The Historians of Late Antiquity

by David Rohrbacher

  Ammianus provides a pair of letters which purport to roughly reproduce an exchange between Shapur and Constantius in 358 (17.5). The letters reveal what Ammianus thought Persian attitudes and objectives might be. Shapur describes himself as “partner of the sun and moon,” while Constantius is content to style himself more modestly as “victor on land and sea.” Shapur first claims the right to occupy all of the territory which was once ruled by the Achaemenid dynasty at the time of Alexander the Great. He then narrows his present claim to the land lost by his grandfather in the treaty of 299. Ammianus makes reference both to Shapur’s “native arrogance” and to his “unbridled greed.” Although Ammianus may have believed that the Persians hoped to restore their long-lost empire, history has shown that the more limited objective of the overturning of the treaty of 299 sufficed to end Persian territorial claims.

  It was not only the Persians who expressed their territorial desires hyperbolically, as Ammianus’ portrayal of Julian’s speech to his troops before the invasion reveals (23.5.16–23). The emperor gives a summary history of the Romans who have previously invaded Persia, and at first expresses the reasonable hope that this invasion will be revenge for Roman losses in the past and will strengthen the eastern part of the empire. He moves from there, however, to the more extravagant hope that Persia will be utterly annihilated, as Romans had wiped Carthage, Numantia, and other cities completely off the map.

  With the establishment of peace after the death of Julian, Ammianus carefully emphasizes that, despite appearances, the Romans were relatively strong and the Persians were under pressure (25.7.2). Nevertheless, the “timid” Jovian surrendered territory for which “it would have been better to fight ten times” than to lose. He emphasizes the terrible hunger of the army in retreat (25.8.15), and with considerable pathos describes the anger and despair at the loss of Nisibis and the train of refugees forced from the city (25.9.5–6). Ammianus concludes with the suggestion that the peace treaty should be disregarded, pointing out when territory had been lost under duress in Roman history before, Romans had felt free to ignore their oaths and retake the territory (25.9.11). In general, Ammianus seems to reject any possibility of Roman inferiority to Persia or of excessiveness in Roman demands.

  Eunapius, who like Ammianus was a partisan of Julian, also attempted to pin the blame for Julian’s failed invasion on the emperors who reigned before and after him. He seems to have downplayed Constantius’ role in the Persian wars of the 340s, attributing their successful outcomes to subordinates and suggesting that Constantius’ eastern victory was possible only because of Julian’s successful campaigning in the west (Zos. 3.8). Eunapius was likewise blindly laudatory of Julian’s invasion of Persia, and critical of Jovian’s settlement (fr. 29.1).

  Aurelius Victor was a decidedly civilian historian, critical of the military and more likely to emphasize an emperor’s cultural achievements and building projects than his successful campaigns. Although he mentions the successes of early emperors in Parthia, he devotes more attention to military failure in the east, such as the death of Valerian, cruelly mutilated by the Persian king (32.5) and the death of Carus, who captured Ctesiphon but then, spurred on by an excessive desire for glory, continued forward and was killed by a bolt of lightning (38.3). While Victor praises Galerius’ great success in Persia, he recognizes it as the cause for the “very serious war” which is going on “now” in 359 (39.35–7). Victor concludes his work with extended praise of Constantius, the emperor under whom he wrote, but only spares a part of a sentence to describe his Persian wars: “he repelled an attack by the Persians” (42.21). Overall, Persia and the Persians are not of great importance to Victor’s understanding of Roman imperial history.

  Eutropius and Festus, who write to prepare their readers for a coming Persian war, made quite different use of the KG than had Victor. A primary focus of Eutropius’ work is the glory an emperor wins in war, particularly war against the Persians. Shapur had ejected the Roman-backed Arsaces from Armenia in 368, and perhaps Eutropius’ praise of the emperor Augustus for recapturing Armenia in 20 BC is meant to remind the reader of these contemporary events (Bird 1992: xx–xxi). Eutropius’ comments about the emperor Hadrian may likewise carry a contemporary lesson (8.6.2). Hadrian, who abandoned Trajan’s conquests in the east out of envy of his predecessor, reminds the reader of Jovian’s recent ignominious treaty. Eutropius claims that Jovian’s loss of land fifteen years earlier was “necessary, but ignoble” and feels that he should have quickly repudiated the treaty as soon as he was able (10.17). It seems likely that Ammianus later took the examples Eutropius provides of Roman treaty abrogation for his own work (25.9.11). Festus follows the belligerent attitude of Eutropius. The second half of his work is almost entirely devoted to Roman wars against Persia. Festus’ work is structured to emphasize the importance of conquest and to suggest that all previous Roman conquests have led naturally to the coming invasion of Persia by Valens.

  Orosius places less emphasis upon Persia than one might expect, perhaps because the early fifth century was marked by conflict with Germans and peace with the Persians. Orosius does not include the Persian empire in his list of the biblical “four kingdoms” which are central to world history. Persia is, instead, merely the force that caused the transfer of world power from the major kingdom of Babylon to that of Rome (2.2). In Orosius’ account of Romano-Persian relations, Roman persecution of Christians or apostasy explains Roman imperial failure. For example, Valerian ordered Christians to worship idols, and shortly thereafter was captured by Shapur. He then spent the rest of his life getting on his knees, to be used as a footstool whenever the Persian king needed to mount his horse (7.22.3–4). Julian’s defeat by the Persians is naturally attributed to his rejection of Christianity and his threats of persecution upon his return (7.30.4–6). On the other hand, Orosius suggests that Severus Alexander successfully overcame the Persian king, because his mother was supposedly a Christian taught by Origen (7.18.6–8).

  When Constantine I was preparing the invasion of Persia which was aborted because of his death, he planned to bring along a bishop (Barnes 1985; Brock 1982; Asmussen 1983). He had earlier written a letter to Shapur II, in which he explained that his Roman predecessors had been defeated in battle because of their persecution of Christianity, and he encouraged the Persian king to tolerate the Christians in his own empire, lest he suffer a similar fate (Eus. Life of Constantine 4.11). According to the Book of Acts (2: 9), Parthian Jews were present for the miracle of Pentecost, and by the early second century there is firm evidence for the existence of Parthian Christian communities. The Sasanian state, officially Zoroastrian, alternated between tolerance and persecution of its Christian minority. As Rome became Christian, Christianity represented potential political as well as religious subversion, and the practice of Christianity became increasingly suspect in Persia. Shapur II (309–79) persecuted Christians and suppressed the church. A successor, Yezdegerd I (399–421), however, was tolerant at first toward Christians, whom he used as a counterweight to the power of the Zoroastrian nobles, and he allowed the first synod in Sasanian Persia to take place in 410. Persecution of Christians returned, however, at the end of Yezdegerd’s reign and into the reign of his son Vahram V (421–39). This wave of persecution coincided with the ascendancy of the extremely pious Pulcheria over her brother, the emperor Theodosius II, and led to conflict between the two powers (Holum 1982: 102–11).

  Sozomen provides numerous anecdotes drawn from martyr stories of the persecution of Christians during Shapur’s reign. Sozomen blames the Zoroastrian Magi and the Jews for inciting the trouble, claiming that they accused Persian bishop Symeon of complicity with the Romans (2.9). He portrays Shapur attempting to reason with Christians rounded up in the persecution, but after they refused to worship the sun, he ordered them to be decapitated. Sozomen’s account suggests that Christians were to be found even among the highest ranks of the Persian courtiers. For example, the execution of the eunuch Azades, a fav
orite of the king, is said to have led Shapur to limit his persecution only to Christians who proselytize (2.11). After a horrifying account of the tortures which various Persian Christians suffered, Sozomen presents an excerpt from the letter of Constantine to Shapur derived from Eusebius calling for toleration (2.15.2–4). Sozomen misdates the letter to place it during the persecution, not before, so he can claim that “the emperor exercised the greatest protectiveness over Christians everywhere, Roman as well as foreign” (2.15.1).

  While the historicity of Constantine’s letter cannot be proven, its protective attitude toward Persian Christians was to become official Roman policy during the reign of Theodosius II. Socrates describes the reign of Yezdegerd as wholly benevolent. He attributes the persecution of Christians which took place at the end of Yezdegerd’s reign to his son’s reign, and even claims that Yezdegerd was planning to embrace Christianity and was prevented from doing so only by his death (7.8). Socrates attributes the emperor’s near conversion to the activities of the bishop of Mesopotamia, Maruthas, who was sent to Persia as part of an official embassy. He reports that Maruthas gained the trust of the emperor when he cured his painful headaches by prayer. This tale follows in the pattern of numerous stories of conversion which are inspired by healings. Maruthas also triumphantly exposes the deceptions of the Magi, who were in the habit of hiding under fire altars and speaking for the deity, as well as emitting unpleasant odors near the king and blaming the smells on the Christians.

  The accession of Vahram V to the throne after the death of his father led to the persecution of Christians and a Roman military response in 421 (7.18). Socrates provides fully detailed accounts of this war, in which the appearance of angels predicting a Roman victory demonstrates the justice of the Roman cause. In an epilogue to the victory, Socrates tells the story of the bishop Acacius. Seven thousand Persian prisoners of war were starving and stranded in Roman Azazane, and the bishop organized his parishioners to melt the church vessels and to use the money raised to feed the Persians and return them home. This benevolence proved that the Romans “were accustomed to conquer by generosity as well as by war” (7.21.5).

  Theodoret provides anecdotes from a war against Persia which he does not clearly date. It thus may be the same war of 421 which Socrates discusses, or the historian may be referring to the later conflict of 441 (Croke 1983: 300 n. 11; Blockley 1992: 203 n. 17). He emphasizes that the war is a holy war, fought on behalf of Christianity, which in one case featured a bishop as a combatant (5.37.5–9). Disgusted by the curses of the enemy, Bishop Eunomius himself commanded that the ballista which had been given the nickname “Apostle Thomas” be erected. When the ballista’s stone crushed the skull of the Persian blasphemer, Theodoret tells us, the siege came quickly to an end. Theodoret reveals that the persecution of Christians which led to war was at least in part incited by the excessive zeal of some Christians who destroyed Zoroastrian fire temples (5.39). “I say that the destruction of the fire temple was not timely,” Theodoret judges. The historian provides many details of the terrible tortures the Persian Christians endured. This section, the penultimate chapter of the work, concludes with a celebration of the survival and rejuvenation of true Christianity in the face of persecution, a message which would have resonated with the author himself as he wrote in the midst of heated theological controversy.

  For the remainder of the fifth century, the two large empires remained usually at peace with each other while they fended off threats on their other flanks. Priscus reveals the importance of diplomacy during this period and displays an interest in the political and military situation in Persia which had been less prevalent in earlier historians. He reports the demands, for example, of a Persian embassy, which included the return of Persian refugees, an end to the persecution of fire worshippers in the empire, and subsidies for the defense of the Caspian Gates against the Kidarite Huns (frs. 41.1, 47). The Roman reply simply denied the existence of any refugees or persecution, and denied responsibility for the subsidies. When Priscus and the east Romans, while participating in an embassy to Attila, heard from western ambassadors that the Huns might turn away from the empire and launch an attack on the Persians, their first reaction was to pray that it might be true (fr. 11.2). But the parties are sobered by consideration of the possibility that Attila could return west after a conquest of Persia even stronger and more dangerous. This recognition, and the repeated requests by the Persians for Roman help in the defense of the Caspian Gates, were perhaps signs of a growing understanding of the interdependent relationship necessary among the two ancient civilized powers in the face of more barbarous threats.

  The Roman state groped toward the establishment of a suitable relationship with Persia throughout late antiquity. After enduring the incessant warfare of the beginning of the fourth century, the two powers managed to avoid major conflict for more than a century. As violence increased in the other frontier areas, peace on the eastern border became particularly important to the Romans. Late antique historians recognized that the ancient civilization of the Persians set them apart from other, and in their eyes more contemptible, non-Roman peoples. Occasional remarks, such as those found in Ammianus’ ethnographic digression, suggested that the Romans could even learn from them. It was more common, however, for fourth-century historians to urge military conflict with the Persians, and even to propose wildly unrealistic plans such as the complete annihilation of the Persian state. Christianity played conflicting roles in this process. The presence of a large Christian community in Persia probably helped at times to foster communication between the empires, and the ecclesiastical historians wrote favorably about Persian Christians. But the mistreatment of Christians also triggered support among Christian intellectuals like Socrates and Theodoret for military intervention and encouraged the outbreak of war (Blockley 1992).

  The Goths

  The Goths were an agricultural Germanic people who inhabited the territory northwest of the Black Sea, between the Danube and the Don rivers in modern-day Romania (Heather 1991, 1996; Wolfram 1988; Todd 1975). The third century had seen numerous Gothic raids into the empire. At the beginning of the fourth century, conflicts with the emperor Constantine ended in Gothic capitulation and the signing of a peace treaty in 332, which remained in effect for three decades. During this period, Goths were occasionally recruited as auxiliary soldiers by Roman generals, such as Constantius in 360 and the usurper Procopius in 365. Increasing Gothic hostility led to the outbreak of warfare with Valens from 367 to 369, but after three years of inconclusive battles, the parties made peace.

  The breviaria record third-century conflicts with the Goths, including invasions under Decius (Vic. 29.2) and Gallienus (Vic. 33.3; Eut. 9.8.2), and the defeat of the Goths by Claudius II (Eut. 9.11.2). The accounts in Eutropius and Festus of Constantine’s conflict with the Goths are colored by contemporary events, since they write during or immediately after Valens’ Gothic campaign. Eutropius states that after Constantine’s defeat of the Goths in several skirmishes “he left enormous gratitude in the memory of the barbarian tribes” (10.7.1). Eutropius here refers to the Goths’ allegiance to the usurper Procopius, whom they claimed to support as the last surviving member of the line of Constantine. Perhaps we are additionally to understand Eutropius’ remark as expressing the hope that the Goths will be equally loyal to Valens now that he has subdued them. Festus also draws a parallel between Constantine’s victories and those of Valens. Buoyed by the glory that he had won from his Gothic victory, Festus claims, Constantine went to Persia, where ambassadors of the Persian king immediately submitted to him (26.1). Festus’ instructions to the emperor in his last sentence call upon him to emulate Constantine’s feats: add victory over the Persians to your great victory over the Goths (30.2).

  Ammianus portrays Valens complaining to the Goths in 367 about their support of Procopius in the previous year (27.5). The Goths claimed that they had merely been supporting the legitimate heir to the throne, since Procopius was a rela
tive of Julian. Rejecting this explanation, Valens invaded Gothic territory for three successive years. In the first year, the Goths hid in the mountains, and in the second year, floods bogged down the imperial army, but in the third year Valens defeated the Gothic king Athanaric in battle. Although Valens’ victory was not decisive, Ammianus is favorable toward his decision to settle. He reports that Athanaric had sworn an oath at his father’s demand never to set foot on Roman soil, and notes that “it would have been shameful and degrading” for the emperor to sign on Gothic territory. The two leaders met, therefore, in the middle of the Danube, on boats, to sign the peace treaty.

  A fragment of Eunapius describes the war in slightly different terms (fr. 37). He suggests that the Gothic king had sent reinforcements to Procopius which arrived only after the defeat of the usurper. Eunapius believes that the war began when Valens seized these Goths and disarmed them, and that Valens’ foresight allowed him to bring the war to a successful end. Eunapius is not generally an admirer of Valens (fr. 39.9; Zos. 4.4.1), but as a civilian and a traditionalist, he was a great hater of barbarians. He denounces the Goths as arrogant and contemptuous, and states that they acted particularly outrageously since no one restrained them. After the emperor disarmed them, they shook their long hair insolently (fr. 37). He adds that the Goths were mocked by the Romans because they were excessively tall, seemed too heavy to stand, and were narrow at the waist like insects.

  Gothic raids into the empire in the third century had brought back many slaves, including some who were Christian. Ulfila, a second- or third-generation descendant of such Christian captives, was consecrated in Antioch in 341 as bishop of the Goths. Gothic persecution of Christians in the 340s forced Ulfila and his followers to flee to Roman territory, where he was active as a writer and evangelist until his death in 383. Trilingual in Gothic, Latin, and Greek, Ulfila invented a Gothic script in order to translate the Bible into his native tongue. Ulfila and his followers adhered to the predominant homoiousian (“Arian”) Christianity of his time, with fateful results for the future, for when the Goths and other Germans converted to Christianity, their beliefs were heretical in the eyes of the Roman state after Theodosius I. The extent to which Christianity had penetrated Gothic society prior to the major crossing of the Goths into Roman territory in 376 is unclear (Thompson 1963; Heather 1986; Lenski 1995). It was considered enough of a threat that, following the peace treaty signed by Valens and Athanaric, Athanaric launched a second persecution of Gothic Christians, who were seen as supporters of Rome and whose faith undermined tribal authority.