48 Letters 2. 13 (refers to CTh 4. 4. 2 of 389); cf. more generally 6. 2, 11, 27; 7. 12.
49 Letters 1. 6.
50 Letters 6. 3; cf. other references to marriage at 4. 14, 4. 55, 9. 83, 106, 107.
51 On the ‘Orfitus affair’, see Symmachus Relationes 34.
52 ‘Normal’ letters: Letters 1. 74; 3. 4; 4. 68; 5. 18; 6. 9 and the pair 5. 54 and 66. ‘Official’ letters: Relationes 16, 19, 28, 33, 38, 39, 41.
53 Letter 1. 12 (to his father). Sicilian baths: 1. 10, 2. 26, 2. 60, 5. 93; 6. 70, 7. 7, 7. 18, 8. 42. Builders: 6. 70. Cf., more generally, 1. 10, 2. 2, 6. 11, 6. 49, 7. 32.
54 Baiae in autumn: Letter 1. 7 (cf. 1. 3). The 396 ‘trip’: 5. 21, 93; 7. 24, 31, 69; 8. 2, 23, 27, 61; 9. 111 and 125. Other estate refs: 1. 5, 2. 59, 3. 23, 3. 50, 7. 35, 7. 59, 9. 83.
55 Though Symmachus could be dismissive of hunting as an immature pastime: Letter 4. 18.
56 Too busy: Letter 1. 35. Cf. Letters 1. 24 (included with it, a gift of Pliny’s Natural History), 3. 11 (on a Latin translation of Aristotle’s Constitutions), 4. 20 (on learning Greek with his son).
57 Letters 2. 47, 48; 3. 4; 3. 23.
58 Daily health letters: Letters 6. 32, with 6. 4 and 6. 29 on diet. More generally: 1. 48, 2. 22, 2. 55, 5. 25, 6.20.
59 P. Ital. 10–11 is a superb illustration of the complexities of Roman property transfer, showing that legal exchange was finalized only when the new owner was inscribed as such in the relevant town’s property register.
60 Priscus fr. 11. 2, pp. 267–73.
61 The headings of the Theodosian Code are deeply revealing – e.g. Purchase Contracts, Dowries, Inheritance – as are the curricula laid out for teaching Roman law: see Honoré (1978), Ch. 6, on both the new curriculum introduction in the sixth century by Justinian and the one it superseded. Eighteenth-century England: Linebaugh (1991), esp. Ch. 3.
62 The emperor Theodosius’ propaganda, for instance, made a great deal of the fact that he’d restored the position of a senatorial family that had been ruined by his predecessor Valens (Themistius Or. 16. 212d; 34. 18).
63 Themistius Or. 8. 114d.
4. WAR ON THE DANUBE
1 Except where otherwise indicated, the quotations in this chapter are from Ammianus book 31, this one from 31. 4. 3.
2 Two hundred thousand: Eunapius fr. 42; cf. Lenski (2002), 354–5. In the 470s a force of something like 10,000 Gothic warriors dragged their families and possessions around with them in a train of at least 2,000 wagons (Malchus fr. 20). My own thoughts on numbers are based on the fact that Valens attacked the Goths at Hadrianople thinking that he was currently facing only about 10,000 Goths (Ammianus 31. 12. 3), at a point when he seems to have thought that he was facing only the Tervingi. Combatants to noncombatants has usually been estimated at 1:4 or 1:5, suggesting total numbers for the Tervingi of perhaps 50,000. The evidence suggests that the Greuthungi were similar in numbers to the Tervingi.
3 Ammianus 31. 2.
4 See Maenchen-Helfen (1973), Chs 8–9.
5 Atitle rather than – as per Walt Disney – a personal name.
6 Many studies have tackled this thorny question, but for an introduction see Maenchen-Helfen, (1945) and Twitchett and Loewe (1986), esp. 383–405.
7 Jordanes Getica 24. 123–6; cf. Vasiliev (1936), on the story. Twentieth-century commentary: Bury (1928).
8 For an introduction to the Chionitae and the Guptas, see Encyclopaedia Iranica: Yarshater (1985–2004, ongoing).
9 Ammianus 31. 3. 2: ‘he found release from his fears by taking his own life’.
10 Ammianus 31. 3. 7 describes these walls as extending ‘from the river Gerasus [the modern Pruth] to the Danube and skirting the lands of the Taifali [Oltenia]’. I argue my view in Heather (1996), 100, with refs to alternatives.
11 Ammianus 31. 4. 12.
12 This is the traditional chronology. Wanke (1990) has argued instead for the spring of 376 on no very good grounds, and Lenski (2002), 182ff., 325f., for the early summer on the grounds that it was the Goths’ arrival that encouraged Valens to make aggressive noises towards the Persians in the summer of 376. I find it it inconceivable, however, that an emperor who had wrapped up the Balkan front before confronting Persia in the late 360s (see Ch. 2) would have deliberately stirred up conflict in Armenia after hearing that the Danube was again in turmoil; so for me this confirms that the Goths arrived on the Danube only after Valens had made his moves in the east, hence in late summer 376 at the earliest.
13 Ammianus 31. 3. 8.
14 Ammianus 31. 3. 3.
15 As emerges from a huge Hunnic attack of that year, which went through the Caucasus rather than over the Danube (see further p. 202ff.).
16 Ammianus 31. 2. 8–9. Zosimus 4. 20. 4–5.
17 The archaeological evidence for the Huns’ bow is collected and discussed in Harmatta (1951); Laszlo (1951); Bona (1991), 167–74. The history of the recurve bow and information on best recorded shots are from Klopsteg (1927). Klopsteg’s attempts to model firepower have been superseded by the mathematically based work of Kooi; for an introduction, see Kooi (1991), (1994). These and his other studies can be read online at his website www.bio.vu.nl/thb/users/kooi. Key variables affecting the performance of a bow include length of limbs, shape of cross-section, elastic properties of the material used, draw length, arrow weight, weight and elastic properties of the string.
18 Olympiodorus fr. 19.
19 Jordanes Getica 49. 254: attributed to Priscus.
20 Laszlo (1951); Harmatta (1951).
21 Sources: Ammianus 31. 4. 4; Eunapius fr. 42; Socrates HE 4. 34; Sozomen HE 6. 37. Most tell a broadly similar story, but Ammianus is much more detailed, and Eunapius places more emphasis on Gothic treachery.
22 Ammianus records a justification for the admission of the Limigantes that strongly recalls that given in relation to the Goths of 376: ‘[By accepting the Limigantes] Constantius would gain more child-producing subjects and be able to muster a strong force of recruits’ (19. 11. 7).
23 St Croix (1981), App. III, gives an exhaustive list of known moments of immigration. The story of the Sciri is in Sozomen HE 9.3 and CTh 5. 6. 3. For full discussion of Roman policy and literature, see Heather (1991), 123–30.
24 The quotations are from Ammianus 10. 11. 10–15.
25 Ammianus 31. 5. 9.
26 Valens’ aggressive moves against the Persians in summer 376 are well constructed in Lenski (2002), 180–5. Cf. n. 12 above: in my opinion (not Lenski’s) all this must place the arrival of the Goths on the Danube after Valens’ aggression – i.e., late summer at the earliest.
27 If Sozomen HE 6. 37. 6 can be given any credence, Ulfilas may have taken part in the diplomatic process; cf. Heather and Matthews (1991), 104–6.
28 Ammianus 31. 4. 12.
29 For detailed discussion of the treaty’s terms, see Heather (1991), 122–8. There are two points of controversy. On the basis of Socrates HE 4. 33, some date the conversion of the Tervingi before 376; cf. Lenski (1995). This, however, contradicts Ammianus’ detailed contemporary account of events. Socrates, later and much less well informed, is very unlikely to be correct. I hold, therefore, to the conclusion first reached in Heather (1986). The other controversy, from the same source, centres on the report of Eunapius fr. 42 that the Goths were meant to surrender their weapons on crossing into the Empire, but didn’t. This source also claims that the Goths swore a secret oath never to stop until they destroyed the Empire. But neither the secret oath nor the illegal smuggling of weapons are reported anywhere else, particularly not in Ammianus, and were clearly used by Eunapius as devices to explain the Goths’ later victory at Hadrianople. Neither is convincing, in my view, since Valens was hoping to use Gothic auxiliaries alongside his regular troops, and the Goths, as we shall see in a moment, were much too wary of the Empire to have entered it unarmed. Most scholars who accept the disarming story reject the secret oath (e.g. Lenski (2002), 343ff.), a solution which seems to me arbitrary.
3
0 Themistius Or. 13. 163c after Socrates Symposium 203d.
31 Ammianus 31. 5. 5–8.
32 Other Roman kidnaps: Ammianus 21. 4. 1–5; 27. 10. 3; 29. 4. 2ff.; 29. 6. 5; 30. 1. 18–21. Many other scholars see malice aforethought in Lupicinus’ banquet (e.g. Lenski (2002), 328) without drawing conclusions about what this suggests about the orders he had received from Valens.
33 Ammianus 31. 4.
34 Diuque deliberans: Ammianus 31. 3. 8.
35 Ammianus 31. 5.
36 It is not fanciful to suppose that the Goths were aware of the Persian situation. Barbarians watched troop movements on the other side of the frontier closely (Ammianus 31. 10. 3–5), and contacts were close enough for information to pass. The continued contact between the Tervingi and Greuthungi is powerful evidence of the Goths’ suspicions.
37 Valens could still contemplate hiring Gothic auxiliaries for his Persian war sometime in winter 376/7 (Ammianus 30. 2. 6), which must have been before the outbreak of war.
38 There is an immense bibliography on the development of different parts of the Roman Balkans, but no overview. The preceding paragraphs are a synthesis based on such major studies as Mocsy (1974); Lengyel and Radan (1980); Wilkes (1960); and Hoddinott (1975), with monographs such as Poulter (1995), and Mango (1985) on Constantinople.
39 In Germanophone historiography, it has been traditional since Várady (1969) to argue that the Greuthungi of Alatheus and Saphrax were composed of three equal ethnic contingents: Goths, Alans and Huns (the so-called Drei Völker group). Part of this scholarly fantasy is the argument that Ammianus’ report of Huns and Alans joining the revolt in autumn 377 (see below) depicts the moment when Alatheus and Saphrax joined the Tervingi in revolt. This is nonsense. The Huns and Alans of autumn 377 (Ammianus mentions no Goths) were entirely separate from Alatheus and Saphrax, who were already south of the Danube and probably joined in the revolt immediately after the revolt of Lupicinus. For full refs and further discussion, see Heather (1991), App. B; cf. Lenski (2002), 330–1.
40 Ammianus 31. 6. 4.
41 On the forts, see Scorpan (1980); Petrovic (1996); their garrisons are listed at Not. Dig. Or. 39.
42 Ammianus 31. 6. 5–8.
43 According to Roman itineraries, a road station called Ad Salices (‘By the Willows’) was located in the far north of the Dobrudja, but Ammianus says this confrontation took place near Marcianople, 150 kilometres further south. At the start of the revolt proper, the Gothic wagon train had already wound its way to within 15 kilometres of Marcianople, and it’s hard to see why the Goths would have retreated again so far north. So perhaps oppidum Salices should not be identified with Ad Salices.
44 Summer to autumn: Ammianus 31. 8. 2. The 377 campaign is recounted at Ammianus 31. 7.
45 Ammianus 31. 10. 1: so early November, perhaps.
46 New alliance and collapse of blockade: Ammianus 31. 8.4. Cf. n. 39 above: some argue that this was the moment when Alatheus and Saphrax joined Fritigern in revolt. Note, however, that Ammianus makes no mention of Greuthungi in this context.
47 On the Arabs, see Lenski (2002), 335f. with refs. Destruction of villas: Poulter (1999).
48 Ammianus 31. 11.
49 The story of these months is told in Ammianus 31. 10–11.
50 Ammianus’ account of the battle can be found at 31. 12. Larger estimates of Gothic losses: Hoffmann (1969), 444 n. 138, 450–8; cf. e.g. Lenski (2002), 339 with refs. But if Valens had really had 30,000-plus troops to deploy against the Goths, I doubt that he would have needed to wait for Gratian, nor had to worry about whether the Goths were all there or not, because I don’t believe that even the combined Goths could put many more than 20,000 men in the field (see n. 2 above).
51 Ammianus 31. 16. 7.
52 Ammianus 31. 12.
53 Eunapius frr. 47–8, survive from what was originally seemingly a lengthy account of these cities’ tribulations.
54 This reconstruction results from the realization that Zosimus 4. 24–33, based on Eunapius’ history, is actually a coherent account of events between 378 and 382, which has been ruined only by Zosimus importing into his text a second account of the war at 4. 34. Most scholars think that the Greuthungi made a separate peace with Gratian and were settled in Pannonia in 380, but I remain unconvinced; see Heather (1991), 147ff. and App. B, for further argument and full refs.
55 Themistius Or. 16. 210b–c.
56 There is literally a hole at the crucial point in the manuscript at Themistius Or. 34. 24, which makes it unclear whether he’s referring to Goths being settled in Macedonia post-382, or only to their attack on the province before the peace agreement.
57 These leaders are presumably those who would have held semi-autonomous reiks status beneath Athanaric the iudex (Judge) in the old days of the Tervingi confederation north of the Danube (Ch. 2), and from among whom Fritigern and Alatheus and Saphrax had emerged in 376.
58 The significance of this treaty has long been recognized: e.g. Mommsen (1910), Stallknecht (1969). For more detailed discussion and full refs, see Heather (1991), 158ff.
59 To the end of the chapter, unless otherwise indicated, the quotations are from Themistius Or. 16.
60 Themistius Or. 14. 181b–c.
61 Zosimus 4. 32–3, with Heather (1991), 152–5; Heather and Moncur (2001), Ch. 4; cf. n. 54 above.
62 These Goths were more Greuthungi led by a certain Odotheus: Zosimus 4. 35. 1, 38–9; Claudian On the Fourth Consulate of the Emperor Honorius, 626ff.
63 Poulter (1995), (1999).
64 ‘These men crossed over into Asia under the law of war, and, having depopulated [vast tracts] . . . settled in this territory which they now inhabit. And neither Pompey nor Lucullus destroyed them, although this was perfectly possible, nor Augustus, nor the emperors after him; rather, they remitted their sins and assimilated them into the empire. And now no one would ever refer to the Galatians as barbarian but as thoroughly Roman. For while their ancestral name has endured, their way of life is now the same as our own. They pay the same taxes as we do, they enlist in the same ranks as we do, they accept governors on the same terms as the rest and abide by the same laws. So will we see the Scythians [Goths] do likewise within a short time’ (Or. 16. 211c–d).
65 Ambrose Commentary on the Gospel According to Luke 10: 10: trans. Maenchen- Helfen (1973), 20.
5. THE CITY OF GOD
1 Jerome Commentary on Ezekiel, Preface to book 1. Pagan comment: Augustine Sermon 296; for a full survey of the reactions, see Courcelle (1964), 58ff.
2 On Olympiodorus and his parrot, and subsequent uses of the text, see Matthews (1970); Zosimus made the join between Eunapius and Olympiodorus at 5. 26. 1.
3 Zosimus 5. 26. 3–5.
4 Radagaisus as Goth: sources as PLRE 2, 934.
5 These refugees included inhabitants of Scarbantia who took with them the body of St Qurinus. CTh 10. 10. 25 and 5. 7. 2 also refer to them: Alföldy (1974), 213ff.
6 Claudian Gothic War ll. 363ff. (cf. 414–15); cf. Courtois (1955), 38ff.
7 Alamanni and Quadi are mentioned by Jerome as participating in the Rhine crossing (Letter 123. 15). Wolfram (1988), 387 n. 55, takes a similar view, but Thompson (1982b), 152–3, disagrees. Fifth-century Suevi: Pohl (1980), 274–6.
8 Jerome Letter 123. 15. Fourth-century Sarmatians: Ammianus 17. 12–13 (Sarmatians who did not participate in 406 continued to live on the Danube (Pohl (1980), 276–7)).
9 March to join Valens: Ammianus 31. 11. 6. Western Roman army: Zosimus 4. 35. 2.
10 Sozomen HE 9. 25. 1–7; cf. CTh 5. 6. 2. Thompson (1996), 63–4, is clear that Uldin was a relatively minor figure. For an alternative view, to my mind mistaken, see Maenchen-Helfen (1973), 59–72, esp. 71.
11 Sidonius Poems 12.
12 Fourth-century Burgundians: e.g. Matthews (1989), 306ff.; on their subsequent movements: e.g. Demougeot (1979), 432, 491–3.
13 Zosimus 5. 35. 5–6.
14 Paulinus of Pella Eucharisticon 377–98.
16 Perhaps more, since we are not entirely sure of late Roman unit sizes.
17 Radagaisus’ warriors: Olympiodorus fr. 9: Photius’ summary says ‘12,000 nobles’, but this is usually taken as a confused total figure: e.g. Wolfram (1988), 169–70; Heather (1991), 213–14. According to Augustine, Radagaisus had ‘more than’ 100,000 followers (City of God 5. 23); according to Orosius (7. 33. 4), 200,000; and according to Zosimus, 400,000 (5. 26). None of these command much authority.
18 Procopius Wars 3. 5. 18–19 says that 80,000 was the number of warriors, but more contemporary and better-informed Victor of Vita (History of the Persecution 1. 2) gives this as a total figure, reporting that the king divided his followers into 80 groups of notionally 1,000 apiece, their real size being somewhat smaller. Eighty thousand warriors is unbelievable, making the new group twice as powerful in military terms as the largest possible estimate for Alaric’s Goths. Victor lived among the Vandals and there is a good chance that he generally knew what he was talking about, even though his work is highly polemical. Goffart (1980), 231–4, takes a dismissive view even of Victor’s evidence (Victor notes, incidentally, that others had even in his day confused the total figure for the number of warriors), but on p. 33 is happy enough on a priori grounds to suppose that Vandal–Alan forces must have numbered tens of thousands.
19 Jerome Chronicle 2389. Orosius 7. 32. 11.
20 Some would place it much closer to, or even before, the year 400 (Heather (1996), 117ff., for a summary with full refs).
21 Radagaisus: Olympiodorus fr. 9 distinguishes optimatoi (‘the best’) from the rest; cf. Heather (1996), App. 1, more generally.
22 For: e.g. Lot (1939), 78–9; Courtois (1955), 39–40; Musset (1965), 103–4; Demougeot (1979), 415. Against: Goffart (1980), 2ff., esp. 16–17; cf. Maenchen- Helfen (1973), 60–1, 71–2.
23 Some Hunnic raiding parties got as far as the Danube in 376 (Ch. 4), but they were operating from a power-base much further to the east.
24 Claudian Against Rufinus 2. 26ff. records two threats to the eastern Empire in 395, one through the Caucasus, one on the Danube; 36ff. makes clear that Alaric’s Goths are the Danubian threat – not, as has sometimes been supposed, a second group of Huns settled much further west.
The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History Page 65