and married twenty-two-year-old Christian, who was martyred as early
as ad 203. Alongside her, the slave-girl Felicitas was arrested, as well as
their teacher Saturus. The text consists of a narrative framework which
includes apparently first-hand accounts. These accounts seem in fact to
be actual contemporary texts. If, as seems likely, the story by Perpetua
was written by her, and possibly later taken from her diary (II 31 14) it
would be the oldest surviving text by a Christian woman. It also gives us
supreme insight into her and her co-martyrs’ religious experiences and
into the way Romans punished Christians. However, the description
of the martyrs’ deaths is the least trustworthy part of the Passion,
filled with improbabilities, possibly catering to the tastes of the times
(Bremmer 2004). Some aspects are worth pointing out all the same.
The martyrs’ deaths were gruesome, which the passion makes
explicit. The Christians were tortured but stayed calm under abuse
(II 31 16), even if they had to succumb to animals in the amphitheatre,
or were executed there in full public view (II 31 20–1). The horrors were
recounted, but the martyrs did not suffer. Even when the girls Perpetua
and Felicitas had to suffer bestiality (II 31 20), the emphasis is on how
they maintained their modesty, and were so much in the Spirit that they
did not suffer. Likewise, their companion Saturus preserved ultimate
composure whilst dying (II 31 21), giving hope to those surrounding
him. The quantity of blood he lost shows how horrid his death was, but
this too is seen in religious terms, as a second baptism. The horrors of
violence are placed against the serenity brought by belief (Lane Fox
1986: 438–9). More insight into these martyrs’ psyche is granted by the
description of several of their dreams and visions (II 31 10–11).
Suffering of the flesh and dying in the arena was interpreted by Perpetua
as a fight with the devil, wherein she would be victorious (II 31 10).
Saturus, in his vision, describes the paradise which they would reach
after dying. In fact, in his vision he meets other Christian martyrs,
including Saturninus, who had been arrested at the same time as they
were (Bremmer 2003; Shaw 1993). The martyrs were certain of their
spiritual superiority, as long as they relinquished earthly bounds.
Martyrdom brought the glory of god, as is clear from the haunting
account of Felicitas’ distress that – due to her pregnancy – her punish-
ment might be postponed (II 31 15). She prayed to go into labour so
that she could be executed punctually, and her wish was granted. A
guard who mocked Felicitas’ pain in childbirth was reminded that at her
execution it was God who would take her suffering, not she. Nor did the
 Christianity and Religious Change 77

daughter who was born tie Felicitas down; she was instantly given away
to a sister. This was what many in early Christianity saw as exemplary
behaviour. Small wonder that Romans had difficulty comprehending
Christianity.
Other Christians took a somewhat different view from voluntary
martyrs, and rather tried to tie Christianity into ancient traditions with
which pagan Romans were familiar. How this could be done is evident
from Marcus Minucius Felix’s Octavius (II 32). This is one of the earliest
surviving apologies by a converted Roman and describes a discussion
between two of Minucius Felix’s friends, the eponymous Christian
Octavius Januarius and the pagan Caecilius Natalis. Octavius tries to
argue at length (II 32 21.1–4) how within paganism the notion of man-
turned-god is engrained – countering the argument that Christ would
be weak because he was a man, going back to the likes of Euhemerus
(who argued that gods were excellent kings of the past). Octavius
also brings in a famous anecdote about a letter which was written by
Alexander the Great to his mother, discussing secrets told to him when
he visited the temple of Ammon in Egypt. The letter, allegedly, discussed
first Vulcan and later Jupiter and his family. It then discussed the myth
of Isis and Osiris (II 32 21.3). This mythological account told how,
holding castanets, Isis sought out the pieces of the body of her husband
and brother Osiris, who flew round his grave in the shape of a swallow.
All of these stories, Octavius argues, show how the pagan gods were
human in origin. Yet even in such a text, the glory of spiritual victory is
emphasised (II 32 37.1) in tones similar to that of the passions. And
here too, notions of sacrifice had to be addressed (II 32 38.1). The latter
was to respond to Caecilius’ objections on the subject (II 32 12.5). These
objections, of course, were also written down by the Christian Minucius
Felix. The disdain for Jews (II 32 10.4) may have more to do with
Christian antagonism towards the religion from which Christianity
obviously descended than with showing pagan sentiments. On the
whole, Rome had few objections to Judaism, of which they recognised
the ancientness – as long as Jews did not rebel against Rome. Yet in order
to work as the apologetic text that it is, the pagan objections needed to
relate to reality. Not surprisingly, then, the argument about the existence
of the Roman gods (II 32 8.1) and the supremacy they have brought
Rome (II 32 12.5) are placed at the beginning of Caecilius’ argument.
Before Christianity, Rome had been gloriously protected by the gods –
when things were going wrong, it made sense to blame Christians.
78 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

Continuity and change in third-century religion

Christianity did not start in the third century, and some of the
above-sketched problems had already come to the fore much earlier.
Until the end of the second century, however, there had been only
relatively few Christians, possibly c. 200,000 in ad 200, or less than
0.5 per cent of the total population of the empire (Hopkins 1998). This
number grew immensely in the third century, making the ‘outsider’
status of Christians more prominent, and therefore more problematic.
Yet Christians were not the only outsiders. The third century saw also
the rise of Manichaeism, a sect that was welcomed by Shapur I and
spread into the Roman world, from which it would be banished
(without much result) by Diocletian as a new and foreign cult in a
famous edict, the text of which has survived (Rees 2004: 174–5).
Mani was born in April 216, near the Sassanian capital Ctesiphon,
son of a father who had been converted by a very missionising form
of Jewish Christianity, near-extinguished in the Roman world by the
formation of a more coherent ‘orthodox’ Christian doctrine. He was
believed to have had visions at twelve and twenty-four years old; after
the latter he left the sect of which he was part, and went his own way
(Gardner and Lieu 2004: 3–5). The religious system that he ultimately
came to promote is a form of ‘religious dualism’; all is focused on the
two eternal principles of good and evil. Manicheism was a universal
faith. Believers had it as their duty to convert others all over the world,
so that the new faith would replace other religions, which Mani believed
to be corrupt (Frye 2005: 475–6). Travelling wildly during his lifetime,
Mani visited much of the Persian Empire and even went as far east as
India. He seems not to have travelled into Roman territory himself, but
sent missionaries to spread his word instead (Henrichs and Koening
1982: 1–3). The latter point shows that notwithstanding all frontier
battles, there was still freedom of movement across the borders between
the Roman and Persian Empires.
Manichaeism expanded rapidly. Partly this must have been the
result of its adaptability to the religious environment in which it sought
converts. Generally speaking Manichean missionaries were prone to adopt
features of Christianity in the West, Zoroastrianism in Iran and Buddhism
in the farther east, but claiming that the other religions were incomplete and
had become corrupt from the time of their founders. (Frye 2005: 475)
He managed to convert Shapur I (which partly explains the ease with
which he and his supporters travelled in the Persian Empire), but was
eventually executed in ad 276 by Vahram, the new Persian king. His
 Christianity and Religious Change 79

death did not stop his religion. Indeed, in the West it would remain
prominent for a long time, with St Augustine as one of its most well-
known adherents and, after his conversion to Christianity, most
eloquent opponents. In the East, it survived even longer, existing in
China until the early seventeenth century and possibly later (Lane Fox
1986: 562–3; Lieu 1985: 219). For Christianity, Manichaeism was a
dangerous rival. That much is also clear from a late third-century
papyrus, written by an Egyptian bishop (II 33). Again and again the text
warns against the danger of Manichees: they tell lies and are filled with
madness. Interestingly, with its emphasis on an exaggerated gruesome-
ness of Manichaeic ritual, this bishop treats Manichees in much the
same way as Christians were treated by others.
The rise of Manichaeism has often been seen as part of a phenom-
enon in the late second and third century that has been discussed almost
as much as Christianity: the rise of so-called oriental religions.
Alongside the rise of Manichaeism, the late second and third centuries
also saw an increase in the popularity of Mithraism, which like
Manichaeism was linked to the Persians. Though much debated, it
seems clear that this link was not a direct one. Roman Mithraism
was not the final result of a continuous adaptation of its eastern
counterpart, but a reinvention (possibly in the first century ad) of this
eastern religion in Roman terms (Beck 1998: 122–5). All the same, such
a reinvention needs to be explained, as does the simultaneous increase
in the popularity of the (eastern) mystery cults of Isis and Magna Mater
(the Great Mother). These were cults into which one needed to
be initiated, cults that were a form of personal religion (Burkert 1987:
12–29).
Famously, the rise of oriental cults was accounted for by the great
Belgian scholar of ancient religions, Franz Cumont. He argued that:

In order to gain the masses and the cream of Roman society (as they did for
a whole century) the barbarian mysteries had to possess a powerful charm,
they had to satisfy the deep wants of the human soul, and their strength had
to be superior to that of the ancient Greco-Roman religion. To explain the
reasons for their victory we must try to reveal the nature of this superiority
– I mean their superiority in the struggle, without assuming innate
superiority. I believe that we can define it by stating that those religions gave
greater satisfaction first, to the senses and passions, secondly, to the intel-
ligence, finally, and above all, to the conscience. (Cumont 1911: 28)

Cumont’s thesis was that oriental cults filled a void, and under their
influence paganism would change, paving the way for Christianity.
80 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

The ‘sleeping monotheism’ in the oriental religions made these cults

attractive in what has often been deemed a religious ‘age of anxiety’
(Dodds 1965). The problems which the Roman Empire faced made
people lose faith, and alternatives were sought to Rome’s traditional
gods. Famously, the Neoplatonist philosopher Plotinus, whose writing
ranks amongst the most important works of this period, joined Gordian
III in his expedition against the Persians (see above, p. 19) to make
contact with philosophers from Persia and India, and so learn eastern
thinking.
Still, the story cannot have been so straightforward. Apart from
(possibly) Mithraism, mystery cults did not offer the idea of personal
spiritual progress (Gordon 1994: 465–7). Nor should the rise of the
orient be exaggerated. In the third century, the vast majority of evidence
for worship concerns the traditional Roman gods, especially Jupiter
Optimus Maximus. Inscriptions testify that if there was a diminished
confidence in traditional gods, it did not affect the worship of those very
deities. Only in less than 10 per cent of cases did inscriptions refer to
oriental deities, like the ones named above, or the Syrian Jupiter
Dolichenus (Alföldy 1989: 373–81). The rise of the east was limited;
apart from the imperial support for Elagabalus (see above, p. 66), there
is little evidence that support for oriental cults was encouraged by
emperors. Speculations that link Aurelian’s Sol Invictus (see above,
Chapter 4) to the Palmyrene deities Bel and Yarhibol are ultimately
unconvincing (Watson 1999: 195–6; Kaizer 2002: 154–7). Aurelian’s
combination on coins of Sol and the Oriens (II 48 a; and see above,
p. 66) celebrated the emperor’s victory in the east, not the victory of an
eastern god.
Of course, this is not to deny any change. But Roman religion was
famously inclusive. Gods, cults and whole religions could exist along-
side one another. Religion in the Roman world can be characterised as
‘religious pluralism’, though there does seem to have been a second- and
third-century development towards competition between religions,
with the sense that an individual could choose rather than amalgamate
(North 1992). The objections raised against Christianity, to which
Cyprian had to respond (II 29; and see above, pp. 72–3), and the banish-
ment of Manichaeism, are only understandable if at least some people
believed they were a threat. These people, almost by definition, adhered
to traditional religion – and sometimes wanted old traditions to
resurface where they had disappeared (II 46; and see above, p. 68). The
creation of pagan army priests in the third century – probably during
the reign of Elagabalus – shows how traditional religion still flourished,
 Christianity and Religious Change 81

but also how it was sufficiently affected by change to allow for the
creation of such an institution (Haensch 2006). The Feriale Duranum
(II 26) emphasises continuity in public worship as much as do the
above-mentioned percentages of inscriptions to traditional deities. The
first sacrifices mentioned in the calendar are the ones to the Capitoline
triad of Jupiter, Juno and Minerva. Other gods whose worship is
mentioned are Mars and Vesta. The festivals which are referred to are
the ancient Quinquatria (a ceremony to purify armour), the birthday of
Rome, the festival for Neptune and the Rose festival, at which standards
were adorned with roses. If it were not for the first lines which date the
document and the names of late second-century divi, the calendar
could have been issued much earlier than the reign of the last Severan
emperor. Similarly, in ad 198/9 a document was distributed in the reign
of the first ruler of that dynasty (II 34). Although the ban on magical
consultation was issued by the Egyptian prefect, Quintus Aemilius
Saturninus, the emperor himself was doubtless involved. He would not
have objected so much if he did not believe in the effectiveness of such
consultation. One could interpret this as yet another instance of an
increasingly dictatorial imperial behaviour in all aspects of life, or fear
of opposition in increasingly fraught times. Long before, however, in
supposedly happy times, Vespasian had banished all astrologers from
Rome (Dio Cassius 66.9.2). In tetrarchic times, Diocletian minted coins
proclaiming the ‘Genius of the Roman people’ (see above, p. 52)
and defended imperial power by emphasising links with Jupiter
and Hercules: ‘hardly a sign of paganism shrinking’ (MacMullen 1981:
127). In the third century, there was religious change, of course, but
continuity too.
 Conclusion

Fragmentation and unification from 193 to 284

On 20 November 284, Diocles, the former commander of Numerian’s
imperial guard, was declared emperor. Though there were indications
to the contrary, Diocles declared that he was not to blame for the
murder of his predecessor. The real criminal had been the praetorian
prefect Lucius Aper, Diocles claimed:
Then, assuming the tone of a sovereign and a judge, he commanded that
Aper should be brought in chains to the foot of the tribunal. ‘This man’, said
he, ‘is the murderer of Numerian’; and without giving him time to enter
on a dangerous justification, drew his sword, and buried it in the breast of
the unfortunate praefect. A charge supported by such decisive proof was
admitted without contradiction, and the legions, with repeated acclam-
ations, acknowledged the justice and authority of the emperor Diocletian.
(Gibbon 1776: I, ch. 12)
An individual who had lived through the previous half century might
have been unsurprised about the way this new emperor came to power.
It had been done before. Through far-reaching reforms, Diocletian did
his utmost to prevent this way of obtaining imperial power from being
used again. The fact that he abdicated of his own accord and died of ill
health rather than assassination shows some of his success. Diocletian’s
organisational measures doubtlessly helped the empire overcome
trouble, but it is a measure of the success of third-century Roman
actions that on his accession to the throne the empire was still standing,
geographically hardly smaller than at the death of Commodus on
31 December ad 192.
The 91 years between Commodus’ and Numerian’s deaths had
doubtless shaken the Roman world. Throughout the period, the empire
had seen fragmentation. Never before had there been so many emperors
and usurpers in so little time, and never before had large sections of

82
 Conclusion 83

the empire actually seceded (see above, Chapter 1). Nor was there
only political fragmentation: the rise of Christianity and Manichaeism
showed how ‘outsiders’ were becoming increasingly prominent (see
above, Chapter 5). At the same time, these 91 years had seen unification:
emperorship became ever more important, even if emperors lost power
(see above, Chapter 4). A general sense of Roman-ness increased, even
where the importance of Rome diminished. Collective citizenship was
essential in this, of course, and made Roman law universal (see above,
Chapter 3). It may even have been a first step towards a unified Roman
religion. In such an interpretation, Christianity and ‘religious fragmen-
tation’ only came to the fore after multiple religions in the Roman
Empire were replaced by notions of one Roman religion. Fragment-
ation may in this case have been an (unwanted) result of unification.
Similarly, secession by Postumus and Zenobia may well have kept the
Gallic and Palmyrene Empires safe from further harm, giving Aurelian
the possibility of reincorporating them in the Roman Empire. Tem-
porary fragmentation allowed for later reunification. Fragmentation
and unification need not always function in opposition. There had, in
any case, always been an implicit fragmentation in the empire, with
different regions having different climates and economic developments.
The many external threats and consequent warfare which characterised
third-century history deepened this differentiation. Some areas suffered
much more than others in economic and military terms. Especially in
those areas which suffered more, the importance of the military became
most pronounced (see above, Chapter 2). At the end of the third century
local differences had become much more pronounced. But in this local
reality individuals may have become more ‘Roman’ than ever before.
The altar that Masius and Titianus Ianuari dedicated to ‘the safety of the
empire’ (II 16 13.7844) shows how the empire’s welfare had become
a concept which people could relate to. Ironically, the notion of real
Roman unity arose in an era of fragmentation.

A third-century crisis?
An offering for the safety of the whole Roman Empire also shows
that some people perceived the empire as a whole to be at risk. To use
perhaps the most discussed term concerning third-century history,
Masius and Titianus Ianuari may have believed the empire to have been
in crisis. The notion of a ‘third-century crisis’, however, is a laden one.
There is not so much discussion of whether there were crises in the third
century – that seems to be obvious to all – as of whether the era as
84 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

a whole should be described as a crisis. The first attempts to describe

such an age of crisis were made by the French scholar Léon Homo, in
1913, followed by the great Russian scholar Michael Rostovtzeff in 1923
(Homo 1913; Rostovtzeff 1923). The first edition of the volume of the
CAH dealing with the period 193–224 followed suit and was called
The Imperial Crisis and Recovery (1939). In the 1970s the notion was
strengthened by important publications by MacMullen and Alföldy,
who emphasised continuous instability, increasing influence of the
military and military provinces, economic problems and religious
decline. All attention went to keeping the empire intact against foreign
invasions, at the cost of all earlier conventions (MacMullen 1976:
195–213; Alföldy 1974).
Lately, however, counter-arguments have been brought forward,
especially in the German-speaking world (Strobel 1993; Witschel 1999).
Rather than speaking of crisis, which is deemed judgemental, one
should talk of ‘change’ and ‘transformation’. More importantly, detailed
regional analysis of archaeological remains shows that socio-economic
change was very different from one province to the next, and that in
many zones of the empire, inhabitants seem to have been doing well for
much of the third century. Even where there were troubles, they had
been foreshadowed in earlier ages (see above, Chapter 2). Finally, many
of the essential parts of Roman-ness, not least among which are the
literary culture, the basic organisational structure of the economy, and
indeed the empire itself, survived the third-century problems and are
continuously recognisable in the Roman Empire of the fourth century.
These points have also affected thinking in the Anglo-Saxon world,
though not, perhaps, the titles of works on the period, which still
mention crisis or use a semi-synonym and state that the empire was ‘at
bay’ (Potter 2004).
There have, in turn, been scholars defending the notion of crisis.
They argue that the loss of position of the city of Rome and her Senate,
combined with a change in local elite behaviour and in the position
of traditional religion, show a profound change of mentality (Liebe-
schuetz 2007: 17–18). Also, it has been argued that the likes of Masius
and Titianus Ianuari felt the empire to be under threat, showing a ‘crisis
mentality’ (Eck 2007: 32–4).
A decisive stance is impossible, but some points should be clear by
now. Politically and militarily, there were real problems in the Roman
Empire, certainly from the death of Gordian III onwards. Even if not all
areas were affected in the same way, the secession of sections of the
empire will have been known and discussed throughout the empire.
 Conclusion 85

More clearly still, the rapid turnover of emperors, all making efforts to
be as visible as possible, was also noticeable in areas of relative peace.
The many petitions to the different emperors illustrate how well people
in the province were aware of who ruled them (see above, Chapter 1
and 4). The same holds for Roman provincial coins, which, until their
disappearance, continuously depict the ruling emperor on the obverse.
People were willing to defend the empire, and did so effectively, but they
cannot have failed to notice that the Roman world was less than before
defended by actions which originated directly from the centre. There
are simply no first- or second-century examples of emperors dying
on the battleground, or being captured by the enemy (see above,
Chapter 1).
From the 240s, then, one could speak of a military and political crisis,
but in socio-economic terms there is less clarity. In this respect, the
local differences are pronounced, and as long as there was no fighting
and soldiers were not stationed too near, zones could still thrive. The
increased importance of military men and procurators of imperial
estates may have been pronounced, but it did not affect everyone in the
same way. Nor did it stop members of the traditional elites from
occupying important (non-military) positions in Rome and Italy.
Soldiers had been problematic in earlier times as well (II 19) though in
the third century emperors seem to have reacted less stringently (II 16
3.12336). In terms of legal developments, and of citizenship, the third
century started with what may well be described as the high tide of
Roman imperial history. Papyri show how the Constitutio Antoniniana
continuously affected inhabitants of the empire, even in the 260s,
when militarily matters were going very wrong (see above, Chapter 3;
II 23 12.1467). Continuously, also, people looked to the emperors to
lead them. Political realities bore seemingly no relation to the develop-
ment of emperorship – apart from raising emperorship away from
reality towards the divine. This was an important development and was
at least partially a reaction to the disappearance of normal modes of
legitimation (see above, Chapter 4). Another, probably partial, reaction
was the persecution of Christianity. Problems were blamed on a group
of people who disregarded traditional religion. Still, it is unlikely that
the rise of Christianity itself was the result of military problems. At the
same time, their rise in prominence made Christians more of a threat
than they had been in earlier times. Paganism was still a dominant
force, and it would need the long reign of Constantine (306–37) and his
highly debated conversion to change the balance. In the third century,
traditional religion was hardly in decline (see above, Chapter 5).
86 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

Inevitably, in a book of this size, much that is relevant for third-

century history has remained unsaid. Nor should any period really be
looked at in isolation. The Roman Empire had always been trans-
forming. Indeed, its ability to adapt in the face of internal and external
threats to a large extent explains its longevity. External threats were
more pronounced in the period from ad 193 to ad 284 and adaptations
had to be more rapid. But there were almost always traces of continuity.
The third century may be characterised by the fact that it had to react
continuously to discontinuities. There were certainly third-century
crises, possibly even an empire-wide crisis in the years after 260, when
financial problems became ever more pronounced. But whatever term
is used to describe the period, it should not make historians forget to
look at what sources tell us about the inhabitants of the empire. In
Rome and its provinces, life went on – crisis or not.
 Part II

Documents
 1. Cassius Dio: Roman History (c. 220)
Translated from the Greek
[74.11.2] Didius Julianus was an insatiable money-maker and
extravagant spender, and always desirous of revolution, which is why
Commodus had had him exiled to Mediolanum [Milan], Commodus’
native city. So as soon as he heard of the death of Pertinax, he hurried to
the camp, and standing in front of the gates he began to beseech the
soldiers for sovereignty over the Romans.
Whereupon a most disgraceful business, unworthy of Rome, took
place. Just as in the market-place or in some auction-room Rome
herself and her whole empire were sold at auction. Those who had killed
their own emperor were doing the selling, and the buyers, Sulpicianus
and Julianus, were competing with each other, one from inside, and one
outside. And little by little they advanced, offering as much as 5,000
drachmas per man. Some of the soldiers would bring a message to
Julianus, saying ‘this is how much Sulpicianus is giving; so what do you
offer?’ And then to Sulpicianus ‘Julianus promises this much; so what do
you promise?’ And Sulpicianus would have prevailed, since he was on
the inside and was prefect of the city, and was the first to quote 5,000
drachmas; but Julianus, rather than any small amount, outbid him by
1,250 drachmas all at once, shouting it out loudly and also signalling
with his hands. The soldiers were enraptured by his excess and were at
the same time afraid that Sulpicianus might avenge Pertinax, as Julianus
kept suggesting to them, so they received him and appointed him
emperor.

[74.14.3] These are the things that happened in Rome, and now I will
speak of what happened outside it and the rebellions that were
attempted. For during that time there were three men, each of whom
was in command of three legions of citizens and many foreigners, who
laid claim to power. These were Severus, governor of Pannonia, Niger,
governor of Syria, and Albinus, governor of Britain. It was these men,
then, that were foretold by the three stars which suddenly appeared and
surrounded the sun, when Julianus was performing the appropriate
sacrifices at the beginning of his reign in front of the Senate house while
we were all there. They were so very obvious that even the soldiers kept
looking up at them and pointing them out to each other; furthermore,

89
90 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

they were spreading the opinion that something terrible would come
upon Julianus. But although we most of all hoped and prayed that this
would happen, we did not dare to look up at the stars, on account of the
fear that gripped us, except for sideways glances. This much I myself
experienced.

[74.16.1] After Julianus learned of these things he had Severus made an

enemy by the senate, and began to prepare for him; he fortified the area
around the city with a ditch and placed gates inside it so that he could
take the field there and fight from it. [2] And the whole city was at that
time nothing but an army camp, as though in enemy country. There was
great confusion among each of the troops (men, horses and elephants)
who were bivouacking and training, and everyone else was very much
afraid of the armed men, since the soldiers hated them. [3] But it is also
the case that laughter used to overcome us, because the praetorians did
nothing to live up to their name or their promises: they had learnt to live
genteelly. The marines were sent for from the fleet that lay in harbour in
Misenum, but they did not even know how to drill, and the elephants,
weighed down by the howdahs on their backs, refused to carry their
riders and threw them off. [4] We laughed particularly when Julianus
strengthened the palace with latticed gates and strong doors, because he
believed that, since the soldiers probably would not have killed Pertinax
so easily if he had been shut up, he could lock himself in if he was
defeated and survive. [5] He slew Laetus and Marcia, so all those who
had plotted against Commodus were destroyed (for later Severus threw
Narcissus to the beasts, having it announced that ‘this is the man who
strangled Commodus’), and he killed many children for magical
purposes, in order to find out what was to come in the future and be
able to deflect it. And he kept sending people after Severus to murder
him treacherously.

[77.10.1] At this time an Italian named Bulla, having organised a band

of robbers numbering 600 men, ravaged Italy for two years, despite the
presence of the emperors and many soldiers. [2] And although he was
hunted by many men, Severus casting after him eagerly, whenever Bulla
was seen he was nowhere to be seen, whenever found he was nowhere to
be found, when caught he was never captured; for he made use of both
great munificence and great cunning. He learnt of everyone who was
coming out of Rome and all those putting in at Brundisium [Brindisi],
how many they were and what they had in their possession. [3] He took
a part of the belongings of most of those he waylaid and let them go
 Cassius Dio: Roman History 91

straightaway. Those who were craftsmen he held back for some time,
and after he had made use of their skills he paid them a fee and let them
go. When two of his brigands were captured and were about to be
thrown to the animals, he went up to the gaoler pretending that he was
a magistrate of the city and that he wanted some men of their particular
type. So in this way he took possession of them and rescued them.
[4] He also went up to the centurion who was in charge of stamping
out brigandry and, pretending to be someone else, denounced himself,
and promised that if the centurion followed him he would hand over
the robber chief to him. And, pretending to lead the centurion to Felix
(for this was another of his names), he took him to a hollow place
surrounded by overgrown bushes and easily captured him. [5] Where-
upon he dressed himself as a magistrate and stood on the tribunal. He
then summoned the centurion, shaved his head, and said ‘tell your
masters that they must look after their slaves, or they will become
robbers’. For he had many imperial freedmen in his gang, some of
whom had been badly paid, some not paid at all. [6] As Severus learnt
of each of these actions he said angrily ‘I am winning battles in Britain
by means of others; in Italy I myself have become weaker than a
brigand’. At last he despatched a military tribune from his bodyguards
with many horsemen, threatening him with terrible punishments if he
did not bring back Bulla in chains. This man learnt that Bulla was
sleeping with another man’s wife and he persuaded her to help them, on
the promise of an amnesty for her husband. [7] Consequently Bulla was
taken, asleep in a cave. Papinianus the prefect asked him ‘why were you
a robber?’ and he answered ‘why are you a prefect?’ After this public
notice was given of his death by wild beasts, and his gang also fell apart;
it seems in him alone was the whole strength of the six hundred.

[77.15.2] After this had happened the Caledonians took part in the
rebellion of the Maeatae, and Severus prepared to wage war on them
himself. But a sickness took hold of him on the fourth of February,
while he was in the process of doing so, with, so they say, Antoninus
helping it along. At any rate, before he died he is reported to have said
the following to his sons (I will pass on only his actual words, not
embellishing them): ‘be harmonious, enrich the soldiers, scorn every-
thing else’. After this his body was dressed in military uniform and
placed on a pyre. The soldiers and his sons honoured him by marching
round the pyre, and the gifts which the soldiers present had brought
were thrown on before his sons lit the fire. Afterwards the bones were
put into an urn of purple stone, carried back to Rome and placed in the
92 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

imperial mausoleum. And it is said that just before he died Severus sent
for the urn, felt it and announced ‘you will hold a man whom the whole
world could not contain’.

[77.16.4] Again, he [Septimius Severus] reprimanded people who were

not chaste, and even formulated certain laws against adultery. As a result
there was a tremendous number of accusations for that offence (when I
was consul, for instance, I found that 3,000 cases were put forwards)
but, since only very few people prosecuted these offences, he also
stopped dealing with them.

[78.9.1] Antoninus was deeply impressed by Alexander; he used one

pretext after another, war after war, to excuse his fondness for spending
money on the soldiers, very many of whom he kept by him. He made it
his business to rob, defraud and bankrupt every other man, not least the
senators. [2] There were the gold crowns which he constantly used to
demand, as though he were always winning battles (by this I do not
mean the construction of the crowns themselves, for what does that
cost? But the cities were in the habit of giving large amounts of money
for the sake of this ‘crowning’ of the emperor). [3] There were the many
provisions from all quarters, gifts which we lavished on him and paid
for. All of these he gave straight to the soldiers or sold. [4] Then there
were the presents he demanded from rich private citizens and the
commons, and the new duties and other taxes he imposed. These were
in addition to the tithe he imposed instead of the five percent tax on
emancipated slaves and on bequests that people inherited, and all gifts.
[5] The rights of inheritance and tax exemptions which applied to those
who were closely related to the deceased he brought to an end (this was
the reason why he admitted everyone in the empire to Roman
citizenship; he claimed it was an honour, but in fact it was so that he
could make something out of it: foreigners did not have to contribute to
most of these taxes). [6] Apart from all of these impositions there were
also the houses of every kind whenever he rushed out of Rome, the
very expensive quarters at which to break his journeys, and the accom-
modation expenses for even the briefest, all of which we were forced to
furnish. He never stayed in them, nor ever intended even to see them.
[7] Furthermore, we provided wild beast shows and horse races every-
where, wherever he wintered or even thought he might winter. They
were all destroyed straightaway. There was only one reason for this to
happen: to ruin us.
 Cassius Dio: Roman History 93

[78.16.4] This is also what he [Caracalla] did to anyone who committed

adultery. Although he engaged in more adultery than anyone else, as
much as he possibly could, he hated the others who shared this vice and
killed them, against all precedent. And he was aggrieved by men of good
character, but gave the impression of appreciating some of them once
they were dead.

[79.36. 1] Macrinus also wrote to the senate about this false Antoninus
the same things which he wrote to all the governors, calling him a young
boy and saying that he was unstable. He also wrote to Maximus the
prefect of the city, discussing the appropriate matters and saying that
even the soldiers who had just enlisted were demanding everything that
the longer-serving soldiers had: those who had not been granted the
money and those who had been deprived of nothing were equally angry.
[2] Even if one left to one side all the things which Severus and his sons
had found to destroy the professionalism of the army, he stated that it
would be impossible to give them their full pay as well as the donatives
which they already had [3] (for Tarautus had extended the increase in
their wages to 17,000 drachmas a year), and impossible not to give it, for
this … and that … lawful … but these … expenses … this, then, … [4]
and the public … military … and … ruin … it was possible … the boy
as … and upon himself … himself … and that he regretted that he even
had a son. He said he had a consolation in his misfortune, which was
that he had survived that brother-killer, who had endeavoured to
destroy the world. [5] And then he even added this ‘I know there are
many who would eagerly prefer to murder an emperor than survive
themselves. But I can say this about myself, that there is no one
who would hope or pray that I were destroyed.’ Whereupon Fulvius
Giogenianus shouted out ‘we have all prayed for that’.

[80.4.1] So although he was a man of this sort and had a name

appropriate to mimes and buffoonery, Comazo was commander of the
praetorian guard, never having been tested out in even a single position
of trust or leadership, except for his stint in the army. [2] He also
received consular honours, and afterwards even became consul and
prefect of the city, not only once, but twice and indeed three times,
which had never been never permitted to another man before. This too,
then, can be numbered among the most unlawful doings of Avitus. [3]
So Attalus died because of Comazo, and Triccianus on account of the
Albans, whom he had led in a disciplined way under Macrinus; Castinus
because he was efficient and known to many of the soldiers due to the
94 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

generalships he had held, and because he was acquainted with

Antoninus. [4] Consequently he had been spending his time in
Bithynia, where Macrinus had sent him for other reasons. But Avitus
killed him, but nonetheless he wrote to the Senate that he was
reinstating Castinus after his exile by Macrinus, as also Julius Asper. [5]
Sulla died too, who had governed Cappadocia, although he had been
removed from it, because he meddled in something, and because when
Avitus banished him from Rome he met with the Gaulish soldiers
coming home after wintering in Bithynia, where they had stirred up
trouble. [6] For such reasons these men were destroyed, and no message
about their fate was sent to the senate. And Seius Carus, the grandson of
Fuscian the prefect of the city, died because he was rich and important
and intelligent; the pretext was that he too had associated with some
soldiers encamped on the Alban Mount (he heard the evidence against
him in the palace, Avitus alone prosecuting, and he died there too). [7]
Valerius Paetus was killed because he modelled some gold-plated
images of himself as decorations for his mistress; these were the grounds
for the accusation that he was going to go to Cappadocia, next to his
home province (he was Galatian), intent on revolution, and this was
why he was making gold pieces featuring his own engraved image.

2. Herodian: History of the Empire after Marcus (c. 240)

Translated from the Greek
[3.8.4-5] Severus went to the sanctuary of Jupiter, carried out the
remaining rites and headed back to the palace, whereupon he
distributed large handouts to the people, to celebrate his victories. But
he gave the most to the soldiers, and conceded many other things that
had not previously been allowed. He first increased their provision-
money, then permitted them to wear gold rings and to cohabit with
their wives. These were all measures which were usually considered to
be deleterious to military self-control, war-readiness and preparation.
And he was the first to overturn altogether their robust and austere
mode of life, obedience in carrying out their duties, and discipline and
modesty towards their generals: he taught them to hunt after money
and diverted them towards luxury.

[4.2] It is Roman custom to deify the emperors when they die and their
children succeed them: they call this honour apotheosis. Grieving can
be seen throughout the city, along with feasting and worship. For they
bury the body of the dead man in a lavish funeral, as humans do; they
 Herodian: History of the Empire after Marcus 95

make a wax image identical to the dead man and put it on top of a huge
ivory bier, on which is spread bedding made of gold cloth. This they set
up at the entrance to the palace. This image lies there looking like
someone pale and ill, and the mourners sit around the bier for most of
the day. All the senators sit on the left-hand side, wearing black cloaks,
and on the right sit all the women whose husbands or fathers are of a
high enough rank for such an honour. None of them sports any gold
ornaments or is decked out with gold necklaces. They wear blank white
clothes and look like mourners. For seven days these rituals are carried
out ; and periodically doctors will approach the bier and go up to it,
giving it an actual examination, and each time announcing that the
invalid’s condition is more serious. When he appears to have died, the
most well-born of the order of knights and chosen young men of the
senate lift up the bier and carry it along the Sacred Way.
They take it to the old forum, where Roman consuls resign their year
in office. On either side platforms are set up like seats in a theatre; on
one side a chorus of the noblest and most well-born children stands, on
the opposite side of women who have the best reputation. They each
sing hymns and paeans to the dead man, which are perfectly rendered
in a solemn and dirge-like measure. After this they lift up the bier and
carry it outside the city to a plain called the Campus Martius, where a
square and even-sided construction is built in the flattest part of the
plain. It consists only of wood, great planks forming a framework that
looks like a house, and it is filled inside with firewood. The outside is
decorated with sheets of gold-embroidered cloth and ivory ornaments,
along with beautiful pictures. On top of this another smaller building is
placed, the same shape and similarly decorated, with open gates and
doors. A third and a fourth are added, each one smaller than the one
below it, until the smallest one is put on. You could compare the layout
of the building to the beacon-towers which are placed in harbours and
at night lead ships into safe landing-points with their fire; most people
call these Pharoi.
They carry the bier up and place it in the second of these buildings,
scattering and pouring out spices and incense of every type which the
earth supplies, and every fruit and herb on the planet which is gathered
for its pleasant smell. There is no tribe or city, or person of rank or
honour, who does not compete for glory by sending these last gifts to
honour the emperor. And when this great mound of spices has been
piled up and the whole place is full, an exercise on horseback is
performed around the building, and the entire order of knights forms
up in a wheeling formation and rides round in a circle, following a
96 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

pyrrhic course and rhythm. A similar formation of chariots goes

around, carrying riders wearing purple-edged robes, and wearing
masks with the likenesses of Romans who have led armies or governed
successfully.
When all this is done the man who is to take on the empire picks up
a torch and lights the building, and the rest kindle the fire from every
side. The fire easily and swiftly catches the whole thing, the quantities of
firewood and incense being set alight. And from the last and smallest
building , as though from a battlement, an eagle is let loose, escaping
with the fire into the sky; it is believed by the Romans to carry the
soul of the emperor from the earth to heaven, and afterwards he is
worshipped along with the rest of the gods.

[4.4] The hatred and discord kept increasing. Whenever generals or

governors had to be appointed, each one sought to favour his own
friends, and if they were judging a case, they always took opposing views
– this sometimes had fatal results for those whose cases they were in
charge of. They were far keener to argue than to provide justice. They
even supported different teams at shows. They were always preparing
every kind of plot, bribing wine-waiters and cooks to use fatal poisons.
Neither had great success, since each led his life carefully and constantly
on his guard. Finally, Antoninus [Caracalla], driven by his desire to rule
alone, could bear it no longer. He resolved to strike out or fall with
dignity, to resort to cold steel and murder. Since his furtive plotting had
not met with success, he was driven by necessity to dangerous and
desperate measures.
…
Geta, mortally wounded, gushed blood on his mother’s breast, and
relinquished his hold on life. And Antoninus, the murder accomplished,
sprang at a run out of the chamber and rushed through the whole
palace, yelling about the great danger he had escaped, and how he had
barely survived. He ordered the soldiers who were on guard at the palace
to surround him and take him off to the camp, saying that he might be
safe if guarded there, while he would be killed if he stayed in the palace.
They believed him, not knowing what had happened inside, and they all
set off, carrying him along at a run. This caused disorder as the people
saw the emperor being hurried through the middle of the city during
the evening. So Antoninus rushed into the camp and into the sanctuary
there, prostrating himself before the camp standards and images. He
threw himself to the ground and pledged thank-offerings and made
sacrifices in gratitude for his deliverance. As the news went around the
 Historia Augusta 97

soldiers, some of whom were having baths, and others of whom were
asleep, they all ran together, stricken by panic. Antoninus appeared, but
did not say exactly what had happened; rather he shouted that he had
evaded the perilous scheming of an enemy of himself and of the state
(which is to say his brother), and that he had scarcely prevailed, after a
great struggle, over this enemy; both of them had been in danger, and
fate had protected one emperor. Expressing himself in this oblique sort
of way, he wanted what he had done to be understood rather than
actually heard. And he promised them 2,500 Attic drachmas per soldier,
and he added half again of what they were already paid in the provision-
money. He told them to go and take the money from the temples and
treasuries, lavishly bedewing on them in one day everything which
Severus had taken eighteen years to gather and store away after he had
taken it from others. This great amount of money caught the soldiers’
attention, and now understanding the situation (because those who had
fled from inside the palace were telling of the murder), they publicly
proclaimed Antoninus emperor and announced that Geta was an
enemy of the state.

[7.3. 5] After Maximinus had ruined most of the distinguished men and
seized their land, he began to consider this to be small and insignificant
and not enough for his purposes, and he turned to the public treasuries.
He took for his personal profit all money which had been collected for
the common people’s benefit or for gifts, and all the funds which were
kept for games or religious festivals. He handed over to the mints the
dedications to the temples, the statues of the gods, the honours of divi,
and decorations on public buildings or the city adornments, in short,
any material suitable to make into coins.

3. Historia Augusta (late fourth century)

Translated from the Latin
a. Life of Gallienus
[2.6] In Illyricum, having with him one of his sons and commanding
30,000 soldiers, he engaged in battle with a general of the emperor
Aureolus, with the name of Domitian, who had assumed power against
Gallienus.

[13.1–5] At the same time, Odaenathus was treacherously slain by his

cousin, and with him his son Herodes, whom he himself had called
imperator. Then Zenobia, his wife, herself took power, because his
98 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

remaining sons, Herennianus and Timolaus, were too young. She ruled
for a long time, neither womanlike nor in a feminine way, but with more
courage and intelligence not just than Gallienus – any girl could have
ruled better than him – but even than many other emperors. As to
Gallienus, when he heard that Odaenathus was killed, he prepared for
war with the Persians as a late vindication of his father, and acted like an
intelligent princeps after his general Heraclianus had gathered soldiers.
However, this Heraclianus, when he was set against the Persians, was
defeated by the Palmyrenes and lost all the soldiers which he had
gathered, since Zenobia was ruling Palmyra and the East with the
strength of a man.

[13.6-8] At the same time the Scythians crossed the Euxine [Black] Sea,
entered Histrum, and committed many atrocities on Roman soil. When
he found out about these Gallienus put the Byzantines Cleodamus and
Athenaeus in charge of restoring and fortifying the cities. There was a
battle near Pontus, and the barbarians were defeated by the Byzantine
generals. The Goths were then defeated in a naval battle at sea, with
Venerianus acting as admiral, but Venerianus hiself died during the
fighting. Then they devastated Cyzicum and Asia, and finally all of
Greece, but they were defeated by the Athenians, who were led by
Dexippus, a historian of the time. Ejected from that area they wandered
through Epirum, Macedonia and Boeotia.

b. Life of Tacitus
[9.5] He ordered that a temple be built to the deified emperors, in which
should be the statues of the good principes, so that libations might be
given to them on their birthdays, on the Parilia, and on the Kalends of
January for the Vows.

4. Sextus Aurelius Victor: Book of the Caesars (c. 361)

Translated from the Latin
[26] After these two had possessed the highest power for two years, and
had prosecuted a war against the Germans with some success, all of
a sudden the army made Antonius Gordianus, proconsul of Africa,
emperor at the town of Thydrum, although he was not there. This alone
could not make him emperor: when he was summoned back, he
reached Thydrum to find a mutiny in progress. However, he easily
calmed it and made for Carthage. There, in the hope of averting bad
 Sextus Aurelius Victor: Book of the Caesars 99

omens, the fear of which made him quite reasonably anxious, he

performed the customary auguries, whereupon one of the victims
promptly gave birth. The soothsayers, and indeed he himself (for he was
excessively knowledgeable in the use of this science) took this to mean
that he was destined to die, but that he would produce the empire
for his children. They went on further with their prophecy, also
announcing the death of his son, saying that he would be as gentle and
harmless as the victim, but that he would not last long, and would be
surrounded by conspiracies. Meanwhile it was reported at Rome that
Gordianus had actually died, and at the urging of Domitius the
praetorian cohorts openly slew the prefect of the city and the other
magistrates. In fact Gordianus, after he realised that he had attained the
imperial power, had held out the promise of generous rewards and sent
legates and letters to Rome. Since he was dead the soldiers had become
frustrated and angst ridden, they being the type rather greedy for
money, and only ever in search of promises and gifts. But the Senate
were afraid that without anyone in charge even more horrible things
might befall the city, which already looked as though it had been
captured. First they took turns, then they entrusted power to their
juniors, making Clodius Pupienus and Caecilius Balbinus Caesars.

[27] While they made their way through Africa the soldiers appointed
Gordianus and his son Augusti. The boy, though under age, had been
accompanying his father, and was subsequently made praetorian
prefect. The nobles did not in fact object to this deed. At last he was
summoned to Rome, where the bands of praetorians were destroyed in
battle from the top to the very bottom of the city by fighting-parties of
gladiators and an army of raw recruits. While all this was occurring at
Rome the two Julii Maximini, who were be in Thrace at the time, heard
of what was happening and immediately set out for Italy. Pupienus
Aquileia laid siege to them and defeated them in battle, whereupon the
remainder of their army little by little deserted, and they were killed.
With delays of this sort their reign was extended into a third year. With
little military uproar Clodius and Caecilius were killed at Rome inside
the palace and Gordianus became sole emperor. In that year he renewed
and expanded the lustral games, which Nero had introduced to Rome,
and set out for Persia, first opening the gates of the temple of Janus,
which Marcus had closed, in the traditional manner. There he waged
war successfully, but perished in his sixth year in power as the result of
a conspiracy by Marcus Philippus the Praetorian Prefect.
100 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

[32] But the soldiers, who had been gathered from all sides because of
the war that was threatening, and were waiting around in Raetia,
conferred power on Licinius Valerianus. Although he was of noble
enough family, he was engaged in military service, as was the habit at
that time. The Senate made his son Gallienus Caesar, and although it
was high summer the Tiber promptly overflowed, as though in spate.
Wise men prophesied danger to the state from the young man’s fickle
nature, because he had been in Etruria when he was summoned, where
the ominous flood also came from. And indeed this is what immediately
happened: his father was waging a lengthy and indeterminate war in
Mesopotamia when he was captured by the foul trickery of the Persian
king, who was called Sapor. He was torn to pieces and died in his sixth
year as emperor, in fairly hale old age.

[33] At the same moment plague devastated Rome, which happens

often in periods of intolerable fears, when minds despair. [Gallienus]
himself, when this was going on, visited bars and eating places, retained
friendship with pimps and drunks, and gave too much attention to his
wife Salonina and to an embarrassing affair with the daughter of a king
of the Germans, Attalus, whose name was Pipa. For this reason, far more
dreadful civil wars erupted. Because first of all Postumus, who turned
out to be in charge of the barbarians in Gaul, took imperial power. After
he had chased away a tribe of Germans, he fought a war with Laelian.
Him he defeated just as easily, but he then fell through rebellion of his
own men. Apparently, notwithstanding their insistence, he had refused
to allow them to plunder the inhabitants of Mainz for supporting
Laelian …
… In fact senators were annoyed [by Gallienus] about abusing their
ranks, because on top of the general evil of the Roman world, he was
the first to forbid senators to engage in a military career or enter into
the army, because he was afraid that the imperial power would be
transferred to the best of the nobiles because of his own indolence. He
was in power for nine years.

[36] Finally, then, about half a year after Aurelian’s death, the Senate
made Tacitus emperor, one of the ex-consuls. He was indeed a gentle
man, and almost all were happier since senators had regained from the
arrogant soldiers the right to elect the emperor. But this happiness was
short, nor was the end tolerable. Because Tacitus died as soon as the two
hundreth day of his reign at Tyana. But earlier he had tortured to death
those responsible for the death of Aurelian, and especially their leader
 Eutropius: Breviarium 101

Mucapor, who had actually killed him. And his [Tacitus’] brother
Florianus took power, without any advice of the senate or the military.

[37] … From this moment onwards, the power of the soldiers increased,
and the right of the Senate to create emperors disappeared for as long as
we can remember. It is uncertain whether the Senate wanted this for
indifference and fear, or for hatred of conflicts. It could have regained
the right to military careers, which had been forbidden in the edict
that Gallienus had issued, during the reign of Tacitus, when the legions
were amenable. Florianus would not have dared take power through the
decision of ordinary soldiers, nor would it have been given to anyone,
who thought it right, if that most eminent order had been serving in the
forts …

[39] … Their native land was actually Illyricum: and although they
had little concern with culture, they were sufficiently seasoned in the
hardship of countryside and military camp to be the best rulers for the
state. Therefore it is clear that men are better made respectable and
mindful by suffering hardship. Those who have not suffered hard times
and judge everybody by their own experiences are, on the other hand,
less thoughtful.

5. Eutropius: Breviarium (c. 369)

Translated from the Latin
[8.16] Pertinax succeeded him, now an old man who had reached his
seventies. He was then prefect of the city and was ordered to rule by
decree of the senate. On the eightieth day of his reign plotting by the
praetorian guard and the wickedness of Julianus led to his death.
[8.17] After him Salvius Julianus took up the empire; he was a
nobleman and extremely learned in law, the grandson of that Salvius
Julianus who had composed the edict promulgated by the Divine
Hadrian at the start of his reign. He was defeated by Severus at the
Milvian Bridge and was murdered in the palace. He lived for seven
months after he began to rule.
[8.18] After him Septimius Severus received the running of the
Roman Empire. He came from Africa, from Lepcis in the province
of Tripolitania. He was the only emperor in memory both before or
afterwards to come from Africa. He was first advocate of the treasury,
then military tribune, and he came to the administration of the entire
empire by way of many and varied positions and honours. He wanted
102 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

to be called Pertinax in honour of the Pertinax who had been killed by

Julianus. He was quite thrifty, and savage by nature. He succesfully
waged many wars. He killed Pescennius Niger, who had raised a
rebellion in Egypt and Syria. He conquered the Parthians, the inner
Arabs and the Adiabenes and was consequently called Parthicus,
Arabicus, Adiabenicus. He restored many things throughout the Roman
world. Under him even Clodius Albinus, who had been an accomplice
of Julianus in killing Pertinax, and who had made himself Caesar in
Gaul, was defeated and slain at Lugdunum.
[8.19] But Severus, in addition to his success in war, was even famous
for his civilian enthusiasms: he was learned in literary matters and had
fully grasped the knowledge of philosophy. He started campaigning in
Britain again and protected the provinces he gained in perfect safety
behind a wall which he built for 132 miles, from sea to sea. He died quite
an old man at Eboracum, sixteen years and three months into his reign.
He was made a god. He also left two sons to be his successors, Bassianus
and Geta, though he asked the senate to decree the name of Antoninus
upon Bassianus. So he was called Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Bassianus
and succeeded his father. Geta had been named an enemy of the state
and promptly died.
[8.20] Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Bassianus, then, also known as
Caracalla, was almost the same as his father in moral character, but a
little harsher and more sinister. He made an outstanding contribution
to Rome, in the form of baths which were known as the thermae
Antoninianae, but did little else memorable. His lust was unrestrained,
and he married his step-mother Julia. He died in Osdroena at Edessa, in
the process of leading an expedition against Parthia, in the second
month of the sixth year of his reign. He was only just forty-four and was
given a public burial.
[8.21] Then Opilius Macrinus, who was praetorian prefect, was
made emperor along with his son Diadumenus. They had no time for
anything memorable: their reign lasted all of a year and two months.
They were both killed at the same time in a military rebellion.
[8.22] After them Marcus Aurelius Antoninus was chosen. People
thought he was the son of Antoninus Caracalla, but he was actually a
priest in the temple of Heliogabalus. Although the soldiers and the
senate expected great things when he came to Rome, he defiled himself
with every vice. He lived unchastely and obscenely and after two years
and eight months he was slain when the soldiers rebelled, his mother
Symiasera with him.
[8.23] Aurelius Alexander succeeded him, acclaimed as Caesar by the
 Eutropius: Breviarium 103

army, and Augustus by the Senate. He was still a young man, and took
up war against the Persians, gloriously defeating Xerxes, their king.
He ruthlessly administered military discipline, discharging legions
wholesale when they rebelled. He had a judicial assessor or secretary
called Ulpian, who codified the law. He was extremely popular at Rome,
but died in Gaul when the soldiers rebelled, on the ninth day of his
thirteenth year in power. He was uniquely dutiful to his mother
Mamaea.

[9.1] After him Maximinus attained power from the ranks of the army,
in the first place only by the will of the soldiers; he had no senatorial
authority, nor was he a senator himself. He waged war successfully
against the Germans, whereupon he was acclaimed emperor by the
soldiers, but his troops deserted him, and Pupienus Aquileia killed him
along with his son; together they had ruled for three years and a few
days.
[9.2] Afterwards there were three Augusti at the same time, Pupienus,
Balbinus and Gordianus. The first two were of obscure family, while
Gordianus was a nobleman; indeed, his father, the elder Gordianus, had
been chosen during the reign of Maximinus as emperor by the soldiers
while he held proconsular authority in Africa. But when they came to
Rome Balbinus and Pupienus were murdered in the palace, leaving the
empire to Gordianus alone. Gordianus was still a boy when he married
Tranquillina at Rome, opened the gates of Janus Geminus and set out to
the East to wage war on Parthia, which was threatening disruptions. He
succeeded and humiliated the Persians in huge battles. On his way back
he was killed not far from the bounds of the empire by Philip, who
plotted against him and ruled after him. The soldiers raised a tomb for
him 20,000 yards from Circesium, which is now a Roman camp looking
out over the Euphrates, carried his remains back to Rome and acclaimed
him a god.
[9.3] The two Philippi, father and son, took up power after
Gordianus had been killed, and brought the army back safely to Italy
from Syria. While they were in charge the thousandth year of the city of
Rome was celebrated with great magnificence, games and spectacles.
The army then murdered them both, Philip the elder at Verona, the
younger at Rome. They ruled for five years; however, they were made
divine.
[9.4] After them Decius, who was born in Budalia, came to power
from Lower Pannonia. He put down a civil war which had begun in
Gaul, made his son Caesar and built a bath complex at Rome. When he
104 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

and his son had reigned for two years they were both murdered in
Barbaricum. The father was deservedly enrolled among the gods.
[9.5] Soon Gallus Hostilianus and his son Volusianus were made
emperors. Under their rule Aemilianus stirred up revolution in Moesia;
they were on their way to putting this down when they were killed,
dying at Interamna without managing to reach two years in power. They
did nothing particularly impressive: their reign was notable only for
plague, sickness and famine.
[9.6] Aemilianus was born entirely unknown, ruled anonymously,
and was dead after three months.
[9.7] Licinius Valerianus, governor of Raetia and Noricum, followed
him, the army making him emperor and shortly afterwards Augustus.
Gallienus too was named Caesar by the Senate in Rome. Their rule was
pernicious to the reputation of Rome, and was almost fatal, either
because the emperors were unlucky or because they were incompetent.
The Germans reached Ravenna. Valerianus, waging war in Meso-
potamia, was defeated by Sapor, the Persian king, and was shortly
afterwards even taken prisoner, growing old in Parthia in ignoble
servitude.
[9.8] Gallienus was made Augustus while still a teenager, first ruling
successfully, then adequately, and eventually disastrously. As an
energetic young man he achieved much in Gaul and Illyricum, killing
Ingenuus, who had assumed the purple, at Mursa, and … Trebellianus.
For a long time he was calm and restrained, but eventually he fell into
every vice, losing his hold on the state through unforgivable apathy and
despair. The Alamanni laid waste to Gaul and penetrated Italy. Dacia,
which Trajan had extended past the Danube, was lost, and Greece,
Macedonia, Pontus and Asia were despoiled by the Goths. Pannonia was
plundered by the Sarmatians and the Quadi; Germans reached as far as
Spain and took that noble city Tarraco by storm, while the Parthians
occupied Mesopotamia and had begun to take their revenge on Syria.
[9.9] Now things seemed hopeless, and almost the whole Roman
Empire had been lost, when Postumus, with no background whatsoever,
assumed the purple in Gaul and ruled for ten years with such success
that his immense courage and restraint restored the provinces which
had been almost entirely consumed. A military rebellion killed him,
because he declined to hand over the town of Mogontiacum to the
soldiers to pillage. It had risen up against him, Laelianus fomenting the
revolt. After him Marius took up imperial power. He was the merest
workman, and was killed after two days. Victorinus subsequently came
to power in Gaul, an energetic man but too oversexed and given to
 Eutropius: Breviarium 105

breaking up other people’s marriages, so he was killed at Colonia

Agrippinensis by one of his quartermasters, who contrived a plot
against him in his second year of power.
[9.10] Tetricus the senator succeeded him, who had the rank of
governor, administering Aquitania. The army chose him as emperor in
his absence, and he donned the purple at Burdigala, and prevented
many other plots by the soldiers. But while these things were happening
in Gaul, Odaenathus was conquering the Persians in the East.
He defended Syria, won back Mesopotamia and reached as far as
Ctesiphon.
[9.11] So when Gallienus abandoned the state, the Roman Empire
was preserved by Postumus in the West and Odaenathus in the East.
Meanwhile Gallienus was killed in Mediolanum with his brother
Valerianus in his ninth year of power, and Claudius succeeded him;
he was chosen by the army, and the Senate named him Augustus. He
defeated the Goths who were ravaging Illyricum and Macedonia in a
great battle. A thrifty man, modest, tenacious in pursuit of justice and
fitted to ruling the empire, he nonetheless succumbed to illness before
two years were out. He was appointed a god and the Senate honoured
him greatly, dedicating a golden shield to him in the Senate house, and
a golden statue on the Capitol.
[9.12] Quintillus, brother of Claudius, was named emperor after him
with the agreement of the army, a man of unique restraint and humility,
the equal of his brother or perhaps superior. The senate agreed to
designate him Augustus and he was killed seventeen days into his reign.
[9.13] Aurelianus became emperor after him. He came from Dacia
Ripensis and was a powerful warrior, but had an immoderate spirit and
was rather prone to cruelty. He too vigorously defeated the Goths. He
recalled Roman authority to its former bounds by his success in several
wars. He defeated Tetricus in Gaul among the Catalauni; Tetricus
betrayed his own troops because he could not bear their constant
plotting. In fact, he had even entreated Aurelian in secret messages,
using this verse of Virgil among others: ‘take me from these evils,
unconquered one’. Aurelianus captured Zenobia too, not far from
Antioch, without serious warfare. She had ruled the East once her
husband Odaenathus had been killed. When he entered Rome he
enjoyed a celebrated triumph as saviour of East and West, Tetricus and
Zenobia walking before his chariot. As for those two, Tetricus was later
governor of Lucania and lived for a very long time as a private citizen;
Zenobia left descendants at Rome who still live there.
[9.14] While he ruled even the minters in the city rebelled and
106 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

debased the coinage, killing a financial officer called Felicissimus. Once

he had put down the riot Aurelianus punished them with extreme
cruelty. He condemned many noblemen to capital punishment. He
was a savage emperor, bloodthirsty, but necessary in some ways, rather
than ever lovable. There was constant slaughter, and he even killed his
nephew, but for the most part he put right military discipline and
dissolute morals.
[9.15] He built stronger walls around Rome and built a temple to the
sun, which he filled with an infinity of gold and jewels. He gave up the
province of Dacia, which Trajan had extended past the Danube, because
he did not see how he could save it, with all of Illyricum and Moesia
devastated. So he removed the Romans from the Dacian cities and fields
and gathered them together in the middle of Moesia, calling that Dacia,
which now divides two Moesias, and has the Danube flowing into the
sea on its right, where previously it was on the left. He was murdered
because of a slave’s trick: he went to certain soldiers with whom he was
friendly, and brought them a list of names which purported to show
that Aurelianus was about to kill them; the slave had copied his
handwriting. In order to stop him the soldiers killed him in the middle
of a journey along the old road between Constantinople and Heraclea;
the place is known as Caenophrurium. However, his death did not go
unavenged, and he deserved his elevation to the gods.
[9.16] After him Tacitus took power, a man equipped with the best
morals and well-suited to ruling the empire. Of course he could provide
nothing special when death overtook him within six months. Florianus,
who succeeded Tacitus, did nothing in his two months and twenty days
in power which is worth remembering.
[9.17] Probus, a man covered in military glory, took hold of the
rudder of state after him. He rescued Gaul from the barbarians who
were occupying it with a series of immensely successful battles. He
bested in battle anyone who tried to seize power, which is to say
Saturninus in the East, Proculus and Bonosus at Colonia Agrippinensis.
He permitted the Gauls and Pannonians to have vineyards, and used
soldiers to set up vineyards on Mount Alma in Sirmium and Aureum in
Upper Moesia, and he gave these to provincials to cultivate. After he had
waged innumerable wars he said that peace was on the horizon and
soon soldiers would no longer be needed. He was a sharp man, vigorous
and just, and he was the equal of Aurelianus in military glory,
but surpassed him in the peacefulness of his manners. He was still
murdered, in an iron-plated tower at Sirmium during a military revolt.
[9.18] Carus was made Augustus after him; he was born in Narbo in
 Festus: Breviarium 107

Gaul. He immediately made his sons Carinus and Numerianus Caesars.

But while he was waging war against the Sarmatians the news of an
uprising by the Persians was announced and he set off East to fight
against the Persian nobility. These he routed and took Coches and
Ctesiphon, those most noble cities. And while he was in camp above the
Tigris he was struck down by a thunderbolt from above. Numerianus
his son, whom he had brought with him as Caesar to Persia, was a young
man of outstanding natural talent and was having problems with his
eyes. Consequently, he was being carried in a litter, where he was killed
in a plot instigated by his father-in-law Aper. His death was deceitfully
kept hidden until Aper could seize power, but the lie was betrayed by the
evil smell of the corpse. For the soldiers who were following him were
disturbed by the stench and after some days they pulled away the
coverlets in his litter and his death was made known.
[9.19] Meanwhile Carinus, whom Carus, on setting out for Parthia,
had left as Caesar in charge of Illyricum, Gaul and Italy, abandoned
himself to every kind of wickedness. He killed many innocents on
trumped-up charges, ruined noble marriages, and even proved deadly
to school-fellows who had twitted him in the lecture room with even the
lightest banter. For these reasons everyone hated him and not much
later he paid the penalty. For the army, returning in victory from Persia,
since it had lost Carus the Augustus to lightning, and Numerianus the
Caesar to a conspiracy, made Diocletian emperor. He came from
Dalmatia, born in utmost obscurity, so much so that many believe
he was the son of a scribe, and some that he was the freedman of the
senator Anullinus.

6. Festus: Breviarium (c. 370)

Translated from the Latin
[23] It is revolting to recount the fortunes of the unfortunate emperor
Valerian. The soldiers had made Valerian emperor, and the senators
Gallienus. Valerian, then, joined battle against the Persians in Meso-
potamia, and was defeated by Shapur, the king of the Persians. He was
captured and withered away in dishonourable servitude. The Persians
would have started to make claims on Syria under Gallienus’ reign,
when they invaded Mesopotamia. But, shameful as it is to recount, the
Palmyrenian decurion Odaenathus gave fierce resistance after recruit-
ing a group of Syrian peasants. He dispersed the Persians several times,
and so not only managed to defend the border but even made way to
Ctesiphon, becoming, astonishingly, the avenger of Roman power.
108 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

[24] Zenobia, the wife of Odaenathus, added to the emperor

Aurelian’s glory, inasmuch as that when her husband died, she held
power over the East, through feminine influence. Aurelian, aided by
many thousands of armoured cavalry and archers, defeated her at
Immae, near Antioch, and led her imprisoned in front of his chariot at
his triumph in Rome.

7. Zosimus: New History (late fifth century)

Translated from the Greek
[1.39.2] While he was at Emesa celebrating a friend’s birthday, he
[Odaenathus] lost his life through a conspiracy. Then Zenobia took the
power of that region to herself. She was Odaenathus’ wife but had the
courage of a man and, helped by her husband’s friends, acted as well as
he had done in all respects.
[1.44.1] Now that the Scythians were scattered, losing a great number
of troops, as I have explained, Zenobia began to think about extending
her domain …
[1.49.1] When the emperor [Aurelian] heard that the Alamanni and
adjoining tribes intended to invade Italy, he was justifiably more
concerned for Rome and its vicinity than for the more remote areas of
the empire. He therefore ordered sufficient troops to stay defending
Pannonia and marched towards Italy. On his route, on the borders of
that country near the Ister, he slew many thousands of barbarians in one
battle. [2] At the same time, the situation in Rome was problematic.
Several senators were sentenced to death after being accused of
conspiring against the emperor. Rome, which before had no walls, was
surrounded with them. This work started in the reign of Aurelian and
was finished by Probus…
[1.50.1] When this was going on in Italy and Pannonia, the emperor
prepared to march against the Palmyrenians, who had conquered the
whole of Egypt and the East as far as Ancyra in Galatia. They would even
have acquired Bithynia as far as Chalcedon if the inhabitants of that area
had not shaken off Palmyrene oppression when they heard that
Aurelian was made emperor. [2] As soon as the emperor was on his way
to march there, Ancyra submitted to the Romans, and then Tuana and
all the cities between it and Antioch. He there found Zenobia ready to
fight with a large army, as was he, and fought with her as his honour
obliged him to do.
[1.54.1] Zenobia was naturally much upset by her defeat, and
therefore checked which measures she could take. All were of the
 Publius Aelius Aristides: To Rome 109

opinion that it would be sensible to give up all claims on Emesa, since

the Emesenes were set against her and friendly towards the Romans.
They advised her to remain within Palmyra, and that when they were
secure within that strong city they would discuss the important affairs
in tranquility .… [2] … [Aurelian] then marched immediately to
Palmyra, which he surrounded from all sides, whilst his troops were
given all kinds of provisions from the neighbouring provinces …
[1.55.1] … [The Palmyrenes] then determined to flee across the
Euphrates and ask the Persians to create new difficulties for the Romans.
[2] Having decided this, they placed Zenobia on a female camel, which
is the fastest of that kind of animals and much faster than a horse, and
transported her out of the city. Aurelian was very displeased about
Zenobia’s escape, and according to his tendency for action, he sent out
cavalry in pursuit of her. [3] They succeeded in taking her when she was
crossing the Euphrates in a boat and brought her to Aurelian. He was
pleased at the sight, but with his ambitious character he became uneasy
when he thought that in future times it would do no good to his honour
to have conquered a woman.
[1.56.2] … [Aurelian] returned to Emesa, after having made himself
master of the city with all the riches it contained, and brought Zenobia
and her accomplices to trial. When Zenobia came into court she pleaded
strongly in her own defence, putting forward many men who had
seduced her, a simple woman …

8. Publius Aelius Aristides: To Rome (143)

Translated from the Greek
[60] What a city is for its frontiers and territories, this city is for the
whole world. It is, after all, selected as the general capital for the entire
empire. You could say that all those who live in surrounding areas or –
constitutionally – in a different country come together around one and
the same fortress. She has never rejected anyone and, in fact, takes in all
the people of the world, as the ground of the earth carries everybody.
She has the following in common with the sea, which, after all does not
increase through the rivers’ discharge, since fate has decided that she
will remain of the same size notwithstanding this increase. Similarly,
nothing in the city changes because of its size. As men hide something
away in the folds of their clothing, so she accepts and stores away
everything, whilst she is and looks the same, despite the arrival and
departure of people. [61] We have touched upon this in passing, since it
was mentioned. As stated, you, great men, have founded a great city. You
110 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

have not made her outstanding by emphasising that nobody could share
in this city. No, on the opposite, you have tried to give her a worthy
citizenry. ‘Roman’ you made not just the name of a city but a common
people, that is not just one people amongst many, but the one opposing
all others. [62] For you do not divide the peoples into Greeks and
barbarians, but have divided the peoples into Roman and non-Romans.
And you have, in their eyes, not made that division ridiculous, since you
– so to speak – have made your city appear to have a higher number of
inhabitants than all Greeks combined. To that extent, you have enlarged
your city in name. Because of this classification there are at least as many
citizens in every town as there are people of their own tribe, even if some
of those have never seen the city. There is no need for garrisons on the
fortresses. For the greatest and most powerful people of every location
guard their own native cities for you. In that way you control the cities
doubly: from here, and from each within.

9. The Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle

(mainly written before or in 253)
Translated from the Greek
[1–6] The pure deathless imperishable god who gives power to kings
and takes it away, and he has ordained the time both of life and of
ruinous death for them, commands me to sing an inspired song. The
heavenly God commands me on the one hand, against my will, to
announce these things to kings about the empire of Rome …

[7–12] … and a spear, swift Ares, all will be destroyed by him, childish
and old he will give justice in the market-places; for there will be many
wars and battles and killings of men and famines and plagues and
terrible earthquakes and lightning strikes and lightning bolts through-
out the entire world, and robbery and the desecration of temples.

[13–20] Then there will be an uprising of the evil Persians, Indians,

Armenians, and Arabs at the same time; the Roman king, insatiate of
war, will draw near to them, driving warriors against the Assyrians, a
new Ares; this warlike Ares will go as far as the deep-flowing, silver-
eddied Euphrates, hurling his spear, he will fall in the ranks, smitten
by gleaming iron because of jealousy and moreover betrayed by a
companion.

[21–34] Then straight away will rule a lover of purple and a warrior,
 The Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle 111

appearing from Syria, the dread of Ares, together with Caesar his son,
and he will pacify the entire earth: one name will attach to both of them:
upon the first and twentieth five hundreds will be placed. When they
will rule in wars and become lawgivers, there will briefly be an end to
war, not for long: when the wolf shall swear oaths to the dogs of
gleaming teeth against the flock he will ravage, harming the wool-
fleeced sheep, and he will break the oaths and then there will be the
lawless strife of arrogant kings, in wars the Syrians will perish terribly,
Indians, Armenians, Arabs, Persians, and Babylonians will ruin each
other in mighty battles.

[35–49] When the Roman Ares destroys the German, defeating the life-
destroying Ares of Ocean, then there will be long war for the Persians,
arrogant men, and victory will not be with them; for just as a fish does
not swim on the top of the cliff of lofty, many-ridged, wind-blown, sun-
beaten rock, nor a turtle fly nor an eagle swim in water, even so shall the
Persians be very far from victory at that time, as long as the dear nurse
of the Italians situated in the plain by the renowned stream of the Nile
shall bear the portion of harvest to seven-hilled Rome. The limit for this
has been set. For your name contains in numbers the expanse of time
allotted to you, Rome, and for that number of years will the great god-
like city of the Macedonian king willingly provide you with grain.

[81–8] After him another great-hearted king will rule mighty, flour-
ishing Rome, skilled in war, emerging from the Dacians, of the number
three hundred; he will be of the fourth race and destroy many, then
indeed the king will destroy all the brothers and friends of the
slaughtered kings, and immediately there will be spoliation and murder
of the faithful because of the former king.

[100–2] … then the king of the Italians will fall in battle, smitten by
gleaming iron, in a state of disarray; and his sons will be destroyed with
him.

[103–12] When another king of Rome will rule, then ruinous Ares with
his bastard son will bring the disorderly races against the Romans,
against the wall of Rome. And then suddenly there will be famine,
plagues, dreadful lightning bolts, horrible wars, and destruction of
cities. The Syrians will be terribly destroyed, for the great wrath of the
lord on high will arise against them. There will be an uprising of the evil
Persians, and Syrians joined with Persians will destroy the Romans;
112 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

but they will not master the things ordained in the divinely wrought
plan.

[155–71] When two war-swift lordly men will rule the mighty Romans,
one will show forth the number seventy, while the other will be of the
third number; and the high-necked bull digging the earth with his hoofs
and rousing the dust on his double horns will do much harm to the
dark-hued serpent cutting a furrow with its scales; then he will be
destroyed. After him again another will come, a well-horned hungry
stag in the mountains desiring to feed his stomach with the venom-
spitting beasts; then will come the sun-sent, dreadful, fearful lion,
breathing much fire. With great and reckless courage he will destroy the
well-horned swift stag and the great, venom-spitting, fearsome beast
discharging many shafts and the bow-footed goat; fame will attend him;
perfect, unblemished, and awesome, he will rule the Romans and the
Persians will be feeble.

[172–3] But king, lord of the world, god, put an end to the song of my
words, give them a charming song.

10. Res Gestae Divi Saporis (after 260)

Original in Middle Persian, Parthian and Greek
[1] I, the Mazda worshipping lord Shapur, king of kings of Iran and
non-Iran, whose lineage is from the Gods, son of the Mazda wor-
shipping divinity Ardashir, king of kings of Iran, whose lineage is from
the Gods, grandson of king Papak, am ruler of Iranshahr, [and I hold ?]
the lands: Persis, Parthia, Khuzistan, Mesene, Assyria, Adiabene, Arabia,
Azerbaijan, Armenia, [2] Georgia, Segan [Makhelonia = Mingrelia],
Arran [Albania], Balasakan, up to the Caucasus mountains and the
Gates of Albania, and all of the mountain chain of Pareshwar, Media,
Gurgan, Merv, Herat and all of Aparshahr, Kerman, Seistan, Turan,
Makuran, Paradene, Hindustan [India = Sind], the Kushanshahr up
to Peshawar, and up to Kashgar, Sogdiana and to the mountains of
Tashkent, and on the other side of the sea, Oman. And we have given to
a village district the name Peroz-Shapur and we made Hormizd-
Ardashir by name Shapur.[3] And these many lands, and rulers and
governors, all have become tributary and subject to us. When at first we
had become established in the empire, Gordian Caesar raised in all of
the Roman Empire a force from the Goth and German realms and
marched on Babylonia [Assyria] (Asuristan) against the Empire of Iran
 Res Gestae Divi Saporis 113

and against us. On the border of Babylonia at Misikhe, a great ‘frontal’

battle occurred. Gordian Caesar [4] was killed and the Roman force was
destroyed. And the Romans made Philip Caesar. Then Philip Caesar
came to us for terms, and to ransom their lives, gave us 500,000 denars,
and became tributary to us. And for this reason we have renamed
Misikhe Peroz-Shapur. And Caesar lied again and did wrong to
Armenia. Then we attacked the Roman Empire and annihilated at
Barbalissos a Roman force of 60,000 [5] and Syria and the environs of
Syria we burned, ruined and pillaged all. In this one campaign we
conquered of the Roman Empire fortresses and towns: the town of
Anatha with surroundings, (Birtha of Arupan ?) with surroundings,
Birtha of Asporakan, the town of Sura, Barbalissos, Manbuk,
[Hierapolis], [6] Aleppo [Berroia ?], Qennisrin [Khalkida], Apamea,
Rhephania, Zeugma, Urima, Gindaros, Armenaza, Seleucia, Antioch,
[7] Cyrrhe, another town of Seleucia, Alexandretta, Nicopolis, Sinzara,
Hama, Rastan, Dikhor, Dolikhe, Dura, [8] Circusium, Germanicia,
Batna, Khanar, and in Cappadocia the towns of Satala, Domana,
Artangil, Suisa, Sinda, Phreata, [9] a total of 37 towns with sur-
roundings. In the third campaign, when we attacked Carrhae and Urhai
[Edessa] and were besieging Carrhae and Edessa Valerian Caesar
marched against us. He had with him a force of 70,000 from Germany,
Raetia, Noricum, Dacia, Pannonia, Moesia, Istria, Spain, Africa (?),
Thrace, [10] Bithynia, Asia, Pamphylia, Isauria, Lycaonia, Galatia, Lycia,
Cilicia, Cappadocia, Phrygia, Syria, Phoenicia, Judaea, Arabia,
Mauritania, Germania, Rhodes [Lydia], Osrhoene (?), [11] Meso-
potamia. And beyond Carrhae and Edessa we had a great battle with
Valerian Caesar. We made prisoner ourselves with our own hands
Valerian Caesar and the others, chiefs of that army, the praetorian
prefect, senators; we made all prisoners and deported them to Persis.
And Syria, Cilicia and Cappadocia [12] we burned, ruined and pillaged.
In that campaign we conquered of the Roman Empire the town of
Samosata, Alexandria on the Issus, Katabolos, Aegaea, Mopsuestia,
Mallos, Adana, Tarsus, Augustinia, [13] Zephyrion, Sebaste, Korykos,
Anazarba ([Agrippas]), Kastabala, Neronias, Flavias, Nicopolis,
Epiphaneia, [14] Kelenderis, Anemurion, Selinus, Mzdu- [Myonpolis],
Antioch, Seleucia, Dometiopolis, Tyana, Caesarea [Meiakariri],
Komana [15] Kybistra, Sebasteia, Birtha, Rakundia, Laranda, Iconium,
altogether all these cities with their surroundings. And men of the
Roman Empire, of non-Iranians, [16] we deported. We settled them in
the Empire of Iran in Persis, Parthia, Khuzistan, in Babylonia and in
other lands where there were domains of our father, grandfathers and of
114 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

our ancestors. We searched out for conquest many other lands, and we
acquired fame for heroism,which we have not engraved here, except for
the preceding. We ordered it written so that whoever comes after us may
know [17] this fame, heroism and power of us …

11. Lactantius: On the Deaths of the Persecutors (c. 315)

Translated from the Latin
[5.1] And not much later, Valerian, in a not dissimilar frenzy also raised
his impious hands to attack god and shed much righteous blood,
although for a short period. But god made him suffer punishment in a
new and singular way, so that it might be noted for later that the
opponents of god always receive the rewards of their evils. [2] Having
been captured by the Persian, this man not only lost the power which he
had put to improper use, but even his freedom, of which he had
deprived others, and lived in the most horrendous slavery. [3] Because
Shapur, the king of the Persians, who had captured him, commanded
the Roman to bend over and show his back whenever he wanted to step
onto his carriage or mount his horse and, having placed his foot on his
[Valerian’s] back, said reproaching him with a smile, that this was the
truth, and not the things which the Romans depicted on boards
and plaster. [4] And he lived long under the deserved insults of his
conqueror, so that for long the name of the Romans was ridiculed and
derided by the barbarians. [5] And this made his punishment even
worse, that he had a son who was emperor, but that neither his capture
nor his extreme slavery was avenged, and that he was never demanded
back. [6] Afterwards, when he had finished his shameful life in such a
disgrace, he was flayed and his skin was stripped and dyed in red colour,
and placed in the temple of the gods of the barbarians so that the
memory of such a splendid triumph might be continued, and this
was always shown to our ambassadors, so that when they saw the
remainders of their captured princeps with their [Persian] gods, they
would not trust too much in their own strength.

12. P. Herennius Dexippus: Scythica (c. 275)

Translated from the Greek
[F26 (F23)]
Decius, emperor of Rome, was afraid of the power of the Thracians,
fearing that a rebellion against his right to rule might come out of it. He
wrote them a letter in which he tried to prevent them taking action
 P. Herennius Dexippus: Scythica 115

against the enemy, concealing the intention behind this thought; he

endeavoured to make them alarmed, saying that such unwarlike men
should proceed no further nor put to the test their untried courage until
help from him arrived.

[F28 (F25)]
‘… And wars are decided by endurance rather than by numbers. We
have no slight power; 2,000 of us altogether are mustered, and we have
a well-fortified post, from which we must make sorties in groups and
afflict the enemy, attack them, and ambush them as they pass. By these
methods we will gain the upper hand and in this way be powerful, and
we will inspire no little fear in the enemy. We will stand against their
battle-lines, and the fortifications of this place and the wood will
provide no less a defence than weapons.
As our enemies attack from below, they will be harassed by oppo-
nents they can hardly see, and they will have to fight against them in a
different place, and they will relax their battle formation, and not know
where to aim their arrows and spears; even when they fire them they will
miss, and instead they will keep being distressed by us. And from our
higher fenced-in position we will attack them with a sharp aim, and be
fairly safe as we do it, and not easy to stop.
As for hand-to-hand fighting, if it comes to that, you must bear in
mind that the greatest danger inspires the greatest zeal, and that in a
situation without hope of rescue resistance is all the readier; often what
seems hopeless turns out to happen, when men are forced by the
impossible and are fighting for reasons which are worthy of effort in
hope of vengeance. For there could not be any greater reasons for anger,
since our families and city are threatened by the enemy. And those who
have been forced to fight alongside them unwillingly may be persuaded
to join us if they see our resistance, in the hope of freedom for
themselves.
I gather that the emperor’s fleet is not far away and is ready to help us,
and if we join together with them we will make great inroads. And in
this matter I think we will inspire the rest of Greece to this same zeal. I
myself am set upon these actions; I won’t put myself out of the way of
danger or carry out an easier role, my heart is set on glory and I will
hazard all: I want to gain for myself the highest sorts of honour and not
to destroy my reputation in the city. And I advise you to realise this:
death comes upon all men, and to lose one’s life fighting for one’s city is
the most beautiful prize and brings everlasting glory.
And if, after these words, the city’s defeat strikes fear into anyone’s
116 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

heart, and he is consequently timid, he should know that most of the

other cities were taken through deception on the part of the enemy and
were laid waste because of rivalry amongst those who were opposing
them. Since it is possible for us to attack the barbarian army if it starts
to retreat, or withdraw if it resists, we will jointly bear … they will have
to use the passage, and crowded together … we shall be sufficient, we
will retreat in safety to the high ground and attack them as they walk,
and this will cause the enemy confusion as to what to do about us.
In all likelihood luck will be on our side; our cause, for which we fight
the wrongdoers, is most just, and the gods judge here as in most human
affairs, since they are very keen to lessen misfortune and to help
improve things. It is glorious that we have carried out our inherited role
and made these deeds an example of courage and freedom for Greece,
and wonderful to have a share in everlasting glory amongst both the
living and those yet to be born, showing by our deed that the spirit of
the Athenians is not broken in misfortune. We will take as our battlecry
our children and those we love the most; let us call on the propitious
ruling gods to preserve them, and form up our battle formation.’
This is what he said; the Athenians were much heartened by his
words (his speech was a powerful encouragement to resistance), and
demanded to be led into battle.

13. Dexippus Inscription (IG II 2 3669)

Translated from the Greek
After petitioning the council of the Areopagos and the council of the
750 and the people of Athens, his children honour the sacrosanct priest
Publius Herennius Dexippus Hermeius, son of Ptolemaeus, the rhetor
and historian, on account of his excellence. He held the post of king
among the six junior archons, the eponymous archonship, he chaired
the general assembly and presented games at the great Panathenaion at
his own expense.
Cecropia has begotten the best men, very glorious in courage and
words, and in the councils, one of whom is Dexippus, who descried the
long history of the age and pronounced it precisely; some things he saw
himself, and others he garnered from books: he found out the manifold
path of history. He was a man of great fame, who stretched his gaze
upon infinity and examined closely its long deeds. He had much-lauded
fame throughout Hellas, and the new-blown age gave Hellas to
Dexippus as the subject of his history. For that reason his children set up
their glorious father in stone fashion in return.
 Augsburg Inscription 117

14. Odaenathus Inscriptions from CIS (after 261/2)

Translated from the Palmyrene
[2.3946]
Statue of Septimius Odaenathus, King of Kings/ and restorer of the
whole East, the Septimii/ Zabda, chief of the great army, and Zabbai,
general of the army/ of Palmyra, potentissimi, erected this for their lord/
in the month of Ab, in the year 582 [August 271]

[2.3971]
For the safety and victory of Septimius
Vaballathus Athenodorus illustrious King of Kings,
Who is also corrector of the entire region, son of
Septimius Odaenathus King of Kings, and also
On behalf of Septimia Bath-Zabbai illustrious
Queen, mother of the sovereign King,
Daughter of Antiochus. Fourteen miles

15. Augsburg Inscription (11 September 260)

Translated from the Latin (AE 1993.1231)
In honour of the divine house/ .... of Severus ....
In honour of the divine house./ To the holy goddess Victory for
the barbarian peoples of the Semnoni/ or Juthungi on the/ eighth
and seventh days before the Kalends of May who were slain/ and put to
flight by soldiers from the province/ of Raetia. Also troops from the
Germanies and the local population./ Many thousands of Italian
captives were freed./ Fulfilling his vows/ Marcus Simplicinius Genialus,
rank-holding knight, having the position of commander/ with this
same army,/ set up this monument willingly and deservedly./ Dedicated
three days before the Ides of Sempember, when our master the
Emperor/ Postumus Augustus and Honoratianus were consuls.
In honour of the divine house. To the holy goddess Victory for the
barbarian peoples of the Semnoni or Juthungi who were slain and put
to flight on the eighth and seventh days before the Kalends of May
by soldiers from the province of Raetia, and also troops from the
Germanies and the local population. Many thousands of Italian captives
were freed. Fulfilling his vows Marcus Simplicinius Genialus, rank-
holding knight, having the position of commander with this same army,
set up this monument willingly and deservedly. Dedicated three days
before the Ides of Sempember, in the year when our master the Emperor
Postumus Augustus and Honoratianus were consuls.
118 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

16. Inscriptions from CIL

Translated from the Latin
[8.2728] Patience. Courage. Hope.
To Etruscus: ‘The Salditani, their most splendid city of Saldae and
I along with them, ask you, Sir, to encourage Nonius Datus, veteran
surveyor of the Third Augustan Legion, to come to Saldae, in order to
finish what remains of his work.’ I set out and encountered brigands on
the roads; I and my companions escaped naked and injured; I came to
Saldae; I foregathered with Clemens the procurator. He took me to the
mountain, where they were despairing over the useless labour put into
an underground passage, and had almost abandoned it, since the
boring-work which had been done was greater than the distance across
the mountain. It appeared that the tunnels had wandered away from
their straight course, so that the higher tunnel had headed right and
southwards, while the lower had also headed to its right, which is to say
towards the north: so the two parts were wandering apart, having
abandoned the straight course. But this straight course was marked out
over the mountain from East to West. So that there should be no
mistake by the reader regarding the tunnels: the ‘higher’ is that part
where the water runs into the tunnel, the lower that part which it comes
out of. When I was assigning the work, I divided it between marines and
Gaulish soldiers so that they would all know how to go about the boring
process, and they agreed to carry out the joint tunnelling through the
mountain in this way. So I had made the measurements, organised the
digging of the conduit and undertaken that it should be done according
to the plan which I had given to the procurator Petronius Celer. The
work carried out, the water flowed and Varus Clemens the procurator
dedicated it. Five measures.
So that my work on this conduit at Saldae might be even clearer,
I append some letters: from Porcus Vetustinus to Crispinus: ‘You
have been very generous, Sir, and especially in your kindness and
benevolence in summoning Nonius Datus and sending him to me so I
could discuss with him the work which he took charge of. So, although
I was being urged at the time also to hurry to Caesarea, instead I rushed
to Saldae, and inspected the conduit for water that had been successfully
begun, but would be a lengthy business, and which could not be
completed without the attention of Nonius Datus, who dealt with it
both diligently and responsibly. So I would have asked you to allow him
to remain with us for some months to carry out the work, if he had not
fallen prey to an illness contracted in the course of his excellent hard
work.
 Inscriptions from CIL 119

[13.7844]
[to Iupiter Optimus Maximus]/ and the genius of the place for/ the
safety of the empire Ma/ sius Ianuari and Ti/ tianus Ianuari have kept
their promise freely to the god who deserved it, under the care/of
Masius, mentioned above, and of Macer Acceptus, in [the consulship]
of Pius and Proclus (= ad 238)

[3.12336] [I] Good Fortune. Fulvius Pius and Pontius Proculus are
consuls. 17 days before the Kalends of January. Copied, inspected
and completed. From the register of petitions answered by our Lord
Emperor Caesar Marcus Antonius Gordianus, Pious, Fortunate,
Augustus, and displayed in the portico of the Baths of Trajan, in the
words which are written below.

[II] Given by Aurelius Pyrrus, soldier of the Tenth Praetorian Gordian

Cohort, Pious, Faithful, in the century of Proculus, of the same village,
a householder there.

[III] To Emperor Caesar Marcus Antonius Gordianus, Pious, Fortunate,

Augustus, a petition from the villagers of Skaptopara, also known as the
Greseitai. You have often, in replying to petitions, announced that in
this most fortunate and eternal time of your reign villages should be
settled and improved, rather than their inhabitants be ruined. This both
results in the security of mankind and benefits your most holy treasury.
Consequently we bring a lawful petition to your godliness, hoping that
you will graciously give your approval to us as we make our appeal in
this way. We inhabit and have our living in the aforementioned village,
which is very attractive: it has the use of thermal springs and lies
between two of the army camps in Thrace. Because of this the inhabi-
tants remained for a long time undisturbed and without the slightest
worry. Wanting for nothing, they fulfilled their taxes and other duties.
But when, in time, certain men began to inflict violence and to use force,
the village diminished. Two miles from our village there is an official,
well-publicised market. People go there to attend the market, which
lasts for fifteen days, but they do not stay near the market; they leave it
and come through to our village and force us to give them accom-
modation and much else to support them, without paying any money.
In addition to these, soldiers who are being sent elsewhere abandon
their route and come to us, forcing us to provide them with accom-
modation and provisions, without paying any sort of price. Governors
with proconsular authority stay with us, largely to use the springs, but
120 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

these are your procurators. We receive the authorities with the greatest
hospitality as we must, but since we cannot put up with the others, we
have made entreaties frequently to the governors of Thrace, who have
ordered, in accordance with your divine commands, that we must
remain unharassed. This is because we have demonstrated that we are
not able to submit to this behaviour at all, and instead we have it in
mind to leave our family farms because of the violence of those who
come to us. We tell you truly that the number of householders has
decreased from many to very few.
For some time the ordinances of the governors prevailed and we
were not troubled by requests for accommodation or the supply of
provisions, but as time went by many people again dared to stick close
to us, despising our private station. And so, since we really cannot bear
this weight, and since we truly are on the point, like the others, of
leaving our family farms, we beg your favour, unconquered Augustus:
that you order, by means of a divine reply in writing, everyone to keep
to his own road, and tell them not to leave the other villages and come
to ours, nor to compel us to furnish them with provisions without
charge or to provide accommodation for anyone we don’t have to;
because the governors frequently ordered that accommodation not
be given to anyone unless they had been sent on the service of the
governors or procurators. If we do keep being oppressed, we shall flee
our homes and the treasury will incur a great loss. So pity us in your
divine wisdom and let us remain in our own homes, so that we can pay
the holy taxes and other duties. And this will happen for us during your
most felicitous reign, if you order your divine words to be written up on
a stele and to be displayed publicly. And after we have received this as a
result of your Fortune we will be able to express our gratitude, which,
holding you in reverence, we feel already.

[IV] Let them recount: Pyrrhus the praetorian came to this meeting by
divine benevolence.
It seems to me that one of the gods has favoured the request at hand,
since the most divine emperor has devolved the decision about these
matters upon you, who was after all the first to have given public
declarations and edicts about them; this seems to me to be a work of
good fortune.
This was the petition: the village from which the soldier who is being
aided lies in the best part of our polity, the city of the Pautaliotes, with
a goodly share of mountain and plain; in addition it has hot water spas,
which are very suitable not only for pleasure, but also for bodily health
 Ağa Bey Köyü Petition 121

and healing. A nearby market is held frequently during the year, and
for fifteen days around the Kalends of October it is tax-free, and it
transpired that the apparent gains of this village in time turned into
losses: according to the aformentioned petition, often many soldiers
who were sojourning there would accost the village for hospitality and
oppressive services. Because of these improprieties this village, which
was previously rather wealthy and populous, has now instead been
reduced to the direst of straits. They made entreaties about these things
often to the governors, and while the decrees of some of them had effect,
afterwards they were entirely ignored through the habitual carrying out
of this sort of harassment. Because of this they by necessity fled to the
Augustus.

[V] Emperor Caesar Marcus Antonius Gordianus, Pious, Fortunate,

Augustus, to the villagers, through the soldier Pyrrhus their fellow
householder: this sort of quarrel, directed with entreaties …, ought to
be officially settled by the governor’s court, which has better knowledge
about the matters which will be brought up, rather than by the receipt
of an explicit decision in the form of an imperial written opinion. I have
written it. I have authorised it. Seals: 7.

17. Ağa Bey Köyü Petition (Severan or Philippian reign)

Translated from the Greek
… 23 in number, as also frumentarii … to see … along the thoroughfare
… And so that it might seem as though some excuse for such audacity
on their part remained, they seized nine men and put them in chains,
saying that they would send them to your most excellent procurators,
since the most excellent Aelius Aglaus was also carrying out the duties
of proconsul. And after the payment of a sum of money, consisting of a
ransom for his release of 1,000 Attic drachmas, they let one of the nine
go, but held back the remainder in fetters. And we do not know for sure,
most holy emperors, whether they will send them alive to the most
excellent Aglaus or treat them in the same way as they treated the earlier
ones. So we have done as much as wretched men, so cruelly deprived
of livelihood and kin, are able, which is to say we have told these
things both to your procurator of this administrative region, Aurelius
Marcianus, and to your most excellent procurators in Asia. So we are
your suppliants, holiest ever emperors, and of your divine reign, which
will never be outdone, and are being hindered from devoting ourselves
to our jobs of farming: the military police agents and other enemies
122 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

threaten us, and those of us who are left are in fear of our lives.
Consequently, we cannot devote ourselves to working the land, nor, in
future, obey the requirement to pay the imperial taxes and levies. We
beg that you will graciously accept our entreaty, and will command the
governor of the province and your most excellent procurators to punish
these misdeeds, to prevent access to the imperial estates, and to stop the
trouble which is caused us by the military police agents, who, on the
pretext of duties or liturgies, harry and disturb your farmers. For
everything which is ours has been since the time of our forefathers liable
to the most sacred treasury according to estate law. This is the truth,
which is told to your divinity. And if no legal remedy is imposed with
your celestial assurance upon those who have carried out these mis-
deeds, nor is any help forthcoming for the future, then those of us who
remain will not be able to bear the greed of the military police agents
and other enemies, about which we have entered this plea, and will be
forced to leave our ancestral hearths and the graves of our forefathers,
and to look for private land in order to keep ourselves safe. For those
who behave in this base manner prefer to leave alone those who live
there rather than your farmers. We will have to become exiles from the
imperial estates, on which we were born and grew up, and on which
from the time of our ancestors farmers have continued to keep faith in
the emperor’s word.

18. Papyrus of Isis to her Family (Berlin Papyrus no. 1,680)

Translated from the Greek
Isis to Termuthion her mother, very many greetings. I make suppli-
cations for you every day before the lord Sarapis and his fellow gods. I
wish you to know that I have arrived at Alexandria safe and sound in
four days. I send salutations to my sister and her children, and Eluath
and his wife, and Dioscorous and her husband and children … And if
Aio wishes to join the army, let him come; for everyone is in the army

19. Command of the Egyptian Prefect (PSI 446)

Translated from the Greek
I [the prefect of Egypt] am told that many of the soldiers demand boats
and beasts and persons improperly, without having a warrant, when
they travel through the country, and that sometimes they seize them by
force, and sometimes acquire them from the strategi, through prefer-
ence or flattery. The result of this is that private individuals are
 Damnatio Memoriae in a Papyrus 123

subjected to abuse and violence and that the army is blamed for greed
and injustice. The prefect commands that no person should ever be
given any contribution for travelling without a warrant.

20. The Constitutio Antoniniana (P.Giss. 40, col. 1.1–12)

The text between square brackets is a later reconstruction
(ad 212), translated from the Greek
Imperator Caesar Marcus Aurelius Augustus Antoninus Pius proclaims:
[…] rather […] the causes and the reasons […] that I render thanks to
the immortal gods for preserving me [when that conspiracy occurred],
in that way I believe that I should be able [magnificently and reverently]
to appropriately respond to their majesty, [if] I were able to lead [all
who are now my people] with all others who should join my people [to
the temples] of the gods. I give to all of those [who are under my rule
throughout] my whole empire, Roman citizenship, [though the just
claims of communities] should remain, with the exception of the
[ded]iticii. Because it is suitable that the [whole populace] ought not
only […] already to share in the victory […] my edict will expand the
majesty of the Roman [people …]

21. Digest (assembled in the sixth century)

Translated from the Latin
[1.3.33 (Ulpian)]
Long custom ought to be observed as right and law for those cases
which cannot be traced to written law

[1.3.40 (Modestinus)]
All law is made by consent, or set by necessity or sustained by custom

[1.5.17 (Ulpian)]
Those who are in the Roman world, have become Roman citizens
through a decree of the emperor Antoninus [Caracalla]

22. Damnatio Memoriae in a Papyrus (P.Diog. 3) (AD 209)

Translated from the Greek
Marcus Lucretius Diogenes, son of Marcus Lucretius Minor, from the
Hadrianic tribe, from the town of Zenios, about 32 years old, on behalf
of his son Herennas, his first year, 16th Poseidon or Toth, in the 18th
124 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

year of Severus and Antoninus and Geta, our lords Caesar … in the
18th year of (the) Imperatores Caesares Lucius Septimius Severus
Pius Pertinax Arabicus Adiabenicus Parthicus Maximus and Marcus
Aurelius Antoninus, Augusti and [Publius Septimius Geta Caesar
Augustus]

23. Oxyrhynchus papyri

Translated from the Greek
[1.77] [First hand:] To Aurelius Ammonius, gymnasiarch, in function,
prytanis of the city of Oxyrhynchus, from Julia Dionysia, daughter of
Sarapiacus son of Sarapammon. Since you have asked whether my
house in the area of Temienouthis, which …, in fact belongs to me or
my husband Aurelius Sarapiacus, I swear by the good fortune of Lord
Marcus Aurelius Severus Alexander Caesar that the said house and
everything in it belong to me, Julia Dionysia, in accordance with the
petitions I sent you, and that nothing has been falsified. In the 2nd year
of the Emperor Caesar Marcus Aurelius Severus Alexander, Pious and
Fortunate, Augustus. 24th of Pachon.
[Second hand:] Julia Dionysia swore the oath as above. Aurelius
Diogenes son of Diogenes wrote it, since she did not know how to write.

[1.411] From Aurelius Ptolemaeus, also known as Nemesianus, strategos

of the city of Oxyrhynchus. Officials have assembled and charged the
bankers of the banks of exchange with having these closed because of
their reluctance in accepting the divine coin of the emperors. It has
therefore become necessary to issue an order to all bank owners to open
these and to accept and exchange all coins, except those which are
clearly false and forged; and not to them only, but also to all those doing
business of whatever whatsoever. They must understand that if they
disobey this order, they will get the same penalties that in previous years
his highness the prefect appointed to their case. Signed by me, the first
year, Hathur 28

[10.1274] From Aurelia Aristous, daughter of Aurelius Herodes son

of Apion, formerly gymnasiarch, council member of the city of
Oxyrhynchus, and from the guardian appointed to me according
to Roman custom Marcus Aurelius Nicocles son of Zoilus, former
gymnasiarch of the same city, to Aurelius Heraclides, also known as
Lucius son of Lucius and whatever else you are called, greetings. The
dreadful announcement has been made to me that my blessed husband
 Inscriptions from Aphrodisias 125

Achillion, also known as Apollonius son of Apollonius, died while

he was working as basilicogrammateus in the Alexandrian region.
Consequently, I acknowledge that I have appointed you by means of this
letter to go to Alexandria and to register with his honour the procurator
usiacus in my name the property of mine and my husband’s son, his heir
Aurelius Dionysius, also known as Apollonius, who is a gymnasiarch of
the said city, but still covered by the Laetorian law. The whole is valued
at 200,000 sesterces. And I declare that from this property my husband
owes me the dowry which came with me when I married him, con-
sisting of gold jewellery, clothes and other items, the total coming to
two silver talents and three thousand drachmas … in valuation …
thousand five hundred drachmas … was furnishing from … own …
two talents and … drachmas … belonging to me … three talents and …
drachmas …

[12.1467] [There have long been laws,] most noble prefect, which give
those women who are acknowledged to have the right of three children
the authority to manage their own affairs and to transact business
without a guardian, in the household matters which they carry out, and
especially to those women who know how to write. Accordingly, since I
am lucky enough to have the honour of so many children, and know my
letters so as to be able to write without difficulty, and since this petition
should provide more than sufficient assurance, I call on your eminence
to allow me to carry out unembarrassedly the household business
which I will henceforth set about. I ask that your office deal with it
without further discussion as to my rights, so that I might be aided and
will forever express appropriate thanks. May you be prosperous. I
Aurelia Thaisous, also known as Lolliane, presented this as a petition. In
the 10th year, 21st of Epiphi. Your petition has been filed in the office.

24. Inscriptions from Aphrodisias

Translated from the Greek
20. Letter of Gordian III
Emperor Caesar Marcus Antonius Gordianus, Pious, Fortunate,
Augustus, Pontifex Maximus, in the 2nd year of tribunician power,
consul, pater patriae, to the chief magistrates of Aphrodisias, to its
council and its people: greetings. It is in keeping with your antiquity,
your goodwill and your friendship with Rome, Aphrodisias, that you
showed yourself in favour of my reign by means of the decree you
passed about me. In return for these attributes and your pious
126 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

disposition I am maintaining the definite enjoyment of all your rights

which already exist, as they were maintained until the time I took power.
Claudius Hegemoneus was the ambassador. Good fortune.

25. Letter of Traianus Decius and Herennius Etruscus

Emperor Caesar Gaius Messius Quintus Traianus Decius, Pious,
Fortunate, Augustus, in the 3rd year of tribunician power, consul for the
second time, elected consul for a third time, pater patriae, proconsul,
and Quintus Herennius Etruscus Messius Decius, Pontifex Maximus, in
the 1st year of tribunician power, consul elect, to the chief magistrates
of Aphrodisias, to its council and people: greetings. On account of the
eponymous god of your city, your intimacy with Rome and your good
faith, it is fitting that you were delighted at the commencement of our
reign, and gave up sincere offerings and prayers. We maintain your
accustomed freedom and all the other rights which you have acquired
from all the emperors before us, and we are ready to bring to fruition
your hopes for the future. Aurelius Theodorus and Aurelius Onesimus
were the ambassadors. Good fortune.

25. Acclamation at Perge (SEG 34.1306)

Translated from the Greek
Prosper, Perge, which alone has the right of asylum.
Prosper, Perge, to which Tacitus …
Prosper, Perge, made neokoros by Vespasian.
Prosper, Perge, honoured with a holy standard.
Prosper, Perge, honoured with silver coinage.
Ephesian Diana, PERGEIAN Diana.
Prosper, Perge, the emperor’s treasury. Prosper, Perge, four times
neokoros.
Prosper, Perge, foremost of the assizes centres.
Prosper, Perge, where consulars compete for honour.
Prosper, Perge, where consulars sponsor games.
Prosper, Perge, crown of Pamphylia.
Prosper, Perge, which tells no lies:
all its rights are confirmed by the senate.
 The Feriale Duranum 127

26. The Feriale Duranum (Reign of Severus Alexander)

Translated from the Greek
Column I
The Kalends of January: …
3 days before the Nones of January: because vows are discharged and
announced, and for the safety of our lord Marcus Aurelius Severus
Alexander Augustus and for the everlasting empire of the Roman
people, to Jupiter Optimus Maximus a male ox, to Juno a female ox, to
Minerva a female ox, to Jupiter Victor a male ox, … to Father Mars a
bull, to Mars Victor a bull, to Victory a female ox …
7 days before the Ides of January: because honourable discharge is
granted to those who have served out their time along, with the right of
privileges; also because salaries are paid out to the soldiers, to Jupiter
Optimus Maximus a male ox, to Juno a female ox, to Minerva a female
ox, to Safety a female ox, to Father Mars a bull …
6 days before the Ides of January: for the birthday of the divine
empress …, to the divine … public prayer.
… days before the Ides of January: for the birthday of Lucius Seius
Caesar, father-in-law of the Augustus, a male ox to the genius of Lucius
Seius Caesar, father in-law of the Augustus.
9 days before the Kalends of February: for the birthday of the divine
Hadrian, to the divine Hadrian a male ox.
5 days before the Kalends of February: for the Arabian and
Adiabenine and most great Parthian victories of the divine Severus
and for the start of the reign of the divine Trajan, to Parthian Victory
a female ox, to the divine Trajan a male ox.
1 day before the Nones of February: for the start of the reign of the
divine Antoninus Magnus …, to the divine Antoninus Magnus a male ox.
The Kalends of March: for the rites of the birthday of Father Mars
Victor, a bull to Father Mars Victor.
1 day before the Nones of March: for the start of the reign of the
divine Marcus Antoninus and of the divine Lucius Verus, to the divine
Marcus a male ox, to the divine Lucius a male ox.
3 days before the Ides of March: because emperor Caesar Marcus
Aurelius Severus Alexander was acclaimed emperor, to Jupiter a male
ox, to Juno a female ox, to Minerva a female ox, … to Mars a male ox;
and because emperor Caesar Marcus Aurelius Severus Alexander
Augustus was first acclaimed emperor by the soldiers …, public prayer.
1 day before the Ides of March: because Alexander, our Augustus, was
acclaimed Augustus, pater patriae and pontifex maximus, public prayer;
to the genius of our lord Alexander Augustus a bull.
128 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

Column II
14 days before the Kalends of April: for the day of the festival of the
Quinquatria, public prayer; through to 10 days before the Kalends, the
same public prayers.
1 day before the Nones of April: for the birthday of the divine
Antoninus Magnus, to the divine Antoninus a male ox.
5 days before the Ides of April: for the start of the reign of the divine
Pius Severus, to the divine Pius Severus a male ox.
3 days before the Ides of April: for the birthday of the divine Pius
Severus, to the divine Pius Severus a male ox.
11 days before the Kalends of May: for the birthday of the eternal city
of Rome, to the eternal city of Rome a female ox.
6 days before the Kalends of May: for the birthday of the divine
Marcus Antoninus, to the divine Marcus Antoninus a male ox.
The Nones of May: for the birthday of the divine Julia Maesa, to the
divine Julia Maesa public prayer.
6 days before the Ides of May: for the Rose festival of the standards,
public prayer.
4 days before the Ides of May: for the games of Mars, to Father Mars
the Avenger a bull.
12 days before the Kalends of June: because the divine Pius Severus
was acclaimed emperor by …, … to the divine Pius Severus.
9 days before the Kalends of June: for the birthday of Germanicus
Caesar, public prayer to the memory of Germanicus Caesar.
1 day before the Kalends of June: for the Rose festival of the
standards, public prayer.
5 days before the Ides of June: for the festival of Vesta, to Mother Vesta
public prayer.
6 days before the Kalends of July: because our lord Marcus Aurelius
Severus Alexander was acclaimed Caesar and donned the toga of
manhood, to the genius of Alexander Augustus a bull.
The Kalends of July: because Alexander, our Augustus, was first
elected consul, public prayer.
4 days before the Nones of July: for the birthday of the divine
Matidia, to the divine Matidia public prayer.
6 days before the Ides of July: for the start of the reign of the divine
Antoninus Pius, to the divine Antoninus Pius a male ox.
4 days before the Ides of July: for the birthday of the divine Julius, to
the divine Julius a male ox.
10 days before the Kalends of August: for the day of the festival of
Neptune, immolatory public prayer.
 The Feriale Duranum 129

The Kalends of August: for the birthday of the divine Claudius and
the divine Pertinax, to the divine Claudius a male ox, to the divine
Pertinax a male ox.
The Nones of August: for the games of Safety, to Safety a female ox.
… before the Kalends of September: for the birthday of Mamaea
Augusta, mother of our Augustus, to the Juno of Mamaea Augusta …
… for …
… before the Kalends of September: for the birthday of the divine
Marciana, to the divine Marciana public prayer.

Column III
1 day before the Kalends of September: for the birthday of the divine
Commodus, to the divine Commodus a male ox.
7 days before the Ides of September …
…
14 days before the Kalends of October: for the birthday of the divine
Trajan and for the start of the reign of the divine Nerva, to the divine
Trajan a male ox, to the divine Nerva a male ox.
13 days before the Kalends of October: for the birthday of the divine
Antoninus Pius, to the divine Antoninus Pius a male ox.
… before the Kalends of October: for the birthday of the divine
Faustina, to the divine Faustina public prayer.
9 days before the Kalends of October: for the birthday of the divine
Augustus, to the divine Augustus a male ox.
[…]
[…]
[…]
[…] of November […]
[…]
[******]
[…]
[…]
[…] the Kalends […]

Column IV
16 days before the Kalends of January …, … public prayer; through to
10 days before the Kalends the same …
130 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

27. Trajan to Pliny (Pliny: Letter 10.97)

Translated from the Latin
You took the course which you should have followed, dear Secundus,
when examining the cases of those who were being prosecuted as
Christians before you. For there cannot be laid down a universal rule,
which would, as it were, have fixed form. They should not be sought out.
If they are prosecuted and found guilty, they should be punished, with
the provision that he who denies that he is a Christian and makes this
clear by action – that is, supplicating to our gods – however suspect his
past may be, will obtain pardon for his penitence. Yet petitions put
forward without author should have no place in any criminal charge,
because they are the worst example, and not of our age.

28. Libellus of the Decian Persecution (Michigan Papyri 158)

Translated from the Greek
[First hand:] To those in charge of sacrifices in the village of
Theadelphia, from Aurelia Bellias daughter of Peteres, and her daughter
Kapinis. We have always been zealous in sacrificing to the gods, and now
in your presence, according to the orders, I have made a libation,
sacrificed, and tasted the offerings, and I ask that you undersign on our
behalf. Good fortune.
[Second hand:] We two, Aurelius Severus and Aurelius Hermas,
witnessed you sacrificing.
[Third hand:] I, Hermas, sign.
[First hand:] In the first year of the Emperor Caesar Gaius Mesius
Quintus Traianus Decius, Pious and Fortunate, Augustus. the 27th of
Pauni

29. Cyprian: To Demetrianus (252–7)

Translated from the Greek
[3] You have said that all the events which shake and oppress our world
are brought about by us, and ought to be imputed to us, because we do
not worship your gods. As to that, since you are ignorant of the
knowledge of God, and a foreigner to truth, you should know first that
the world is now growing old, it does not stand with that strength with
which it previously stood, nor does it brim with that force and vigour of
which it was once full. Even if we keep silent and proffer no proof from
sacred scripture and God’s word, the world itself is now speaking and
 Cyprian: To Demetrianus 131

giving witness to its death with the evidence of general decay. The
winter rains no longer provide so much material to nourish seeds; in
summer the usual heat which warms the crops is lacking. Spring no
longer reaches an agreeable temperature, autumn is no longer fertile
with its sprouting branches. Fewer veins of marble are wrenched from
the scarred and exhausted mountains; the worked-out mines provide
fewer sources of silver and gold, the meagre seams grow smaller every
day. The farmer diminishes and weakens in the fields, the sailor at sea,
the soldier in camp, as do integrity in court, justice at trial, harmony
between friends, knowledge of the arts, discipline as a mode of life. Do
you suppose that the world can be as solid as it ages as was possible
when it was still young, and that it can prevail in lively youthfulness? It
must diminish somewhat now the end is near and it declines towards its
final setting. In the same way, the sun when it sinks sends out rays which
are less bright and gleamingly afire; the moon grows smaller as its path
declines and its horns diminish; the tree which was previously green
and fertile becomes sterile and misshapen with old age as its branches
dry out; and the spring which used incessantly to pour out abundant
streams decreases in old age, until a modicum of moisture scarcely
manages to drip out. This is the sentence that the world passes; it is the
law of God that everything that is born dies, everything that once grew
grows old, everything strong grows weak, everything great declines; and
when it has become weak and slight it is finished.

[4] You blame Christians because the pieces of an ageing world fall
apart. What if old men too blamed Christians because they were less
hale in their old age, because their ears were no longer so good at
hearing, their feet at walking, their eyes at seeing, their bodily strength,
their organs’ vigour, their limbs’ power, and because although human
life was once lengthy and lasted eight or nine hundred years, it can
hardly now stretch to a hundred! We see white hairs on children, hairs
that fall out before they have finished growing; life does not finish in old
age, but begins with it. So in its very birth the new-born hurries towards
its death, so whatever is now born degenerates in the old age of the
world itself, and no one should be amazed that certain things in the
world are beginning to decay, when the whole world itself is set on
failure and death.

[5] So wars continue to be even more frequent, sterility and hunger

heighten disquiet, ghastly illness ravages men’s health, the human race
is devastated by rampaging decay, and you should know that this was
132 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

predicted: in the last days evils will be multiplied and calamities will
diversify, and as the day of judgement approaches, the censure of an
angry God will be stirred up more and more by the arrogance of the
human race. For, contrary to your false complaints and your ignorance
of the truth, which makes foolish claims and accusations, the things that
befall us are not because we do not worship your gods, but because you
do not worship God. For he himself is the master of the world and its
ruler, and all things are done with his judgement and approval, and it is
not possible for anything to exist unless he has made it or permitted
it to exist. So when things exist which demonstrate the anger of an
indignant God, they do not exist because of us who worship God, but
are inflicted by your offences and transgressions, you who do not seek
God at all nor fear him, nor set aside vain superstitions and recognise
the true religion: that he who is the only God for everyone should alone
be worshipped and prayed to.

[8] You complain because the abundant springs, bracing breezes,

frequent showers and fertile earth now show you less obedience,
because their elements do not serve your uses and pleasures. But it is
because of God that all these things serve you, and you are his servant.
It is his will that all things are your servants, and you serve him. You
yourself exact servitude from your slave, a man compelling a man to
serve and obey him, even though you share the fortune of having been
born, the same way of dying, you are made of the same bodily material,
and have the same rational mind. You come into the world with the
same rights and under the same law and later leave it, but if he does not
serve you according to your whim, if he does not apply himself to
obeying your will, you imperiously and too harshly enforce his
servitude: you whip him, you beat him, you afflict and torture him with
hunger, thirst, nakedness, and often with chains and incarceration. And
yet do you not recognise God as your master when you exercise your
own mastery?

[9] So it is appropriate that God does not hold back from striking blows
with the whip and inflicting punishment. But if none of this can move
nor turn individuals towards God in terror at such disaster, there yet
remains the eternal prison, the continuous flame and perpetual
punishment. And the groaning of those begging for mercy which comes
from there will not be heard, because while they were here, no one
paid heed to their fear of an indignant God, who calls out through his
prophet and says: hear the word of God, sons of Israel; it is the
 Cyprian: To Demetrianus 133

judgement of the Lord against the inhabitants of the earth, because

there is no pity nor truth nor recognition of God on the earth:
malediction and lies and slaughter and theft and adultery are spread
across the earth, and they mix blood with blood. For that reason the
earth with all its inhabitants, with the beasts of the field, with the
serpents of the earth, with the birds of the sky, will mourn, and the fish
of the sea will fail, as no one shall judge, no one refute. God says that He
is angry because there is no recognition of God on the earth, and God
is not known nor feared. God rebukes and accuses the sins of mendacity,
lust, fraud, cruelty, impiety, wrath, and no one is converted to inno-
cence. Lo! Those things exist which the words of God predicted earlier,
and everyone has faith in the present, not heeding the warning for the
future. Even though the soul can hardly recover from the ordeals which
constrain and confine it, there is time for wickedness, and despite great
peril, for making judgements not about oneself but about others. You
are angry that God is angry, as though you deserved some reward for
living badly, as if all the things that befall you were not still more minor
and slighter than your sins.

[13] What is this insatiable frenzy of torture, this insatiable lust for
savagery? Why not rather choose for yourself one decision of two: to be
Christian is either a crime or it is not. If it is a crime, why don’t you kill
those who confess to it? If it is not a crime, why do you persecute the
innocent? I ought indeed to be tortured if I deny it. If, fearing your
punishment, I were to conceal, with deception and lies, what I was
before, and the fact that I did not worship your gods, then I should be
tortured, then I should be forced to confess my crime by the infliction
of pain, as defendants in other interrogations who deny that they have
been justly held for the crime with which they are accused, are tortured,
so that the truth of their wrongdoing, which the voice will not act
as informer for and express, is revealed by their bodily agony. But
now, when I willingly confess and frequently declare, again and again,
repeating myself, that I witness myself to be a Christian, why then do
you torture me when I confess, when I go about destroying your gods
not in hideaways and secret places, but openly, in public, in the market-
place itself, as the magistrates and governors listen. Ought you to hate
and punish me more because the evidence against me has grown, even
than you did when there was too little to accuse me? Since I announce
that I am a Christian in a crowded place, surrounded by people, and I
confound you and your gods with a clear and public denunciation, why
do you attack the weakness of my earthly flesh? Dispute with the vigour
134 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

of my spirit, break the strength of my mind, destroy my faith, defeat me,

if you can, with argumentation, defeat me with reason.

30. Cyprian: Letter 80 (258)

Translated from the Greek
Cyprianus to his brother Successus, greetings.
[I] My reason for not writing to you straightaway, dearest brother, is that
all the priests were fixed here under threat of the arena, and completely
unable to leave, all of them prepared for the dedication of their souls to
the holy and celestial crown. I sent some men to the city [Rome] to find
out the truth about what the emperor had replied about us and bring it
back. You should know that they have returned. Many different and
untrustworthy rumours were being spread about, the truth of which we
now have: Valerianus has replied to the senate that bishops, presbyters
and deacons are to be punished immediately, but senators, men of high
social standing, and Roman equestrians who have lost their dignity in
this way are to have their property confiscated. If they continue to be
Christians even after their facilities have been taken away, they are to be
executed. Woman should have their property confiscated and be exiled,
and any members of Caesar’s household, whether they have previously
confessed to being a Christian or do so from now on, are to be subject
to confiscation, bound, and assigned to Caesar’s estates. Emperor
Valerianus even added to his statement a transcript of the letters which
he sent to the governors of the provinces about us. We are daily hoping
these letters will come, since we remain firm, in accordance with our
faith, in bearing martyrdom and we hope for the crown of eternal life
due to the generosity and indulgence of the Lord.
You should know that Xistus was executed in the cemetery eight days
before the ides of August and four deacons with him. But the prefects
continue daily with this persecution in the city, and anyone who is
brought before them is punished and his goods appropriated by the
treasury.

[II] I ask that you make these things known to all our other colleagues
too, so that they can everywhere encourage and strengthen our
brotherhood, and prepare it for spiritual battle. Thus each of us
individually can think of death as nothing but immortality and in total
faith and complete virtue rejoice that we are dedicated to the Lord,
rather than being afraid when we make our confession; soldiers of
God and Christ know this will lead not to our destruction but to
 Passion of Perpetua and Felicitas 135

our coronation. Dearest brother, I hope you will always prosper in the
Lord.

31. Passion of Perpetua and Felicitas (early third century)

Translated from the Latin
[10] On the day before we were to fight the beasts, I saw this in a dream:
Pomponius the deacon came to the door of the prison and knocked on
it vehemently. I went over and opened it to him. He was dressed in a
white tunic without a belt and in many-strapped sandals, and he said to
me: ‘Perpetua, we are waiting for you: come.’ He held out his hand to me
and we began to go through rugged and winding places. After a little
while we came, breathing heavily, to an amphitheatre, and he led me
into the middle of the arena and said to me: ‘Don’t be afraid; I am here
with you, and I will work alongside you.’ Whereupon he went away. And
I caught sight of a huge crowd of intent people; since I knew that I had
been condemned to death by wild beasts I wondered why they weren’t
sending any beasts out to me. And an Egyptian of vile appearance came
out opposite me, along with his support team, to fight with me. And
beautiful young men came to me, to help and support me. And I was
polished, and made a man; and my supporters rubbed me with oil, as
fighters are. And on the other side I saw the Egyptian rolling in sand.
And a man of incredible size came out: he was even taller than the roof
of the amphitheatre, without a belt; he had a purple tunic with two
broad stripes across his chest, and beautiful sandals made out of gold
and silver. He carried a rod like a lanista’s and it was a green branch with
golden apples on it. He hushed the crowd and said ‘If this Egyptian beats
this woman, he will kill her with his sword; if she beats him, she will
receive this branch.’
He left, and we approached each other and began to trade blows. He
tried to catch hold of my feet, while I struck his face with my heels. And
I was carried up into the air, and began to strike him, as if I were not
walking on the ground. And when I saw him check I put my hands
together, interlacing my fingers, and grabbed his head. He fell on his
face, and I trod on his head. The crowd began to shout, and my
supporters to sing. I approached the trainer and received the branch.
And he kissed me and said to me ‘Daughter, peace be with you.’ And I
began to go to the gate of the living in glory. Then I woke up, and I
understood that I would be fighting not against wild beasts but against
the devil; but I knew I would be victorious. This statement I have
completed as far as the day before the games; someone else must write
136 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

about what happens at the games, if he wants.

[11] Blessed Saturus too has broadcast this vision, which he himself
wrote down. ‘We had suffered,’ he says, ‘and left our bodies, and we
began to be carried to the East by four angels, whose hands did not
touch us. We did not go turned over on our backs, facing upwards, but
as though climbing a steep hill. And when we had left the old world
behind we saw a great light, and I said to Perpetua (for she was by my
side): “This is what the Lord promised to us: we have received what was
promised.” And while we were being carried by the same four angels, we
came upon a huge area, laid out like a garden, with rose trees and every
type of flower. The trees were as high as cypresses, and their leaves
never stopped falling. And there in the garden were another four angels,
greater than the others. When they saw us, they honoured us and said
wonderingly to the other angels: “They are here! They are here!” The
four other angels were afraid, the ones who were carrying us, and put us
down. So we crossed the area on foot by means of a broad path. There
we found Iocundus and Saturninus and Artaxius, who had all been
burnt alive as part of the same punishment, and Quintus, who had died
as a martyr while still in prison. And we while we were asking them
where the others were, the angels said to us: ‘First, come along, enter,
and pay respect to the Lord.”’

[14] These are the rather remarkable visions of the most blessed
martyrs Saturus and Perpetua, which they themselves wrote down. But
God called Secundulus to a quicker exit from the world while still in
prison, not thanklessly, so that he might rob the wild beasts of their prey.
Even if his soul did not feel the sword, his body certainly did.

[15] As to Felicitas, the grace of God touched her too in this way: she
was eight months’ size (she had been pregnant when she was arrested),
and as the day of the spectacle approached she was greatly distressed
because pregnant women were not allowed to be exposed to punish-
ment, and she did not want hers to be postponed on account of her
pregnancy, nor to shed her holy and innocent blood later, along with
strangers and criminals. Her fellow martyrs were deeply saddened along
with her, not wanting to leave so good a friend, and companion on the
road of shared hope, all alone. So three days before the games they all
joined together in wailing and poured out prayers to the Lord. Straight
after this praying her pains began. While she laboured in childbirth and
was in pain due to the natural difficulty of an eight-month birth, one of
 Passion of Perpetua and Felicitas 137

the servants of the gaolers said to her: ‘If you are suffering now, what will
you do when you are thrown to the beasts? You didn’t care about them
when you refused to sacrifice.’ And she replied: ‘Now I suffer what I
suffer; but then there will be another in me who will suffer on my behalf,
because I will suffer for him.’ In this way she bore a daughter, whom one
of her sisters brought up as her own daughter.

[16] Since the Holy Spirit allowed, and by this permission intended, the
events of the games to be written down, even if we are unworthy of
entirely describing such glory let us fulfil the promise which was, as
it were, the final wish of Perpetua, adding one more witness of her
constancy and greatness of spirit. When the tribune harshly punished
them, because the warnings of excessively stupid men had made him
afraid that they might escape prison through some sort of magical
incantation, Perpetua responded to his face: ‘Why do you not allow us
to regain our strength when we are about to fight the beasts, as punish-
ment for our most notorious crimes, on Caesar’s very birthday? Surely
it does you no good if we come out on that day too wasted?’ The tribune
shuddered and grew red, and consequently ordered them to be treated
more humanely, and that her brothers and the others should be allowed
to come in and rest with them, and the prison assistant now believed.

[20] The devil prepared an extremely ferocious cow for the girls,
contrary to the usual situation, in order to match their gender to that of
the animal. They were brought out naked and wrapped in small nets.
The crowd shuddered, seeing that one girl was dainty and the other had
recently given birth and still had leaking breasts. So they were called
back, and covered in unbelted tunics. Perpetua was thrown to the beast
first, and fell on her loins. When she sat up, she used her tunic, which
had been cut off her side, to cover her thigh, being mindful more of
modesty than of fear. Then she looked for a pin, and tied up her loose
hair; it wasn’t appropriate to undergo martyrdom with loose hair, nor
should she be seen to grieve in her glory. So she got up, and when she
saw that Felicitas had been struck, she went up to her and held out her
hand to her, and made her get up. They both stood, side by side, and the
cruelty of the crowd was overcome and they were summoned back to
the gate of the living. There a catechumen named Rusticus, who was
accompanying her, held Perpetua up and she began to look around as if
she had been awoken from a dream (this is how much she was in the
Spirit and in ecstasy) and said, to everyone’s amazement: ‘When are we
going to be led out to that horrible cow?’ And when she had heard what
138 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

had occurred, she would not at first have believed it, but for some
bruises on her body and cuts in her clothes. Then she summoned her
brother, and the catechumen, and said: ‘Remain in faith, and love
everyone in their turn, and do not be hurt by our sufferings.’

[21] In the same way at the other gate Saturus was persuading the
soldier Pudens, saying: ‘Altogether, just as I supposed and predicted, I
felt not even one wild animal upon me. Now believe with all your heart:
look, I am going forward, and I will be eaten by a leopard in a single bite.’
And straightaway at the end of the spectacle he was thrown to the
leopard, and after a single bite he was wallowing in so much blood that
the crowd shouted out to him as he produced evidence of a second
baptism: ‘Saved and washed, saved and washed.’ Evidently whoever had
washed in such a way was saved. Then he said to the soldier Pudens:
‘Goodbye, and remember my faith and me; let these things not disturb
you, but strengthen you.’ At the same time he took a small ring from his
finger, dipped it in his wound, and gave it to him as an inheritance,
leaving a token of himself and a memory of his blood. Thereupon,
dying, he was laid out with the others at the place usually used for
cutting throats. And when the crowd demanded that they be brought
into the middle, so that they could look into each other’s eyes as the
swords penetrated their bodies, companions in slaughter, they got up
voluntarily, carried themselves to where the crowd wanted, and kissed
each other before they were killed, so that they might carry out the
martyrdom with the rites of peace. Some were motionless, and received
the sword in silence; easily the first to give up his spirit was Saturus, who
had been the first into the arena, in order to keep back Perpetua.
Perpetua herself, in order to taste some pain, let out a cry when she was
stabbed between the ribs, and directed the wavering right hand of an
apprentice gladiator into her own throat. It may be that such a woman,
who caused impure souls to fear her, could not have been killed in any
other way, but only if she herself wanted it.
Bravest and most blessed martyrs! Truly called and chosen for the
glory of our Lord Jesus Christ! How one must laud, honour and adore
them, and certainly one ought to choose these as examples for the
building of the Church, no less than the old ones, in order that new
virtue may bear witness that it is always carried out by the single and
indivisible Holy Spirit, and all-powerful God the Father, and his Son
Jesus Christ, our Lord, who has renown and immense power for age
upon age. Amen.
 Marcus Minucius Felix: Octavius 139

32. Marcus Minucius Felix: Octavius (c. 210)

Translated from the Latin
[8.1] [Caecilius:] On the immortal gods there has been perpetual
agreement by all peoples, notwithstanding everything and though we
do not know how to explain them and how they came into being. That
is why I do not want to know of those who are so insolent, so confident
of their impertinent quasi-wisdom, that they do their utmost to destroy
or weaken the old valuable and useful worship as we know it.

[10.4] [Caecilius:] Only the Jews, that horrible people, also know only
one god, but they worshipped him openly, worshipped him through
temples, altars, ceremonies; but he holds no influence, his power is so
utterly unimportant that with his people he is prisoner of the divine
powers of the Romans.

[12.5] [Caecilius:] Do the Romans not need your god to force their will
on others, to rule as kings, to use all of the earth and be your masters?
You, on the other hand, await death in fearful tension and deny
yourselves all decent delights. You do not visit spectacles, are absent at
processions, feasts for the state lack your presence; you abhor games for
the gods, foods of which parts have been given to the gods and drinks of
which libations have been poured. In this way, you are fearful of the
gods whose existence you deny!

[21.1] [Octavius:] Read the writings of the historians or the writings of

wise men: you shall recognise the same things as me. Euhemerus
explains that men are deemed gods because of the merits of their virtue
or service; he enumerates the birthdays, countries and tombs of
Dictaean Jove, Apollo of Delphi, Pharian Isis and Eleusinian Ceres and
points them out in the appropriate area.

[21.2] [Octavius:] Prodicus says that those who, in their wanderings,

discovered new crops and hence improved mankind’s way of life were
taken up amongst the gods. Perseus philosophises along the same lines
and connects the names of the crops which were discovered with the
names of the discoverers of these same crops, as in the line from the
comedy: ‘Venus is cold without Liber and Ceres.’

[21.3] [Octavius:] Even Alexander the Great of Macedonia wrote a

notable letter to his mother, telling a secret about these man-gods
140 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

betrayed to him by a priest who was afraid of his power. He wrote about
Vulcan as the ruler of the world and continued on to the race of Jove,
and then wrote how from Isis’ corn the myth arose about the swallows,
the castanets and the tomb of that Serapis or Osiris of yours, which is
empty because his limbs were scattered.

[21.4] [Octavius:] This confirms what we know through others:

Saturnus, the first of this race, was after all human, as all Greek and
Roman writers of early history tell … But if gods could have children,
when they were immortal, then the number of our gods would be
greater than that of all humans combined, so that heaven could no
longer house them, air could no longer hold them, the earth could no
longer bear them. Thus it is clear that they were men, of whom we read
that they were born and of whom we know that they have died.

[37.1] [Octavius:] What a magnificent spectacle it is for God when a

Christian suffers sorrow, when he is confronted with intimidation, the
heaviest punishments and torture, when he laughingly ignores the
grinding of Death and the fear of the executioner. When eye to eye with
kings and rulers he holds his spiritual freedom high, stepping aside for
God alone, to whom he belongs, when as triumphant victor he derides
them who sentenced him! He, after all, is the victor who obtained that
for which he struggled.

[38.1] [Octavius:] Then there is the fact that we refuse remainders of

sacrifices or wine of which part was offered as a libation: that is no
admittance of fear, but solemn proclamation of true wisdom; for
though all that has come to exist as an inviolable gift of god will not
spoil, to whatever use it is put, we still abstain, so that nobody thinks
that we yield to the demons to whom libation was offered, or that we are
ashamed of our religion

33. Epistle against the Manichees (P.Ryl. 469.12-43)

Translated from the Greek
Column I
Again, the Manichees tell lies about marriage: that a man who does not
marry is doing right; Paul says that he who does not marry does better,
but the fact that fornicators and prostitutes are evil is clear from the holy
scriptures: from these we learn that ‘marriage is honoured and that God
hates prostitutes and fornicators’. So it is clear that he also condemns
 Ban on Magical Consultation 141

those who worship creation, those who … ‘debauch wood and stone’.
But does he not command that those who do evil be punished? He says:
‘if a man or a woman is found in one of your cities, which the lord God
gives you, who does evil before the Lord your God, and who worships
the sun or everything in the universe, it is an abomination to the Lord
your God. Everyone who does these things is an abomination to the
Lord God.’ The Manichees quite clearly worship creation … in their
hymns is an abomination to the Lord.

Column II
‘… I did not cast them into the cooking-vessel. Someone else brought
these things to me and I ate them without guilt.’ From which it makes
sense to recognise that the Manichees are filled with great madness. And
in particular since their defence of bread-eating is the deed of men who
are filled with madness. I have retailed in brief what they claim about
these things, from the treatise of the Manichean madness which has
come into my possession, in order that we can look out for them
entering our houses by means of trickery and lying words. Especially the
women whom they call ‘elect’: they hold these in particular honour
because, of course, they need them for their menstrual blood, which
they use in their disgusting rituals. We are speaking here of things we
don’t want to discuss, ‘we are not looking for what is convenient for
ourselves, but for what will allow many to be saved’. So then, may our
all-good and all-holy God allow ‘you to abstain from every type of evil’:
allow to be saved your ‘entire spirit and soul and body, blameless in the
presence of our Lord Jesus Christ; and others to be welcomed in holy
love’. My brothers welcome you alongside me. I pray, beloved, that you
will be strong in the Lord, cleansed ‘of every defilement of flesh and
spirit’.

34. Ban on Magical Consultation (AD 198/9) (P.Yale, inv. 299)

Translated from the Greek
I have come across many people who thought that they had been
deceived by acts of prophecy, and I have decided that it is immediately
necessary, in order that danger should not follow on from their fool-
ishness, to announce clearly to everyone that this sort of dangerous
meddling is banned. No one is to claim to know more than is human by
means of oracles, documents which are written down as though
provided by divine inspiration, processions of the images of the gods, or
any other deception of this sort; nor to predict an uncertain future, to
142 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

make himself available to those who want to learn about it, or to give
any sort of answer. If anyone continues to seek this sort of prediction,
he should expect to receive capital punishment.
Each of you is to provide for the display of this letter in public on
notice boards in the cities and in each village, written in large and easily
readable letters. Stay alert to all such behaviour, and if you find anyone
practising such forbidden activities, send him in chains to my court. It
will not go well for you if I learn once more that you have overlooked
such practices in the regions which you administer: you will receive
the same punishment as those you protect. For everyone who dares to
contravene the above regulations acts alone, but anyone who does not
persecute these people with all vigour becomes himself a source of
danger to many.
In the 7th year of the emperors Caesar Lucius Septimius Severus Pius
Pertinax Arabicus Adiabenicus Parthicus Maximus and Caesar Marcus
Aurelius Antoninus, Augusti.
 Wall of Aurelian 143
35. Wall of Aurelian
a. Partial view from the air

b. View of the porta Ostiensis

144 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284
36. Rock Relief at Bishapur

37. Arch of Galerius, Thessalonica (detail)

 Arch of Septimius Severus, Rome 145
38. Arch of Septimius Severus, Rome
a. Panel reliefs (detail)

b. Column (detail)
146 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284
39. Arco degli Argentarii, Rome
a. Panel relief, east side b. Panel relief, west side

40. Palmyrene Sarcophagus (detail)

 Distribution of Imperial Coin Types 147
41. Syrian Togate Portrait

42. Distribution of Third-Century Imperial Coin Types

Representation of imperial power on Roman imperial coinage, AD 193–284

Dynastic representation
Military representation
Divine association
Saeculum Aureum
Virtues
Euergesia
Paradigmata
Restitutor
Restitutormessages
messages
Geographical messages
Elevation
Non-specific representation
Aeternitas messages
Unica
Representation category uncertain
148 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284
43. Coins of Elagabalus
a. Procession with the sacred stone (218–19)

b. The emperor as priest (222)

© http//www.cgb.fr

44. Trilingual Coin from Tyre (Reign of Gordian III)

 Coins of Philip the Arab 149
45. Coins of Philip the Arab
a. Celebrating the loyalty of the troops (248)

© http//www.cgb.fr

b. Proclaiming the ‘Safety of the world’ (245)

© http//www.cgb.fr
150 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284
46. Decius’ Consecration Coins (250–1)
a. Augustus

© http//www.cgb.fr

b. Trajan

© http//www.cgb.fr

c. Commodus

© http//www.cgb.fr

d. Severus Alexander

© http//www.cgb.fr
 Coins of Gallienus 151

47. Coins of Gallienus

a. Proclaiming the ‘Safety of the world’ (263)

© http//www.cgb.fr

b. Protected by Apollo (267)

© http//www.cgb.fr
152 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284
48. Coins of Aurelian and His Opponents
a. Aurelian has reconquered the East (274)

© http//www.cgb.fr

b. Vaballathus and Aurelian (271)

© http//www.cgb.fr

c. Domitian II claims the throne (271)

d. Postumus and Hercules Deusoniensi (260–1)

© http//www.cgb.fr
 Imperial Busts 153
49. Imperial busts
a. Hadrian b. Caracalla

c. Macrinus d. Maximinus Thrax

154 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284
49. Imperial busts continued
e. Decius

f. Gallienus (267) g. Gallienus (260–5)

 Emperors and Usurpers

Roman Empire Sponsianus ?

Pertinax 193 Decius 249–51
Didius Julianus 193 L. (?) Priscus 250
Septimius Severus 193–211 Valens Licinianus 250
Pescennius Niger 193–4 Herennius Etruscus 251
Clodius Albinus 193–7 Hostilianus 251
Caracalla 211–17 Trebonianus Gallus 251–3
Geta 209–11 Volusianus 251–3
Macrinus 217–18 Uranius Antoninus 253
Diadumenianus 218 Aemilian 253
Elagabalus 218–22 Valerian 253–60
Seleucus ? Gallienus 253–68
Uranius ? Valerianus Iunior 257–8
Gellius Maximus ? Saloninus 260
...s Verus ? Ingenuus ?
Severus Alexander 222–35 Regalianus 260 (?)
L. Seius Sallustius 225(?)–7(?) Macrianus 260–1
Taurinus ? Quietus 260–1
Ovinius Camillus ? Piso 261
Maximinus Thrax 235–8 Valens 261
Magnus 235 Mussius Aemilianus 261–2
(Titus) Quartinus 235 Aureolous 262–8
Gordian I 238 Claudius II Gothicus 268–70
Gordian II 238 Quintillus 270
Balbinus 238 Aurelian 270–5
Pupienus 238 Domitian II 271
Gordian III 238–44 Urbanus 271/2
Sabinianus 240 Septimius 271/2
Philip the Arab 244–9 Felicissimus 271/2
Pacatianus 248 Tacitus 275–6
Iotapianus 249 Florianus 276
Silbannacus ? Probus 276–82

155
156 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284
Bonosus 280–1 Palmyrene Empire (260?–72)
Proculus 280–1 (Septimius Odaenathus 260–7/8)
Carus 282–3 Vaballathus 267–72
Numerian 283–4 Zenobia 267–72
Carinus 283–5 Antiochus 272
Diocletian 284–305
Note: Odaenathus did not proclaim
Gallic Empire (260–74) himself emperor; see p. 24.
Postumus 260–9
Laelianus 269
Marius 269
Victorinus 269–71
Tetricus I 271–4
Tetricus II 273–4
Faustinus 273
 Further Reading

Part I Debates
Introduction
There are only a few accessible introductions providing a narrative framework
for third-century history. Most straightforward are Campbell (2005) and
Drinkwater (2005), whilst Potter (2004) gives a more in-depth analysis of a
much larger stretch of time. Useful brief overviews are included in Potter
(1990) and Watson (1999). Still very influential are Alföldy (1974) and
MacMullen (1976), for which prior knowledge is, however, advisable. In
German, Sommer (2004) is a nice start to the period, though nowhere as
complete as two important French overviews: Christol (1997) and Carrié and
Rousselle (1999). For all the individual emperors there is the De imperatoribus
Romanis on-line encyclopaedia of Roman rulers (www.roman-emperors.org).
For only some of the rulers do good English biographical treatises exist, such
as Birley (1988), de Blois (1976) and Watson (1999). To these should be added,
in German, Körner (2002). As always, entries in the Oxford Classical Dictionary
(19963) and Brill’s New Pauly (2002–) are useful for emperors and sources.
The best discussion of Cassius Dio is still Millar (1964), and of Herodian
now Zimmermann (1999) (in German). Alternatively, Sidebottom (1998) is
of use. The Historia Augusta remains problematic, with Syme (1971) a good
starting point. The immensity of the subject becomes clear from discussions in
the ongoing Historia Augusta Colloquia. Bird’s translations (1993, 1994) of
Eutropius and Aurelius Victor also discuss the authors, as does Eady (1967)
for Festus, and Ridley (1982) for Zosimus. On the latter, Paschoud (1971) is
superior, but in French. For Dexippus there is now Martin (2006), on Cyprian
still Alföldy (1973), both in German. The Res Gestae Divi Saporis is studied by
Frye (1984), whereas the thirteenth Sibylline oracle is excellently analysed by
Potter (1990). On the use of papyri, coins and inscriptions for studying ancient
history, much can be learned from Bagnall (1995), Howgego (1996) and Bodel
(2001). A well-illustrated overview of third-century sculptural art is included
in Kleiner (1992), though Elsner (1998) shows with more insight how Roman
art can be used to write history.

157
158 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

Chapter 1: A Capital and its Provinces

The city of Rome in the third century is not often studied, but Curran (2000)
is outstanding. What life (and illness) in Rome must have been like for
inhabitants of the city becomes clear from Purcell (2000) and Scheidel (2003).
For emperors’ travels, Halfmann (1986) is seminal. Brigandage is discussed
seriously by Grünewald (2004). The various military campaigns are discussed
in the general overviews mentioned above. For the eastern campaigns,
Dodgeon and Lieu (1991) is excellent, whereas Frye (1984, 2005) is the ideal
starting point for the rise and organisational structure of the Sassanid Empire.
For interaction between Rome and the various tribes in the Northwest,
Drinkwater (2007) is the obvious starting point. Possible climatological
reasons for the movement of peoples across the borders of the empire are
looked at by Haas (2006). For the Palmyrene Empire, Hartmann (2001) gives
the most thorough overview, though in German. In English, a good starting
point is the account in Watson (1999). For the Gallic Empire, Drinkwater
(1987) is unsurpassed.

Chapter 2: Economy, Armies and Administration

On economic and military changes, and their consequences for the adminis-
trative structure of the Empire, much work has been done by de Blois (2002,
2007). Further administrative developments are usefully outlined by Lo Cascio
(2005). Millar (19922) remains of the utmost importance but is difficult to use
without prior knowledge. For general economic developments, with much
emphasis on geographical differentiation, the work by Witschel (1999, 2006) is
enormously important. Witschel (2004) summarises his main conclusions
with a very complete bibliography. Rostovtzeff (19572) is seminal, and still
illuminating for the ways in which social and economic developments were
related in the Roman world. For military developments and the army in
general, the best work is by Campbell (2002, 2005b). The third-century
petitions are assembled and expertly commented upon by Hauken (1998).

Chapter 3: Law and Citizenship

The literature on the Constitutio Antoniania is massive, especially since the
1910 publication of P. Giessen 40 as a fragment of the actual decree. Within
recent scholarship, Honoré (2004) interprets the consequences of the
Constitutio in a legal context, whereas Garnsey (2004) and Mathisen (2006)
discuss the consequences in terms of citizenship and identity. For Roman law
in the third century, Ibbetson (2005) and Johnston (2005) are a good
introduction. As to citizenship, Sherwin-White (19732) remains fundamental.
The importance of becoming ‘Roman’ for the stability of the Roman Empire is
one of the underlying themes of Ando (2000). What ‘becoming Roman’ could
entail at a regional level in the West is made clear by Woolf (1998); how
religious identity could develop in one of the best-known test cases in the
 Further Reading 159
Roman East, Palmyra, by Kaizer (2002). Grubbs (2002) gives essential sources
with their context about the position of women in the Roman Empire.

Chapter 4: Development and Perception of Emperorship

On the practicalities of emperorship, especially the notion of the emperor as
a person responding to the requests of his subjects, Millar (19922) is crucial.
For the symbolic position of the emperor, Hopkins (1978) is the best short
overview, elaborated further by Ando (2000). The relation between Roman
art and emperorship is set out by Hannestad (1988), which sets out the ground-
work but is on occasions oversimplistic. Modes of analysing the development
of imperial representation in the third century through coinage are developed
by Manders (2007). The importance of a military reputation for emperors
throughout Roman imperial history is clear from Campbell (1984), with the
perceptive comments by Hölscher (2003). Roman emperor worship is lucidly
(though occasionally controversially) explained by Gradel (2002), though
there is still much of value in Price (1984).

Chapter 5: Christianity and Religious Change

The best extensive treatment of Roman religion is Beard et al. (1998), but there
are good introductionary volumes by Scheid (2003) and Rives (2006). More
specifically on third-century religion, Alföldy (1989) (in German) is central.
The best-written (and extremely learned) description of the development of
Christianity within a pagan context is without doubt Lane Fox (1986). For the
causes of persecutions, de Ste Croix (1963) has become seminal. The acts of the
martyrs can be read, with commentary, in Musirillo (1972). Understanding
intellectual developments in the third century is impossible without looking at
philosophers of the time, most importantly Plotinus and Origen. The former
is notoriously difficult in his writing, though O’Meara (1993) forms an
accessible introduction. The latter is placed in context by Chadwick (1984),
who analyses the place of early Christian thinkers in the classical tradition of
which they formed part. For world-views in the third-century context in more
general terms, Fowden (2005) is an excellent point of departure.

Part II Debates
The following list does not aim for completeness, but rather provides a starting
point for further research. It gives a brief overview of accessible translations
and commentaries, if any are available.
1. Cassius Dio: Roman History. There is a complete parallel translation of Dio’s
history in the Loeb Classical Library, by E. Cary, which consists of 9 volumes
published between 1914 and 1927. It is available on-line at http://penelope.
uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio.
2. Herodian: History of the Empire after Marcus. Again, a complete English
translation is available in the Loeb Classical Library, by C. R. Whittaker,
160 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284
published in two volumes (1969–70). There is also a more recent translation in
German, by F. L. Müller (Stuttgart 1996).
3. Anonymous: Historia Augusta. The Historia Augusta, often also called the
Scriptores Historiae Augustae, was translated for the Loeb Classical Library
by D. Magie in three volumes (1921–32) and is on-line at http://penelope.
uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Historia_Augusta.
4. Sextus Aurelius Victor: Book of the Caesars. The best English translation,
with useful historical commentary, is Bird (1994).
5. Eutropius: Breviarium. The best English translation, with useful historical
commentary, is Bird (1993).
6. Festus: Breviarium. The most accessible translation is certainly the 2001
on-line version by T. M. Banich and J. A. Meka at www.roman-emperors.
org/festus.htm. See also the edition and commentary by Eady (1967).
7. Zosimus: New History. The best English translation, with commentary, is
Ridley (1982). Most accessible is an anonymous translation from 1814,
probably copying a 1684 translation, available on-line at www.
earlychristianwritings.com/fathers.
8. Publius Aelius Aristides: To Rome. The complete works of Aristides are
translated by C. A. Behr, in the Loeb Classical Library (1973–5) and more
recently (1981–6) for Brill (Leiden and Boston).
9. The Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle. The translation used here is from Potter
(1990), the only complete English translation of the text, with an extremely
useful and learned commentary.
10. Res Gestae Divi Saporis. The translation used here comes from Frye (1984).
Dodgeon and Lieu (1991) also translates and comments upon much of the
text.
11. Lactantius: On the Deaths of the Persecutors. The most recent and accurate
translation is by J. L. Creed (Oxford 1984). The most accessible translation is in
the Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, on-line at www.acs.ucalgary.
ca/~vandersp/Courses/texts/lactant/lactperf.html.
12. P. Herennius Dexippus: Scythica. There is no complete English translation
of the work, though Martin (2006) is a very good study, supplying a German
translation and commentary.
17. Ağa Bey Köyü petition. A wonderful discussion and translation of many
third-century petitions, also including the petition from Skaptopara, is given
by Hauken (1998).
21. Digest. There are two versions of the seminal translation by A. Watson. The
earliest four-volume version also supplies the Latin text (1985), whereas the
later two-volume edition (1998) gives an updated English text. Corrections to
the translation can be found online at www.iuscivile.com/materials/digest.
23. Oxyrhynchus Papyri. Translations of papyri which are relevant to studying
women in the Roman Empire can be found in Grubbs (2002).
24. Inscriptions from Aphrodisias. The documents from the excavation of the
theatre at Aphrodisias are translated and discussed by Reynolds (1982).
 Further Reading 161
27. Trajan to Pliny: Letter 10.97. There are many English translations of Pliny’s
letters. A useful introduction is by W. Williams (Warminster 1990). There is
also a complete translation in the Loeb Classical Library by B. Radice in two
volumes (1968–9).
29–30. Cyprian: To Demetrianus and Letter 80. The translation of Cyprian’s
complete works, by E. Wallis, is available in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5, and
at www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/005/0050022.htm.
31. Passion of Perpetua and Felicitas. Links to a number of English translations
can be found at www.earlychristianwritings.com/actsperpetua.html.
32. Marcus Minucius Felix: Octavius. The most recent English annotated
translation of this text is the one by G. W. Clarke (New York 1974).
33. Epistle against the Manichees. For this and other Manichaean texts from
the Roman Empire, see Gardner and Lieu (2004).
 Essay Questions and
Exercise Topics

A Capital and its Provinces

Questions
1. Is the building of Aurelian’s wall evidence for Rome’s weakened position?
2. Was the capture of Valerian by Shapur more devastating in symbolic or
real terms?
3. Did the actions of Postumus and Odaenathus strengthen or damage the
empire?

Topics
4. Compile a chronological list of battles at the Roman frontiers between
ad 193 and 284 (perhaps using CAH 122, 772ff.). Compare these with the
other troubles facing Rome in the same years. How, if at all, were problems
in the centre and at the borders related?
5. Read the Res Gestae of Shapur I (II 10), and look on the internet for images
of Shapur’s triumphal monuments. Compare these to the Roman accounts
of the wars with Persia. Where do they disagree, and how can we decide
who tells the truth?

Economy, Armies and Administration

Questions
6. Is Cyprian (II 29, 30) useful as a source for third-century economic
history? Why (not)?
7. What was the most important cause of military misbehaviour in the third
century?
8. What is the significance of the increase in the number of military men in
the imperial administration in the third century?

162
 Essay Questions and Exercise Topics 163

Topics
9. Catalogue the third-century petitions to Roman emperors (Hauken 1998)
and locate these petitions on a map of the empire. Also locate legions and
auxiliary cohorts on the map. Can we say that the presence of military
units gave rise to problems?
10. Make an overview of third-century economic developments in Italy, Spain
or Africa, starting from Witschel (2004). When, if at all, did economic
decline set in?

Law and Citizenship

Questions
11. Was the ‘great age of jurists’ a consequence of imperial behaviour?
12. Who benefited most from the Constitutio Antoniniana?
13. How ‘Roman’ were the new Roman citizens?

Topics
14. Read the text of P.Giss. 40 (II 20), leaving out the reconstructed
phrases. What indications are there that this is the text of the Constitutio
Antoniniana? Try to find arguments in the modern literature discussing
the papyrus. Are these sufficient to identify the text?
15. Assemble evidence for womens’ rights outside of Egypt after ad 212
(perhaps starting with Grubbs 2002) and place this alongside Egyptian
papyri. Was Egypt exceptional?

Development and Perception of Emperorship

Questions
16. How can Gallienus’ different modes of representation be explained?
17. Did busts of emperors show the emperors as they were, or as they wanted
to be seen?
18. What was emperor worship for?

Topics
19. Read Dio’s account of Augustus’ funeral and compare it with Herodian’s
account of the funeral of Septimius Severus (II 5 4.2). What are the
essential differences between the two accounts, and how can they be
explained?
20. Look at the coins of the emperor Aemilian (RIC 4) and fit all coins into the
categories mentioned by Manders (2007). How did Aemilian try to portray
himself through his coinage?
164 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284

Christianity and Religious Change

Questions
21. Did Decius have a coherent religious policy?
22. Were persecutions inevitable during the third-century military and econ-
omic difficulties?
23. What was the attraction of the oriental cults?

Topics
24. Read Cyprian (II 29, 30), the Passion of Perpetua (II 31), and Minucius
Felix (II 32). What messages do these texts share? Are these messages by
definition the most important ones in third-century Christianity?
25. Assemble anti-Manichaean documents written by Christians. Include the
writing of Augustine. Which negative points are stressed most regularly?
How can you explain the fierce resistance to Manichaeism by Christians?

General Questions
26. Can the third century be characterised as the rise of the East?
27. What are the problems with Cassius Dio’s history as a historical source?
28. How ‘Roman’ was the empire at the accession of Diocletian?
29. Is continuity or change the dominant factor in the history of the third
century?
30. Was there a third-century crisis?
 Internet Resources

There is much of value on the internet that deals with (elements of) Rome and
its Empire in the third century. Much, however, is also oversimplistic or simply
wrong. The following list does not (of course) aim for completeness, but does
supply some useful sites to start searching.

General
www.livius.org
One of the largest websites on ancient history, highly accurate and well
illustrated. Better on the first two centuries ad than on the third, but with
very interesting information on the Sassanids, including beautiful images of
Sassanid rock reliefs.

penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/home.html (= LacusCurtius: into

the Roman world)
As the website itself states, this is a gateway to ancient Rome, with many on-line
translations of ancient texts, including the whole of Cassius Dio, and much of
the Historia Augusta.

www.roman-emperors.org
This is a useful on-line encyclopedia on the rulers of the Roman empire, from
Augustus to late Byzantine times. Alongside accurate biographical treatises of
the emperors, there are links to maps and coins.

The Sassanids
www.sasanika.com
One of the best sites discussing Sassanid history, providing information on,
and many links to, source material and further sites.

www.cais-soas.com
Claims to be the most comprehensive image library of ancient Iranian art, and

165
166 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284
has a substantial collection of images of Parthian and Sassanid artefacts and
archaeological sites.

Invasions and the Military

darkwing.uoregon.edu/~atlas
This is the site of the ‘mapping history’ project, which provided Maps 3 and 4
in this book, and has a good module on the third century ‘crisis’. It includes
interactive and animated representations of military events in the third
century, and a wonderful analysis of different factors contributing to the ‘crisis’.

www.RomanArmy.com
The largest on-line community of students and enthusiasts of the ancient
Roman army. A highly professional site which aims to provide an encyclopedia
about the Roman military and has an already impressive database of military
tombstones.

Texts
www.perseus.tufts.edu
The Perseus digital library has a classics section, which forms one of the larger
collections of on-line ancient texts in translation and the original. Unfor-
tunately less useful for third-century history since it does not include Dio,
Herodian or the Historia Augusta.

www.thelatinlibrary.com
A large collection of Latin texts, both classical and Christian. It does not
provide translations.

Inscriptions and Papyri

www.csad.ox.ac.uk
Website of the Oxford centre for the study of ancient documents, giving an
extremely useful overview of links, including on-line corpora of papyri and
inscriptions.

www.epigraphische-datenbank-heidelberg.de
One of the on-line databases of inscriptions, which is easy to use.

Coins
www.wildwinds.com/coins
On-line reference and valuation site of ancient coins, with beautiful images of
coins for all third-century rulers and most usurpers.
 Internet Resources 167
www.numishop.eu
Numismatic auction site, with a large section of Roman coins. It provided most
the images of coins in this book.

Archaeological Finds
www.archaeologie-online.de
Useful and up-to-date website, divided into different categories, and including
much information on and many links to other sites dealing with classical and
provincial Roman archaeology.
 Bibliography

Abdy, R. A. (2004), ‘The second-known specimen of a coin of Domitian II

recorded in a hoard from Oxfordshire’, RN 160, 219–21.
Adams (1999), ‘The poets of Bu Njem: Language, culture and the centurionate’,
JRS 89, 109–34.
Alföldy, G. (1973), ‘Der heilige Cyprian und die Krise des Römischen Reiches’,
Historia 22, 479–501 (=Alföldy 1989, 295–318).
–– (1974), ‘The crisis of the third century as seen by contemporaries’, GRBS 15,
89–111 (=Alföldy 1989, 319–42).
–– (1989), ‘Die Krise des Imperium Romanum und die Religion Roms’, in
Alföldy, Die Krise des Römischen Reiches: Ausgewählte Beitrage (Stuttgart),
349–87.
Ando, C. (2000), Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire
(Berkeley and Los Angeles).
Bagnall, R. S. (1995), Reading Papyri, Writing Ancient History (London and
New York).
Bakker, L. (1993), ‘Raetien unter Postumus: Das Siegesdenkmal einer
Juthungenschlacht im Jahre 260 n. Chr. Aus Augsburg’, Germania 71,
369–86.
Balty, J. C. (1988), ‘Apamea in Syria in the second and third centuries ad’, JRS
78, 91–104.
Bassiouni, S. Z. (1989), ‘The position of women in Egypt after the Constitutio
Antoniniana’, International Congress of Papyrology 19, 229–44.
Beard, M., J. North and S. Price (1998), Religions of Rome. Volume 1: A History
(Cambridge).
Beck, R. (1998), ‘The mysteries of Mithras: A new account of their genesis’, JRS
88, 115–28.
Bennett, J. (2001), Trajan: Optimus Princeps (London and New York2).
Bird, H. W. (1993), Eutropius: Breviarium (Liverpool).
–– (1994), Aurelius Victor: De Caesaribus (Liverpool).
Birley, A. R. (1969), ‘The coups d’état of the year ad 193’, BJ 169, 247–80.
–– (1987), Marcus Aurelius: A Biography (London2).
–– (1988), Septimius Severus: The African Emperor (London and New York).
–– (1992), Locus virtutibus patefactus? Zum Beförderungssystem in der hohen
Kaiserzeit (Opladen).

168
 Bibliography 169
Bleckmann, B. (2006), ‘Zu den Motiven der Christenverfolgung des Decius’, in
Johne et al. 2006, 57–69.
Blois, L. de (1976), The Policy of the Emperor Gallienus (Leiden).
–– (ed.) (2001a), Administration, Prosopography and Appointment Policies in
the Roman Empire (= Impact of Empire 1) (Amsterdam).
–– (2001b), ‘Roman jurists and the crisis of the third century ad in the Roman
empire’, in de Blois (2001a), 136–53.
–– (2002), ‘The crisis of the third century ad in the Roman empire: A modern
myth?’, in de Blois and J. Rich (eds), The Transformation of Economic Life
under the Roman Empire (= Impact of Empire 2) (Amsterdam), 204–17.
–– (2007), ‘The military factor in the onset of crisis in the Roman Empire in the
third century ad’, in de Blois and Lo Cascio 2007, 497–507.
Blois, L. de and E. Lo Cascio (eds) (2007), The Impact of the Roman Army
(200 BC–AD 476). Economic, Social, Political and Cultural Aspects (= Impact of
Empire 6) (Leiden and Boston).
Blois, L. de, P. Funke and J. Hahn (eds) (2006), The Impact of Imperial Rome
on the Religions, Ritual and Religious Life in the Roman Empire (= Impact of
Empire 5) (Leiden and Boston).
Bodel, J. (2001), Epigraphic Evidence: Ancient History from Inscriptions (London
and New York).
Bremmer, J. (2003), ‘The vision of Saturus in the Passio Perpetuae’, in F. García
Martínez and G. P. Luttikhuizen (eds), Jerusalem, Alexandria, Rome:
Studies in Ancient Cultural Interaction in Honour of Ton Hilhorst (Leiden),
55–73.
–– (2004), ‘The motivation of martyrs: Perpetua and the Palestinians’, in
B. Luchesi and K. von Stuckrad (eds), Religion in the Longue Durée:
Festschrift für Hans G. Knippenberg zu seinem 65. Geburtstag (Berlin and
New York), 535–54.
Burkert, W. (1987), Ancient Mystery Cults (Cambridge, MA, and London).
Busch, A. (2007), ‘Militia in urbe: The military presence in Rome’, in de Blois
and Lo Cascio 2007, 315–41.
Butler, R. D. (2006), The New Prophecy and New Visions: Evidence of Montanism
in The Passion of Perpetua and Felicitas (Washington, DC).
Campbell, J. B. (1984), The Emperor and the Roman Army, 31 BC–AD 235
(Oxford).
–– (2002), Warfare and Society in Imperial Rome, 31 BC–AD 280 (London and
New York).
–– (2005a), ‘The Severan dynasty’, CAH 122 (Cambridge), 1–27.
–– (2005b), ‘The army’, CAH 122 (Cambridge), 110–30.
Carlisle, E. J. and J. S. Carlisle (1920), ‘Septimius Severus (Negro emperor of
Rome)’, in Carlisle and Carlisle, Historical Sketches of the Ancient Negro: A
Compilation (London), 76–97.
Carrié, J.-M. and A. Rousselle (1999), L’empire romain en mutation des Sévères
à Constantin (Paris), 192–337.
170 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284
Cartwright, F. F. (1972), Disease and History (New York).
Chadwick, H. (1984), Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition:
Studies in Justin, Clement and Origen (Oxford).
Christol, M. (1986), Essai sur l’évolution des carrières sénatoriales dans la 2e
moitié du IIe s. ap. J.-C. (Paris).
–– (1997), L’empire romain du troisième siècle (Paris).
Clarke, G. (2005), ‘Christianity in the first three centuries’, CAH 122
(Cambridge), 589–671.
Cotton, H. (1993), ‘The guardianship of Jesus son of Babatha: Roman and local
law in the province of Arabia’, JRS 83, 94–108.
Cumont, F. (1911), The Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism (Chicago).
Curran, J. R. (2000), Pagan City and Christian Capital: Rome in the Fourth
Century (Oxford).
Dodds, E. R. (1965), Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety: Some Aspects of
Religious Experience from Marcus Aurelius to Constantine (New York).
Dodgeon, M. H. and S. N. C. Lieu (eds) (1991), The Roman Eastern Frontier and
the Persian Wars AD 226–363. A Documentary History (London and New
York).
Drinkwater, J. F. (1987), The Gallic Empire: Separatism and Continuity in the
North-Western Provinces of the Roman Empire AD 260–272 (Stuttgart).
–– (2005), ‘Maximinus to Diocletian and the “crisis”’, CAH 122 (Cambridge),
28–66.
–– (2007), The Alamanni and Rome (Oxford).
Duncan-Jones, R. P. (1996,) ‘The impact of the Antonine plague’, JRA 9,
108–36.
–– (2004), ‘Economic change and the transition to Late Antiquity’, in Swain and
Edwards 2004, 20–52.
Eady, J. W. (1967), The Breviarium of Festus (London).
Eck, W. (2007), ‘Krise oder Nichtkrise – das ist hier die Frage: Köln und sein
Territorium in der 2. Hälfte des 3. Jahrhunderts’, in Hekster et al. 2007,
23–43.
Elsner, J. (1998), Imperial Rome and Christian Triumph (Oxford).
Fowden, G. (2005), ‘Late polytheism: The world view’, CAH 122 (Cambridge),
521–37.
Fowler, R. and O. Hekster (2005), ‘Imagining kings: From Persia to Rome’, in
Hekster and Fowler 2005, 9–38.
Frier, B. W. (1982), ‘Roman life expectancy: Ulpian’s evidence’, HSCP 86,
213–51.
— (1999), ‘Roman demography’, in D. S. Potter and D. J. Mattingly (eds), Life,
Death and Entertainment in the Roman Empire (Ann Arbor, MI), 85–109.
Frye, R. N. (1984), The History of Ancient Iran (Munich).
–– 2005, ‘The Sassanians’, CAH 122 (Cambridge), 461–80.
Gardner, I. and S. N. C. Lieu (2004), Manichaean Texts from the Roman Empire
(Cambridge).
 Bibliography 171
Garnsey, P. (2004), ‘Roman citizenship and Roman law in the late empire’, in
Swain and Edwards 2004, 133–55.
Gibbon, E. (1776–88), The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
(London).
Gordon, R. (1994), ‘Who worshipped Mithras?’, JRA 7, 459–74.
Gordon, R., J. Reynolds, M. Beard and C. Roueché (1997), ‘Roman inscriptions
1991–95’, JRS 87, 203–40.
Gradel, I. (2002), Emperor Worship and Roman Religion (Oxford).
Griffin, M. (1984), Nero: The End of a Dynasty (London).
Grig, L. (2004), Making Martyrs in Late Antiquity (London).
Grubbs, J. E. (2002), Women and Law in the Roman Empire: A Sourcebook on
Marriage, Divorce and Widowhood (London and New York).
Grünewald, T. (2004), Bandits in the Roman Empire: Myth and Reality (London
and New York).
Haas, J. (2006), Die Umweltkrise des 3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. Im Nordwesten
des Imperium Romanum: Interdisziplinäre Studien zu einem Aspekt der
allgemeinen Reichskrise im Bereich der beiden Germaniae sowie der Belgicae
unde der Raetiae (Stuttgart).
Haegemans, K. (2003), ‘Representation and perception of imperial power in
ad 238: The numismatic evidence’, in L. de Blois, P. Erdkamp, O. Hekster,
G. de Klein and S. Mols (eds), The Representation and Perception of Roman
Imperial Power (= Impact of Empire 3) (Amsterdam), 466–80.
Haensch, R. (2006), ‘Pagane Priester des römischen Heeres im 3. Jahrhundert
nach Christus’, in de Blois et al. 2006, 208–18.
Halfmann, H. (1979), Die Senatoren aus dem östlichen Teil des Imperium
Romanum bis zum Ende des 2. Jh. N. Chr. (Göttingen).
–– (1986), Itinera principum: Geschichte und Typologie der Kaiserreisen im
Römischen Reich (Stuttgart).
Hannestad, N. (1988), Roman Art and Imperial Policy (Aarhus).
Hartmann, U. (2001), Das palmyrenische Teilreich (Stuttgart).
Hauken, T. (1998), Petition and Response: An Epigraphic Study of Petitions to
Roman Emperors 181–249 (Bergen).
Hekster, O. (1999), ‘The city of Rome in late imperial ideology: The Tetrarchs,
Maxentius and Constantine’, Mediterraneo Antico II.2, 717–48.
— (2002), Commodus: An Emperor at the Crossroads (Amsterdam).
–– (2007), ‘Fighting for Rome: The emperor as a military leader’, in de Blois and
Lo Cascio 2007, 91–105.
Hekster, O. and R. Fowler (eds) (2005), Imaginary Kings: Royal Images in the
Ancient Near East, Greece and Rome (Stuttgart).
Hekster, O. and E. Manders (2006), ‘Kaiser gegen Kaiser: Bilder der Macht im
3. Jahrhunderts’, in Johne et al. 2006, 135–44.
Hekster, O., G. de Kleijn and D. Slootjes (eds) (2007), Crises and the Roman
Empire (= Impact of Empire 7) (Leiden and Boston).
Henrichs, A. and L. Koenen (1982), ‘Der Kölner Mani-Codex (P. Colon. inv. nr.
172 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284
4780) PERI THS GENNHS TOU SWMATOS AUTOU: Edition der Seiten
121–192’, ZPE 48, 1–59.
Hölscher, T. (2003), ‘Images of war in Greece and Rome: Between military
practice, public memory, and cultural symbolism’, JRS 93, 1–17.
Homo, L. (1913), ‘L’empereur Gallien et la crise de l’Empire romain au IIIe
siècle’, Revue Historique 113, 1–22; 225–67.
Honoré, A. M. (1982), Ulpian (Oxford).
— (2004), ‘Roman law ad 200–400: From cosmopolis to Rechtstaat?’, in Swain
and Edwards 2004, 109–32.
Hopkins, K. (1978), Conquerors and Slaves: Sociological Studies in Roman
History 1 (Cambridge).
— (1998), ‘Christian number and its implications’, Journal of Early Christian
Studies 6, 185–226.
Howgego, C. (1996), Ancient History from Coins (London and New York).
–– (2005), ‘Coinage and identity in the Roman provinces’, in C. Howgego,
V. Heuchert and A. Burnett (eds), Coinage and Identity in the Roman
Provinces (Oxford), 1–27.
Ibbetson, D. (2005), ‘High classical law’, CAH 122 (Cambridge), 184–99.
Icks, M. (2006), ‘Priesthood and imperial power: The religious reforms of
Heliogabalus, 220–222 ad’, in de Blois et al. 2006, 169–78.
Isaac, B. 1988, ‘The meaning of the terms limes and limitanei’, JRS 78, 125–47.
Jaillet, P. (1996), ‘Les dispositions du Code Théodosien sur les terres aban-
données’, in J.-L. Fiches (ed.), Le IIIe siècle en Gaule Narbonnaise: Données
régionales sur la crise de l’Empire (Antibes), 333–404.
Jehne, M. (1996), ‘Überlegungen zur Chronologie der Jahre 259–261 n. Chr. im
Lichte der neuen Postumus-Inschrift aus Augsburg’, Bayrische Vorge-
schichtsblätter 61, 185–206.
Johne, K.-P., T. Gerhardt and U. Hartmann (eds) (2006), Deleto paene imperio
Romano: Transformationsprozesse des Römischen Reiches im 3. Jahrhundert
und ihre Rezeption in der Neuzeit (Stuttgart).
Johnston, D. (2005), ‘Epiclassical law’, CAH 122 (Cambridge), 200–7.
Jones, E. L. (1972), ‘Lucius Septimius Severus (145–211 ad): The black emperor
of the world (193–211 ad)’, in Jones, Profiles in African Heritage (Seattle),
129–50.
Jong, J. de (2007), ‘Propaganda or pragmatism? Damnatio memoriae in the
third-century papyri and imperial representation’, in S. Benoist (ed.),
Mémoire et histoire: Les procedures de condemnation dans l’Antiquité romaine
(Metz), 94–111.
Jongman, W. (2007), ‘Gibbon was right: The decline and fall of the Roman
economy’, in Hekster et al. 2007, 183–99.
Kaizer, T. (2002), The Religious Life of Palmyra (Stuttgart).
Kleiner, D. E. E. (1992), Roman Sculpture (New Haven, CT, and London).
Knipfing, J. R. (1923), ‘The libelli of the Decian persecution’, HTR 16, 345–90.
Körner, C. (2002), Philippus Arabs, ein Soldatenkaiser in der Tradition des
 Bibliography 173
antoninisch- severischen Prinzipats (Berlin and New York).
Lane Fox, R. (1986), Pagans and Christian in the Mediterranean World from the
Second Century AD to the Conversion of Constantine (London).
Levick, B. (1999), ‘Messages on the Roman coinage: Types and inscriptions’, in
G. M. Paul and M. Ierardi (eds), Roman Coins and Public Life under the
Empire: E. Togo Salmon Papers II (Ann Arbor, MI), 41–60.
Liebeschuetz, W. (2007), ‘Was there a crisis of the third century?’, in Hekster
et al. 2007, 11–20.
Lieu, S. (1985), Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire and Medieval China:
A Historical Survey (Manchester).
Lo Cascio, E. (2005), ‘The emperor and his administation’, CAH 122
(Cambridge), 131–83.
MacMullen, R. (1976), Roman Government’s Response to Crisis, ad 235–337
(New Haven, CT, and London).
–– (1981), Paganism in the Roman Empire (New Haven, CT, and London).
–– (1982), ‘The epigraphic habit in the Roman Empire’, American Journal of
Philology 103, 233–46.
–– (1988), Corruption and the Decline of Rome (New Haven, CT, and London).
Manders, E. (2007), ‘Mapping the representation of Roman imperial power in
times of crises’, in Hekster et al. 2007, 275–90.
Martin, G. (2006), Dexipp von Athen: Edition, Übersetzung und begleitende
Studien (Tübingen).
Mathisen, R. W. (2006), ‘Peregrini, barbari, and cives Romani: Concepts of
citizenship and the legal identity of barbarians in the later Roman Empire’,
American Historical Review 111, 1011–39.
Mattingly, D. J. and R. B. Hitchner (1995), ‘Roman Africa: An archaeological
survey’, JRS 85, 165–213.
Mennen, I. (2007), ‘The Caesonii in the third century ad: The impact of crises
on senatorial status and power’, in Hekster et al. 2007, 111–24.
Millar, F. (1964), A Study of Cassius Dio (Oxford).
–– (1969), ‘P.Herennius Dexippus: The Greek world and the third-century
invasions’, JRS 59, 13–29 (= Millar 2004, 265–97).
–– (1973), ‘The imperial cult and the persecutions’, in W. den Boer (ed.), Le
culte des souverains dans l’empire romain (Geneva), 145–65 (= Millar 2004,
298–312).
–– (1981), The Roman Empire and its Neighbours (London2).
–– (1982), ‘Emperors, frontiers, and foreign relations, 31 bc to ad 378’,
Britannia 13, 1–23 (= Millar 2004, 160–94).
–– (1992), The Emperor in the Roman World (London2).
–– (1993), The Roman Near East, 31 BC–AD 337 (Cambridge, MA, and London).
–– (1999), ‘The Greek East and Roman law: the dossier of M. Cn. Licinius
Rufinus’, JRS 89, 90–108 (= Millar 2004, 435–64).
–– (2004), Government, Society and Culture in the Roman Empire (= Rome, the
Greek World, and the East, vol. 2) (Chapel Hill, NC, and London).
174 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284
Musirillo, H. (1972), The Acts of the Christian Martyrs (Oxford).
Noreña, C. F. (2001), ‘The communication of the emperor’s virtues’, JRS 91,
146–68.
North, J. (1992), ‘The development of religious pluralism’, in S. Lieu, J. North
and T. Rajak (eds), The Jews among Pagans and Christians in the Roman
Empire (London and New York), 174–93.
O’Meara, D. J. (1993), Plotinus: An Introduction to the Enneads (Oxford).
Paschoud, F. (1971), Zosime: Histoire Nouvelle (Paris).
Peachin, M. (1996), Iudex vice sacra: Deputy Emperors and the Administration
of Justice during the Principate (Stuttgart).
Pekáry, T. (1987), ‘Seditio: Unruhen und Revolten im römischen Reich von
Augustus bis Commodus’, AncSoc 18, 133–50.
Pestman, P. W. (1994), Les papyrus démotiques de Tsenhor: Les archives privées
d’une femme egyptienne du temps de Darius 1er. Textes (Paris).
Potter, D. S. (1990), Prophecy and History in the Crisis of the Roman Empire:
A Historical Commentary on the Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle (Oxford).
–– (2004), The Roman Empire at Bay, AD 180–395 (London and New York).
Price, S. R. F. (1984), Ritual and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor
(Cambridge).
Purcell, N. (2000), ‘Rome and Italy’, CAH 112 (Cambridge), 405–43.
Rathbone, D. W. (1996), ‘Monetisation, not price inflation, in third century ad
Egypt’, in C. E. King and D. Wigg (eds), Coin Finds and Coin Use in the
Roman World (Berlin), 321–39.
Rea, J. R. (1972), Oxyrhynchus Papyri XL (London).
Rees, R. (2004), Diocletian and the Tetrarchy: Debates and Documents in Ancient
History (Edinburgh).
Reynolds, J. (1982), Aphrodisias and Rome: Documents from the Excavation of
the Theatre at Aphrodisias Conducted by Professor Kenan T. Erim Together
with Some Related Texts (London).
Ridley, R. T. (1982), Zosimus: New History (Canberra).
Rives, J. B. (1999), ‘The decree of Decius and the religion of empire’, JRS 89,
135–54.
–– (2006), Religion in the Roman Empire (Oxford).
Rostovtzeff, M. I. (1923), ‘La crise sociale et politique de l’Empire Romain au
IIIe siècle aprè J.-C.’, Musée Belge 27, 233–42.
–– (1957), Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire (Oxford2).
Roueché, C. (1984), ‘Acclamations in the later Roman Empire: New evidence
from Aphrodisias’, JRS 74, 181–99.
— (1989), ‘Floreat Perge’, in M. M. MacKenzie and Roueché (eds), Images of
Authority: Papers Presented to Joyce Reynolds on the Occasion of her 70th
Birthday (Cambridge), 206–28.
Rubin, Z. (1995), ‘Mass movement in Late Antiquity’, in L. Malkin and W. Z.
Rubinsohn (eds), Leaders and Masses in the Roman World: Studies in Honor
of Zvi Yavetz (Leiden, New York and Cologne), 129–87.
 Bibliography 175
Salway, B. (1994), ‘What’s in a name? A survey of Roman onomastic practice
from c. 700 bc to ad 700’, JRS 84, 124–45.
Sasse, C. (1962), ‘Literaturübersicht zur C.A.’, JJP 14, 109–49.
Scheid, J. (1998), ‘Déchiffres de monnaies. Réflexions sur la representation
figurée des Jeux séculaires’, in C. Auvray-Assayas (ed.), Images romaines
(Paris), 13–35.
— (2003), An Introduction to Roman Religion (Bloomington, IN).
Scheidel, W. (2003), ‘Germs for Rome’, in C. Edwards and G. Woolf (eds), Rome
the Cosmopolis (Cambridge), 158–76.
Schmidt-Colinet, A. and K. al-As’ad (in press), ‘Zwei Neufunde Palmyrenischer
Sarkophage’, in G. Koch (ed.), Symposium des Sarkophag-Corpus, Marburg
2001 (Marburg).
Shaw, B. D. (1993), ‘The passion of Perpetua’, Past and Present 139, 3–45.
Sherwin-White, A. N. (1973), The Roman Citizenship (Oxford 2).
Sidebottom, H. (1998), ‘Herodian’s historical methods and understanding of
history’, ANRW II.34.4, 2775–836.
Simon, E. (1995), ‘Die constitution Antoniniana und ein syrischer Porträt’,
in C. Schubert and K. Brodersen (eds), Rom und der griechische Osten:
Festschrift für Hatto H. Schmitt zum 65. Geburtstag, dargebracht von
Schülern, Freunden und Münchener Kollegen (Stuttgart), 249–50.
Sommer, M. (2004), Die Soldatenkaiser (Darmstadt).
Speidel, M. P. (1975), ‘The rise of ethnic units in the Roman imperial army’,
ANRW 2.3, 202–31.
Speidel, M. A. (1992), ‘Roman army pay scales’, JRS 82, 87–106.
Ste Croix, G. E. M. de (1963), ‘Why were the early Christians persecuted?’, Past
and Present 26, 6–38 (= M. I. Finley (ed.) (1979), Studies in Ancient Society
(London), 210–49).
Stolte, B. (2001), ‘The impact of Roman law in Egypt and the Near East in the
third century ad: The documentary evidence’, in de Blois 2001a, 167–79.
Strobel, K. (1993), Das Imperium Romanum in ‘3. Jahrhundert’: Modell einer
historischen Krise (Stuttgart).
Swain, S. and M. Edwards (eds) (2004), Approaching Late Antiquity: The
Transformation from Early to Late Empire (Oxford).
Syme, R. (1970), ‘Three jurists’, Bonner Historia-Augusta-Colloquium 1968/9
(Bonn), 309–23 (= Roman Papers II, 1979, 790–804).
— (1971), Emperors and Biography (Oxford).
Verboven, K. (2007), ‘Demise and fall of the Augustan monetary system’, in
Hekster et al. 2007, 245–57.
Walbank, F. W. (1969), The Awful Revolution: The Decline of the Roman Empire
in the West (Liverpool).
Watson, A. (1999), Aurelian and the Third Century (London and New York).
Weigel, R. (1990), ‘Gallienus’ “animal series” coins and Roman religion’, Numis-
matic Chronicle 150, 135–43.
Witschel, C. (1999), Krise – Rezession – Stagnation: Der Westen des römischen
176 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284
Reiches im 3. Jahrhundert n. Chr. (Frankfurt).
–– (2004), ‘Re-evaluating the Roman West in the 3rd c. ad’, JRA 17, 251–81.
–– (2006), ‘Zur Situation im römischen Africa während des 3. Jahrhunderts’, in
Johne et al. 2006, 145–221.
Woolf, G. (1998), Becoming Roman: The Origins of Provincial Civilization in
Gaul (Cambridge).
Zanker, P. (2004), Die Apotheose der römischen Kaiser (Munich).
Zimmermann, M. (1999), Kaiser und Ereignis: Studien zum Geschichtswerk
Herodians (Munich).
Zwalve, W. (2001), ‘In re Iulius Agrippa’s estate: Q. Cervidius Scaevola, Iulia
Doman and the estate of Iulius Agrippa’, in de Blois 2001a, 154–66.
–– (2007), ‘Codex Justinianus 6.21.1: Florus’s case’, in Hekster et al. 2007,
367–78.
 Glossary

ab epistulis Official responsible for the imperial correspondence

adlocutio Address of an army commander to the military
aequitas Tranquillity, justice
aeternitas Eternity
ala Auxiliary cavalry regiment
amici (Political) friends
anachoresis Land flight to avoid taxation
angareia See vehiculatio
aureus Gold coin; the most valuable Roman denomination
basilicogrammateus Deputy of a strategos
colonia Roman colony, in the later empire an honorific title for
cities in the Roman Empire
comitatus Special cavalry unit, which was independent of the
legions and directly linked to the emperor in person
concordia militum Military unity
conservator Augusti Preserver or defender of the emperor
cursus honorum Career ladder of the Roman elite
damnatio memoriae Condemnation of the memory of a deceased person
denarius Silver coin
divi Deified emperors
dux Military officer commanding a garrison
epitome ‘Highlight’; a later condensed version of an earlier text
euergesia Beneficence
fiscus Property of the emperor, imperial treasury
frumentarii Roman secret service
gymnasiarch Official in charge of a nome capital
hostis Enemy of the Roman state
iudex vice sacra Deputy-emperor
ius civile Roman civil law
ius gentium Laws applying to non-Romans, defining their relation to
Roman citizens
ius liberorum Right to act without a guardian
lanista Manager/owner of a gladiatorial training school

177
178 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284
legatus Magistrate sent by the emperor to command a province
legio Legion
neokoros City with a temple for the imperial cult
nome Administrative area in Egypt, usually consisting of a
metropolis and surrounding countryside
pater patriae Father of his country
pax deorum Peaceful relation between gods and men
pax Romana The Roman peace
perfectissimus Most excellent (honorary title)
pontifex maximus Chief priest of Rome
potentissimi Most powerful (honorary title)
praefectus praetorio Prefect (commander) of the praetorian guard, the only
armed troops in the Italian peninsula
praefectus urbi Prefect (commander) of the city of Rome, responsible
for maintaining order in the city
princeps Emperor
procurator usiacus Roman knight, based in Alexandria, supervising the
imperial domains in Egypt
providentia Foresight
prytanis Official who was responsible for appointing men to take
up public office
rationalis Treasurer
restitutor Restorer
Saeculum Aureum Golden Age
securitas orbis Safety of the world
strategos Official in charge of the administration of a nome
vehiculatio A system which obliged provincial subjects to provide
transportation and lodging for official Roman travellers
based in the provinces
virtus Manly courage
 Index

Acclamation, 16, 57, 58, 62, 63, 82 Bacchus, 12

Administration, 5, 8, 28, 30, 31, 34, 40–4, Balbinus, 14, 99, 103
45, 46, 52, 53, 72, 101, 121 Bel see Sol Invictus
Aelius Aristides, 11, 28, 109 Bishapur, 20
Aemilian, 15, 104 Border see frontier
Africa, 12, 14, 18, 34, 35, 36, 42, 43, 98, Brigandage, 17, 18, 35, 36
99, 101, 103, 113 Brindisi, 17, 90
Ağa Beyköyü, 18, 33, 35, 38, 43, 121 Britain, 12, 17, 19, 35, 89, 91, 102
Alamanni, 5, 16, 19, 21, 104, 108 Bu Njem, 28
Alexander the Great, 77, 92, 139 Bulla Felix, 17, 90, 91
Alexandria, 27, 52, 113, 122, 125 Burial, 66, 67, 94, 102
Antioch, 8, 25, 52, 105, 108, 113
Antonine plague, 6, 11, 14, 33 Caledonians, 19, 91
Antoninus Pius, 59, 128, 129 Cappadocia, 23, 94, 113
Apamea, 25, 35, 113 Caracalla, 4, 7, 19, 28, 33, 37, 40, 45–55,
Aphrodisias, 63, 125, 126 59, 62, 63, 64, 72, 93, 96, 102, 123
Apollo, 15, 60, 61, 139 Bassianus, 102
Apotheosis, 66, 94 Tarautus, 37, 93
Aquileia, 42 Carinus, 5, 16, 107
Aragoe, 40 Carthage, 31, 51, 70, 98
Ares, 20, 110, 111 Carus, 3, 5, 57, 107
Armenia, 6, 20, 112 Cassius Dio, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 17, 37, 38, 40,
Arval Brethren, 67 45, 47, 48, 54, 64, 81, 89
Asclepius, 61 Chiron, 61
Asia Minor, 5, 21, 40, 60, 65 Christianity, 7, 9, 31, 52, 55, 68, 69–81, 83,
Athens, 9, 21, 22, 52, 116 85, 130, 131, 133, 134, 140
Augsburg inscription, 15, 26, 117 Cilicia, 23, 113
Augustus, 11, 15, 33, 56, 66, 68, 129 Citizenship, 7, 45–55, 56, 64, 83, 85, 92,
Aurelia Thaissous, 53 123
Aurelian, 5, 16, 24, 25, 26, 27, 33, 37, 66, Civil war, 12, 14, 61, 103
80, 83, 100, 105, 106, 108, 109 Claudius II, 9
Aurelius Ammonius, 54, 124 Clemens, T. Varius, 41
Aurelius Ptolemaeus, 33, 124 Climatological changes, 32
Aurelius Pyrrhus, 62 Clodius Albinus, 13, 102
Aurelius Victor, 3, 8, 14, 27, 41, 42, 98 Coin hoard, 33
Avidius Cassius, 23 Coinage, 4, 8, 10, 15, 16, 25, 26, 29, 32, 33,

179
180 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284
35, 37, 38, 39, 51, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, Elishar see Dido
63, 65, 66, 68, 80, 81, 85, 97, 106, Emperorship, 3, 13, 24, 27, 36, 56, 57, 58,
124, 126 60, 61, 62, 64, 65, 66, 83, 85
Colonia Agrippina, 21, 26, 55, 105, 106 Euphrates, 19, 25, 66, 103, 109, 110
Commagene, 51 Eutropius, 8, 14, 15, 20, 26, 60, 101
Commodus, 3, 4, 7, 11, 12, 14, 17, 68, 82,
89, 90, 129 Fallujah, 19
Constantine, 9, 63, 85 Favorinus, 58
Constitutio Antoniniana, 6, 45–55, 64, 72, Felicissimus, 16, 106
85, 123 Felicitas, 75, 76, 135, 136, 137
Increase of Aurelius, 50, 53 Feriale Duranum, 66, 67, 81, 127
Corbulo, G. Domitius, 23 Festus, 8, 24, 26, 107
Cumont, Franz, 79 Flavian dynasty, 13
Cursus honorum, 9 Franks, 5, 21
Cyprian, 9, 31, 32, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 80, Frontier, 5, 11, 19, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,
130, 134 36, 37, 39, 49, 66, 78, 107, 108, 109,
Address to Demetrianus, 31, 72, 75, 113
130 Limes, 28
Funeral see burial
Damnatio memoriae, 49
Danube, 5, 19, 20, 104, 106 Galerius, 29
Decius, 20, 37, 55, 59, 60, 63, 68, 70, 71, Gallic Empire, 5, 25, 26, 29, 35, 55
72, 73, 74, 103, 114, 126, 130 Gallienus, 4, 5, 15, 23, 24, 26, 35, 41, 42,
Edict, 70–4 60, 75, 97, 98, 100, 101, 104, 105, 107
Deification, 67 Edict, 41, 101
Dexippus, 9, 21, 22, 98, 114, 116 Gallus, 20, 72, 104
Diana, 60, 64, 126 Gaul, 5, 12, 21, 26, 35, 38, 100, 102, 103,
Didius Julianus, 12, 13, 36, 89 104, 105, 106, 107
Dido, 51 Genialis, M. Simplicinius, 26
Diocles see Diocletian Germania, 12, 21, 32, 113
Diocletian, 3, 5, 7, 11, 24, 29, 35, 57, 78, Geta, 37, 48, 49, 96, 102, 124
81, 82, 107 Gibbon, Edward, 16, 38, 82
Dionysios, 70 Golden Age, 14, 59, 60
Divi, 66, 67, 68, 81, 97 Gordian I, 4, 14, 98, 99
Domitian, 39 Gordian II, 4
Domitian II, 8, 65 Gordian III, 4, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 37, 38,
Dura Europos, 50, 66 40, 51, 62, 63, 80, 84, 99, 103, 112,
Dynasty, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14, 19, 28, 56, 58, 113, 119, 121, 125
59, 81 Goths, 5, 19, 20, 21, 98, 104, 105, 112
Greece, 21, 22, 34, 60, 98, 104, 115, 116
Economy, 6, 7, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 39, Gregory of Thaumaturgus, 52
45, 62, 66, 83, 84, 85 Gressenich altar, 28
Edessa, 21, 102, 113 Gymnasiarch, 54, 124, 125
Egypt, 9, 20, 24, 32, 33, 38, 48, 51, 53, 77,
102, 108, 122 Hadrian, 8, 34, 38, 58, 59, 101, 127
Elagabalus, 4, 25, 37, 38, 66, 80 Hercules, 12, 26, 81
Avitus, 4, 38, 93, 94 Herennius Etruscus, 63, 126
False Antoninus, 4, 37, 93 Herodian, 8, 14, 36, 48, 66, 67, 68, 94
 Index 181
Heruli, 21 94, 99, 127
Historia Augusta, 8, 24, 65, 68, 97 Mars, 81, 127, 128
Historiography, 7 Martyrdom, 69, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 134,
Hostilianus, 15 136, 137, 138
Maxentius, 29
Illyrian emperors, 5, 27 Maximinus Thrax, 3, 14, 28, 39, 41, 59,
Illyricum, 12 67, 97, 103
Imperial cult, 7, 64, 65, 73 Melquart, 12
India, 78, 80, 112 Mesopotamia, 14, 19, 23, 100, 104, 105,
Inscriptions, 9, 10, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 28, 107, 113
32, 41, 43, 55, 62, 80, 81, 117 Metropolis, 63, 64
Isis, 27, 77, 79, 122, 139, 140 Milan, 42, 89, 105
Islam, 69 Military, 6, 7, 12, 14, 18, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27,
Italy, 15, 21, 25, 26, 35, 42, 85, 90, 91, 99, 28, 29, 31, 36–44, 46, 52, 57, 58, 59,
103, 104, 107, 108 60, 61, 64, 66, 83, 84, 85, 91, 93, 94,
Ius civile, 47 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 106, 121,
Ius gentium, 47 122
Ius liberorum, 53 Minerva, 81, 127
Minucius Felix, 77, 139
Jews, 69, 72, 77, 139 Mithraism, 79, 80
Judgement Day, 32 Mithras, 21
Jugurthi, 16 Modestinus, 46, 52, 123
Julia Dionysia, 54, 124 Moesia, 19, 104, 106, 113
Julia Domna, 48
Juno, 81, 127, 129 Naqsh-i-Rustam, 4
Jupiter, 60, 77, 80, 81, 94, 127 Natalis, M. Caecilius, 77
Jupiter Dolichenus, 80 Nemrud Dağ, 51
Jupiter Optimus Maximus, 80, 127 Neokoros, 64, 65, 126
Juthungi, 15, 21, 26, 117 Neptune, 81, 128
Nero, 4, 22, 33, 59, 99
Kniva, 20 Nerva, 58, 129
Nile, 20, 51, 111
Latin, 27, 28, 51, 52, 64 Nonius Datus, 17, 18, 118
Legion, 12, 17, 25, 38, 118 Numerian, 5, 8, 82
Lepcis Magna, 12, 13
Libelli, 70 Octavius, 77, 139
Liber, 12, 139 Odaenathus, 23–5, 42, 97, 98, 105, 107,
Licinius Rufinus, 43 108, 117
Liris Valley, 34 Olympia, 21
Lugdunum, 70, 102 Origen, 52
Osiris, 77, 140
MacMullen, Ramsay, 43, 44, 81, 84 Oxyrhynchus, 33, 54, 124
Macrianus, 23
Macrinus, 3, 27, 37, 59, 93, 94, 102 Paganism, 7, 69, 72, 75, 77, 79, 80, 81
Magna Mater, 79 Palmyra, 5, 23, 24, 51, 98, 109
Mani, 78 Palmyrene Empire, 5, 24, 25
Manichaeism, 78, 79, 80, 83, 140, 141 Pamphylia, 63, 113, 126
Marcus Aurelius, 11, 23, 41, 42, 67, 70, Pannonia, 20, 70, 89, 104, 108, 113
182 Rome and Its Empire, ad 193–284
Papinianus, 46, 48, 91 77, 80, 81, 83, 85, 89, 90, 91, 92, 94,
Papyrus, 9, 27, 33, 35, 38, 45, 46, 48, 49, 99, 100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 108,
50, 53, 54, 66, 79, 123, 124 109, 110, 111, 114, 125, 126, 128, 134
Parthia, 6, 19, 39, 102, 103, 104, 107, 112, Arch of Septimius Severus, 39
113 Aurelian wall, 16, 33
Patronage, 40, 46, 47 Caelian Hill, 16
Paul (jurist), 46 Campus Martius, 67, 95
Pax deorum, 7, 72 Capitol, 51, 105
Pax Romana, 11,16 Fire, 14
Perge, 63, 64, 65, 126 Forum Romanum, 39, 60, 67
Perpetua, 75, 76, 135, 136, 137, 138 Imperial presence at, 14, 15, 28
Persecution, 55, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, March on, 12, 13, 14, 26
75, 85, 130, 134 Millennium, celebrations of, 15, 71
Persia, 6, 15, 19, 20, 25, 61, 69, 78, 79, 80, Palatine, 66
98, 99, 103, 105, 107, 109, 110, 111, St Callistus cemetery, 74
112, 114 Romulus, 29
Pertinax, 34, 66, 67, 89, 90, 101, 102, 129 Rostovtzeff, Michael, 57, 84
Pescennius Niger, 13
Philip II, 4 Sacrifice, 48, 55, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73,
Philip the Arab, 4, 18, 19, 20, 37, 40, 61, 74, 75, 77, 81, 89, 96, 130, 137, 140
70, 113 Saldae, 18, 118
Pliny, 69, 73, 130 Saloninus, 26
Plotinus, 25, 80 Sampsigeramus see Uranius Antoninus
Postumus, 26, 29, 35, 55, 83, 100, 104, Sarapis, 51, 122, 140
105, 117 Sarmatai, 5
Praetorian, 7, 13, 14, 19, 36, 46, 48, 50, Sassanids, 6, 19, 23, 37
62, 82, 90, 93, 99, 101, 113, 120 Saturninus, Q. Aemilius, 81
Providentia, 58 Saturus, 76, 136, 138
Ptolemais Euergetis, 51 Scotland, 34, 49
Pupienus, 14, 99, 103 Secular games, 13
Semnoni, 15, 26, 117
Quadi, 5, 104 Senate, 3, 7, 8, 12, 14, 16, 21, 23, 27, 41,
Quietus, 23 42, 43, 46, 50, 57, 58, 59, 67, 68, 74,
Quinquatria, 81, 128 84, 89, 90, 92, 93, 94, 95, 99, 100,
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, 108,
Ravenna, 21, 104 113, 126, 134
Rebellion, 11, 23, 55, 89, 91, 100, 102, Septimius Severus, 4, 12, 13, 18, 19, 29,
104, 114 36, 39, 46, 48, 54, 58, 66, 67, 92, 101,
Remus, 29 124, 142
Resaina, 19 Severan dynasty, 4, 46
Rhine, 5, 19, 21, 26 Severus Alexander, 4, 7, 46, 57, 58, 66, 68,
Rhodes, 16, 113 124, 127, 128
Roma, 29, 67 Shapur I, 4, 6, 9, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23,
Roman gods, 7, 55, 68, 72, 77, 80 24, 25, 35, 37, 78, 107, 112, 114
Rome, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12–17, 18, 19, 20, Sherwin-White, 45, 46, 48, 50
21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, Sibylline Oracle, 9, 14, 15, 19, 20, 23, 28,
38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 47, 49, 50, 51, 55, 70, 110
56, 57, 60, 62, 64, 67, 69, 72, 73, 74, Side, 64
 Index 183
Sixtus II, 74, 134 Tunisia, 34
Skaptopara, 18, 34, 35, 38, 40, 62, 119 Tyre (Phoenicia), 51
Sol, 60, 66, 80
Sol Invictus, 80 Ulpian, 13, 45, 46, 47, 52, 103, 123
Soldier emperors, 12, 57, 58, 61 Uranius Antoninus, 22
Soldier, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 18, 21, 26, Usurpers, 3, 5, 8, 22, 26, 58, 65, 82
27, 28, 31, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41,
42, 47, 48, 52, 56, 59, 62, 65, 85, 89, Vaballathus, 24, 117
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, Vahram, 78
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, Valerian, 4, 6, 15, 19, 21, 23, 26, 60, 74,
117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 127, 107, 113, 114
131, 134, 138 Vandals, 5
Souchos, 51 Vehiculatio, 18
Spain, 12, 16, 21, 35, 104, 113 Venosa, 34
Strategos, 16, 33, 53, 62, 124 Vespasian, 4, 39, 58, 81, 126
Successus, 74, 134 Vesta, 81, 128
Syria, 19, 20, 23, 25, 34, 35, 51, 89, 102, Victoria, 26
103, 104, 105, 107, 111, 113 Virtus, 58, 59
Volusianus, 20, 104
Tacitus (author), 56, 57 Vulcan, 77, 140
Tacitus (emperor), 27, 63, 68
Taxation, 48 Xiphilinus, 8
Tetrarchy, 11, 28, 29, 56, 61
Tetricus, 26, 105 Yahribol see Sol Invictus
Thessaly, 21
Thmouis, 35 Zenobia, 5, 24, 26, 83, 97, 98, 105, 108,
Timesitheus, 19 109
Tracia, 20 Zeus Kapitolios, 51
Trajan, 58, 68, 69, 73, 104, 106, 119, 127, Zonaras, 8, 9, 26
129, 130 Zoroastrianism, 78
Tria nomina, 50 Zosimus, 9, 21, 24, 26, 108
Trier, 35