rome at war ad 293-696

Rome at War AD 293-696

Michael WhitbyOSPREYPUBLISHING

Essential Histories

Rome at War AD 293-696

Michael WhitbyOSPREYPUBLISHING

First published in Great Britain in 2002 by Osprey Publishing,

Elms Court, Chapel Way, Botley, Oxford OX2 9LP. UK

Email: [email protected]

© 2002 Osprey Publishing Limited

Ail rights reserved. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose

of private study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under

the Copyright, Design and Patents Act. 1988. no part of this

publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or

transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrical,

chemical, mechanical, optical, photocopying, recording or

otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright

owner Enquiries should be made to the Publishers.

Every attempt has been made by the publisher to secure the

appropriate permissions for material reproduced in this book If

there has been any oversight we will be happy to rectify the

situation and written submission should be made to the

Publishers.

ISBN 1 84176 359 4

Editor: Rebecca Cullen

Design: Ken Vail Graphic Design, Cambridge, UK

Cartography by The Map Studio

Index by David Ballheimer

Picture research by Image Select International

Origination by Grasmere Digital Imaging, Leeds. UK

Printed and bound in China by L. Rex Printing Company Ltd.

02 03 04 05 06 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 I

For a complete list of titles available from Osprey Publishing

please contact:

Osprey Direct UK. PO Box 140,

Wellingborough. Northants, NN8 2FA, UK.


Osprey Direct USA, c/o MBI Publishing,

PO Box 1, 729 Prospect Ave,

Osceola.WI 54020. USA.


www.ospreypublishing.com

Contents

Introduction 7

Chronology 10

Background to war

Controlling the empire 12

Warring sides

Inside and outside the empire 19

Outbreak

Creating crisis 27

The fighting

Challenges to empire 34

Portraits of soldiers

Brothers in arms 62

The world around war

Impact of conflict 67

Portraits of civilians

Notable individuals 77

How the war ended

Making new boundaries 81

Conclusions and consequences

Roman legacies 86

Further reading 92

Index 94

Introduction

In the early third century AD the RomanEmpire stretched from Scotland to the Saharaand to the northern River Tigris - an enormousimperial enterprise and the most powerfulstate in the world. Four centuries later theEmpire had shrunk to consist of Anatolia, theAegean fringes of the Balkans and limitedterritories in Italy around Rome and Ravenna.Still strong in Mediterranean terms, it wasforced to confront and interact with a varietyof new powers. To the east Arabs, inspired byIslam, had overrun the Levant and Egypt, aswell as the Persian kingdom. More than amillennium of conflict between Islamic eastand Christian west was introduced as Arabwarriors pushed westwards through NorthAfrica and into Spain and regularly raidedtowards Constantinople. Slav tribesestablished themselves throughout much of

the Balkans, with specific leaders emerging incertain areas: Bulgars in the north-east, Serbsand Croats in the north-west. In Italy theLombard kingdom, based in the Po valley,fragmented authority in the peninsula, andso it remained until reunification in the19th century. Franks controlled Gaul, thoughit was usually split between different branchesof the ruling Merovingian dynasty. In theIberian peninsula the Visigoths hadestablished authority, sometimes tenuously,over the groups who had settled during thefifth century; however, their switch fromArian to Nicene Christianity in the seventh

The Emperor Theodosius and his family receive tokensof submission from barbarians while seated in theimperial box at the hippodrome. From the base ofthe obelisk at the Hippodrome in Constantinople.(Ancient Art and Architecture)

Essential Histories • Rome at War

century provided a force for unity whichwould survive centuries of conflict withMuslim invaders. The British Isles presentedanother mosaic, with Saxons increasinglydominant in the south and east, Britonsholding on in the west, and rival Pictish andScottish kingdoms in control of southernScotland. Here again religion offered hope forfuture unity, with the Saxons progressivelyconverted through the Roman mission basedat Canterbury and the Celtic Church, whichwas dominant in Ireland, Scotland and thenorth-west, then reconciled with Romantraditions.

By the end of the seventh century many ofthe important elements of the modernEuropean political landscape were in place, orat least in evidence, but the stages wherebyRoman hegemony fragmented are complex. Itis essential, above all, to remember that therewas nothing inevitable about this process:Europe did not have to be organised into theterritorial units and dominated by thenational groups with which we are familiartoday. 'Decline and fall' has been a powerfulmodel for analysing this transition, from thecomposition of Edward Gibbon's masterworkin the late eighteenth century, and before. Butthe vitality of the Roman system - especiallywhen reinvigorated by Christianity - thecommitment of peoples to the Roman ideal,and the sheer power of Roman arms also needto be stressed in opposition to this analysis.

Identification of turning points is anunderstandable temptation, and acceptableprovided that the qualifications for eachparticular date are not forgotten. Theconversion of Constantine to Christianity inAD 312 initiated the Empire's transformationfrom polytheism to Christianity, andprompted the development of the Church asa powerful and wealthy institution. For somescholars the Church was yet one moresubstantial group of idle mouths for Romantax-payers to support, with unfortunatelong-term consequences, but the Church alsoserved imperial goals beyond the frontiers andreinforced loyalties within. In 363 Julian'sgrand invasion of Persia ended in death forhim and near disaster for the Roman army,

Bronze head of Constantine with eyes characteristicallygazing to heaven. (Ancient Art and Architecture)

but the setback ushered in 140 years of almostunbroken peace in the eastern Empire. In 378the eastern emperor Valens was killed inbattle at Adrianople in Thrace, and many ofhis Gothic opponents had to be allocatedlands for settlement, but thereafter successiveeastern emperors generally managed the'Gothic problem' to their advantage. Whenthe last sole Roman ruler Theodosius I died in39S, the Empire was split between his youngsons, and emperors ceased to campaignregularly in person, but such divisions hadoccurred in the past, often beneficially, andthere were advantages in withdrawing theemperor from the battlefield. 'Immortal'Rome was captured by Alaric's Visigoths inAD 410, but it had long ceased to be animperial capital, so the event was largely ofsymbolic importance: Augustine in Africawrote City of Cod to demonstrate thesuperiority of the heavenly over the terrestrialcity, but in Italy the Visigoths withdrew and

Introduction 9

emperors continued to rule from Ravenna. Inthe 440s Attila challenged imperial authority- in both east and west, threatening even toreduce emperors to vassal status - but hisHunnic federation disintegrated after hisdeath in 453 so that within a decade his heirswere seeking Roman help. In 476 the lastRoman emperor in the western Empire wasdeposed by a 'barbarian' general, but theauthority of the eastern emperor was stillacknowledged. A western consul was annuallynominated to share the chief titularmagistracy with eastern colleagues, and underTheoderic the Ostrogoth a regime, whichcarefully maintained a Gotho-Roman facadedominated the western Mediterranean fromRavenna.

Individually the significance of each ofthese 'key' dates must be qualified, but

One of the more accurate assessments of theEmpire's demise occurs in a conversationbetween lews in prison at Carthage in the630s. They discuss the state of the Empireand the news of a new prophet among theSaracens in terms of the vision of Empire inthe Book of Daniel (Doctrine of theNewly-baptised Jacob 3.8).

'Jacob asked him: "What do you thinkof the state of Romania? Does it stand asonce, or has it been diminished?"

Justus replied uncertainly, "Even if ithas been somewhat diminished, we hopethat it will rise again."

But Jacob convinced him, "We see thenations believing in Christ and thefourth beast has fallen and is being tornin pieces by the nations, that the tenhorns may prevail."'

cumulatively they contributed to diminishingimperial authority, undermining the fiscal andmilitary structures which permitted theimperial machine to function. By the late fifthcentury an emperor had become irrelevant inthe western Mediterranean, although theeastern ruler was accepted as a figurehead bysome. The eastern Empire's continuing powerwas revealed by its ability to organise thereconquest of the Vandal and Ostrogothickingdoms, which extended to the recovery ofparts of Spain and the exercise of intermittentinfluence in Gaul. Even if the cumulativeimpact of recurrent bubonic plague and thedemands of western warfare left the Empireeconomically and militarily weaker in AD 600than it had been in AD 500, in comparativeterms it might have been stronger, since itsgreatest rival, the Persian kingdom, alsosuffered heavily during a century of conflict;its then ruler, Khusro II, had only secured thethrone with Roman help. In the early seventhcentury internal dissension and foreigninvasion seemed to have forced the Romansto the brink of destruction, symbolised by thearrival of a Persian army on the Bosporus andits co-operation with the Avar Chagan in theAD 626 attack on Constantinople. But the cityand its Empire survived: within two yearsHeraclius had defeated the Persians, andoverseen the installation of friendly rulers onthe Persian throne, including, briefly, theChristian Shahvaraz; and during the 630s theAvar federation began to disintegrate as thereduced prestige of its leader permittedsubordinate tribes to assert theirindependence. For the eastern Empire thedecisive blow came out of the blue whenthe new religion of Islam transformedlong-standing manageable neighbours intoa potent adversary.

Chronology

226 Ardashir overthrows Parthian dynasty. 395235 Murder of Severus Alexander by

troops. 406243/4 Gordian defeated by Shapur I of 408

Persia. 410251 Death of Decius in battle against 418

Goths.260 Defeat and capture of Valerian by 429

Persians. 445Franks invade Gaul; Alamanni invade 451Italy; revolts in Balkans.

261-68 Odaenathus of Palmyra takes 453control of eastern provinces. 455

262-67 Goths invade Asia Minor. 476271 Aurelian withdraws Romans from Dacia.

Circuit of walls built for Rome. 493272 Aurelian defeats Palmyra.275 Murder of Aurelian. 502284 Accession of Diocletian.293 Tetrarchy with Maximian as co- 505

Augustus and Constantius andGalerius as Caesars. 507

305 Abdication of Diocletian and Maximian.312 Constantine captures Rome after 527

battle of Milvian Bridge.324 Constantine defeats Licinius and 532

becomes sole emperor. 533337 Death of Constantine at start of

campaign against Persia. 540353 Constantius II defeats usurper

Magnentius and reunifies Empire.355 Julian co-opted by Constantius as

Caesar. 542357 Julian defeats Alamanni at Strasburg. 546361 Death of Constantius. 552363 Julian's invasion of Persia and death.376 Goths cross the Danube. 562378 Defeat and death of Valens at 568

Adrianople (Edirne). 572382 Theodosius settles Goths in Balkans as

federates. 578/9394 Theodosius defeats usurper Eugenius 586/7

and reunifies Empire. 591

Death of Theodosius; Empire dividedbetween Arcadius and Honorius.German tribes breach Rhine frontier.Stilicho executed.Sack of Rome by Alaric and Visigoths.Establishment of Visigoths inAquitania.Vandals cross into Africa.Attila becomes sole ruler of Huns.Attila invades Gaul; defeated atCatalaunian Plains (near Troyes).Death of Attila.Vandals sack Rome.Odoacer deposes Romulus Augustulus,the last western emperor.Theoderic captures Ravenna and killsOdoacer.Kavadh invades eastern provinces andcaptures Amida (Diyarbakir).Truce on eastern frontier;construction of Dara starts.Clovis and Franks defeat Visigoths atVouillé.Renewed warfare in east. Accession ofJustinian.'Endless Peace' with Persia.Belisarius defeats Vandals andrecovers Africa.Belisarius enters Ravenna and endsOstrogothic kingdom.Khusro I invades eastern provincesand captures Antioch.Arrival of bubonic plague.Totila recaptures Rome.Narses defeats and kills Totila at BustaGallorum.50 Years Peace with Persia.Lombards invade Italy.Justin II launches new war on easternfrontier.Avar invasions of Balkans start.Slav raids reach Athens and Corinth.Termination of war with Persia.

Chronology

602 Revolt of Balkan army and overthrowof Maurice.

610 Heraclius captures Constantinopleand kills Phocas.

614 Persians capture Jerusalem.622 Muhammad leaves Medina (Hijra).626 Avars besiege Constantinople, with

Persian support.627 Heraclius defeats Persians at Nineveh.

632 Death of Muhammad.636 Arabs defeat Romans at River Yarmuk.638 Arabs capture Jerusalem.639 Arabs attack Egypt.642 Arabs capture Alexandria.651 Death of Yazdgard III, last Sassanid

ruler.661 Mu'awiyah becomes Caliph at

Damascus.

Background to war

Controlling the empire

Marking boundaries

The centuries of conflict covered in thisvolume saw the Romans pitted againstenemies in three main sectors: along theRhine against the Alamanni, Franks andother Germanic tribes; on the Danube againstfirst the Sarmatians and Goths, then theHunnic tribes, and finally the Avars andmanifold Slav groups; in Armenia andMesopotamia the Sassanid Persians;eventually, towards the end of the period,Arab tribes erupted from the Arabianpeninsula to sweep through the Levant. Sincethe Roman Empire was a military institutionwhose widespread control had been imposedby force, there was naturally a long history ofconflict in each sector, even if the preciseopponents were not always the same.

The Romans first campaigned on theRhine in the 50s BC during Caesar's

conquest of Gaul, although it was only acentury later that the frontier stabilisedalong the river - once grander Romanvisions to incorporate Germania wererenounced. Temporary military installationswere replaced in stone, permanent campsattracted settlements of veterans, traders andother camp-followers, and prosperous siteswere honoured with colonial status, forexample Colonia Agrippina (Cologne) andMoguntiacum (Mainz). Stability along thefrontier required active defence, and therewere major campaigns commanded by anemperor in the 90s (Domitian), 170s (MarcusAurelius) and 230s (Severus Alexander).

The Rhine provided a partial barrier totribal movement which the Romans could

Impressive defences reinforced Rome's psychologicalsuperiority along the frontiers. Taken from Trajan's columnin Rome. (AKG London/Hilbich)

Background to war I 3

Troops crossing a river by pontoon bridge, from asection ofTrajan's column. (AKG Berlin)

control through naval squadrons and bysupervising recognised crossing-points.Beyond the Rhine were numerous tribalgroups whose relationship with the Romanswas not always hostile: tribesmen served inRoman armies, Roman garrisons hadconsiderable wealth (by local standards) tospend on slaves, furs or basic foodstuffs,while the Romans were a source of luxurygoods such as wine or spices. A symbioticrelationship could emerge: Romans wantedtribal manpower and supplies, while triballeaders relied on Romans for the wealth anddisplay goods to demonstrate superiorityover their rank and file. A cyclical pattern torelations on the frontier can be seen: theRomans bolstered the authority of compliantleaders whose expanding followinggenerated greater demands; when thesebecame excessive, conflict ensued betweenRome and a major tribal grouping; thereafterthe cycle would begin again.

The second major European river frontier,along the Danube, was joined to the Rhinefrontier by linear defences, which protected atriangle of territory to the south-east ofArgentoratum (Strasburg), always a sensitivearea. The Romans had reached the upper andmiddle Danube during the reign of Augustus(31 BC-AD 14), confirming their control overthe hinterland in the face of massive rebellionsin Pannonia and Illyricum; furtherdownstream the Danube became the frontierduring the first century AD. A process ofconsolidation similar to that on the Rhine gotunder way, but in this case the need todominate the Dacian tribes of the lowerDanube led to major campaigns across theriver under Trajan (98-117) in the early secondcentury and the creation of a new provincewithin the arc of the Carpathian mountains.

In the eastern Empire the Romansencountered the Parthians during the firstcentury BC, experiencing one of their worstdefeats in 53 BC when three legions wereannihilated at Carrhae (Harran) inMesopotamia. Until the mid-first century AD,

Background to war 15

small client kingdoms constituted bufferstates for Roman territory in Anatolia andthe Levant. Thereafter the upper and middleEuphrates provided a suitable line on whichto base legionary positions - though, asalong the European rivers, the Romansmaintained a keen interest in events beyond.Between the River Euphrates and the ArabianGulf, desert offered a reliable buffer zone,although tribes who knew how to operate inthis inhospitable terrain troubled Romanlands to the west intermittently. For theRomans the east was the prestigious area forconflict, ideally for expansion, with therenown of Alexander the Great'sachievements luring successive western rulersto emulation: in the early second centuryTrajan campaigned to the head of the PersianGulf, briefly establishing a province inMesopotamia; in the 160s Lucius Verus(161-9) fought energetically in lowerMesopotamia, and in the 190s SeptimiusSeverus (193-211) again defeated theParthians and annexed new territory.

A view along part of Hadrian's wall (showing Chester'sfort), another defensive structure which combinedprotection and propaganda. (Ancient Art and Architecture)

North Africa, which the Romans graduallytook over between the mid-second centuryBC and the mid-first century AD, resembledthe southern portion of the eastern frontier.Desert, supplemented on occasion by linearbarriers, played a significant part in markingthe boundaries of Roman authority. Tribalinstability could pose threats, though, asalong the European frontiers; 'outsiders' weretied into the Roman system through militaryservice and economic exchanges. The BritishIsles, which the Romans invaded in the firstcentury AD, stands in contrast to the othermajor frontiers as a place where the Romansrelied primarily on linear defences - thewalls of Hadrian and Antoninus - to separatethe untamed tribes of Caledonia fromRoman areas.

It is ironic that the best-studied Romandefences - the salient between the Rhine andDanube in south-western Germany and thewalls of north Britain - are not typical ofRoman frontier areas overall. As aconsequence, however, we may fail tounderstand how the frontiers operated. Thetraditional view is that frontiers weremaintained to delimit and protect Romanterritory by barring entry to foreigners. But

I 6 Essential Histories • Rome at War

frontiers are now seen as zones of contact, asmuch as lines of exclusion: this is clearlytrue for the European river frontiers, andeven in the case of an apparent barrier,scrutiny of the installations along Hadrian'sWall reveals its purpose was to control, butnot prevent, movement. It is also argued thatgenerals and emperors were more interestedin the rewards of conquest than in routinedefence of the Empire's inhabitants, and thatfrom the military perspective the provincesmore often required subjugation thanprotection. Exchanges across frontiers, thesignificance of military glory, and thepreservation of law and order are all validconsiderations, but the ideology of paxRomana was also important: emperors werebelieved to have a duty towards the civilianmembers of the Empire - or at least theirperformance of this role was an issue whichmight be picked up in speeches of praise ordefamatory tracts.

Within the frontier Roman territory wasdivided into provinces, of which there wereabout 60 in the early third century AD. Mostprovincial governors were drawn from thesenate, the council made up of formermagistrates, which had considerableauthority but little real power. Governors offrontier provinces with substantial armieswere chosen from among former consuls(the most senior group within the senate) bythe emperor. In the 'interior' provinces thegovernors' primary functions were to

A panel from Constantine's arch at Rome showing theemperor distributing largesse. This victory monumentdepicts the emperor's civilian virtues as well as hismilitary triumphs. (AKG London/Pirozzi)

maintain imperial control and ensure thesmooth collection of taxation. Theysuppressed brigandage (which subsisted at alow level in many parts of the Empire),regulated disputes between provincial citiesand ensured their internal stability, andoversaw communications between theprovince and Rome, including theimportant annual expressions of allegianceto the emperor.

Taxes and tradeTaxation was the lifeblood of the Empire,which depended upon a regular cyclical flowof wealth. The areas of greatest consumptionwere Rome - where the imperial court andsenatorial households spent lavishly - and thefrontier armies whose salaries had to be paidto prevent the risk of mutiny. Most frontierprovinces could not support the full costs ofthe legions based in them, and so taxsurpluses had to be transferred from 'interior'regions, for example Spain or Asia Minorwhere the inhabitants generated cash to meettax demands by selling produce: the Empireevolved quite a complex system which lockeddifferent areas together. The two mostimportant taxes were a poll tax and a land tax.The former was simpler, although its coverageand rate varied. The latter was based on anassessment of land value as determined byagricultural use, for example arable as opposedto vineyard or pastureland, and was levied as afixed percentage of the valuation. These taxeswere not progressive, which meant thatfinancial burdens fell more heavily onsmall-holders than grandees, who would alsohave greater influence to secure exemptions.In addition there were customs duties at both

Background to war I 7

imperial and provincial boundaries, and a5 per cent tax for Roman citizens oninheritances and the freeing of slaves.

Movement of produce, as both trade andtax revenue, was an important aspect of theEmpire's economic system. Massive amountsof grain from Egypt and other parts of NorthAfrica, and of oil and wine from Spain, weretransported to supply Rome as taxation orthe produce of imperial estates; similarlysenators' provincial estates supported theirpalatial households in the capital. Suppliesfor the army might also seem to be locatedwithin this command economy and to anextent they were, but the Vindolanda writingtablets, which preserve correspondence of anauxiliary cohort based in north Britainc. AD 100 reveal that army units were alsosupported by their own supply networks.

The best evidence for Roman tradeinevitably relates to the exceptional needs ofthe elite, who had an enormous appetite foreastern 'luxuries': spices from eastern Africa,and silks, gems and spices from India. Theeastern trade was a substantial enterprise; it

enriched both the imperial exchequerthrough customs revenues and themiddlemen whose profits were invested inPetra and Palmyra. The current view of theRoman economy, based in part on theincreasing evidence from ship-wrecks, is thattrade played a minor but significant role inthe Empire's prosperity: trade in luxury itemswas the tip of an iceberg of local, intra-regional and inter-regional exchange whichwas greatly facilitated by the existence of theroads, ports and other installationsestablished to service the crucial elements ofthe imperial system, namely the capital andthe armies.

Overall, the Empire was prosperous duringthe first two centuries AD, as can be seenfrom the archaeological remains of provincialcities where local elites competed to beautifytheir home towns. Wealth did flow out of theEmpire, but this was balanced by the

The colonnaded streets of Palmyra were evidence of thewealth derived by the city from its trading activities.(Ancient Art and Architecture)

18 Essential Histories • Rome at War

substantial production of mines (such as thesilver mines of Spain), imperial propertieswhich were exploited under the protectionof military units. In spite of the inflexibilityof the tax system, imperial revenue tendedto exceed expenditure during peace time,while wars could be supported, especially ifthey were of limited duration and generatedsome booty: the agricultural production ofthe provinces sustained both the imperialmachine and the demands of local cities.

On the other hand, there were alreadyominous signs of strain in the secondcentury, the golden age of imperialprosperity. The purity of the basic silvercoin, the denarius, was reduced from about90 per cent to 75 per cent, and then to50 per cent under Septimius Severus.Prolonged warfare was expensive, especiallyalong the European river frontiers wherebooty was unlikely to offset costs: troopshad to be moved to the area of conflict,imposing demands on communities alongtheir lines of march, and extra resourceswere demanded to make good losses. Civilwar was an even worse prospect, partlybecause such conflicts were, at best, azero-sum game (and at worst ruinouslyexpensive to ravaged provinces and allwho supported the losers), but moresignificantly because any attempt to securethe throne required lavish promises ofdonatives and higher pay for armies, whichwould also be expanded to meet the crisis.The plague brought back from the east byLucius Verus' army in AD 167 was also asignificant factor, and the consequences ofthe loss of agricultural population can betraced in papyrus records of land leases inEgypt: in some areas the impact seems tohave lasted for a generation, in others threegenerations.

Cassius Dio, historian, twice consul andexperienced provincial governor, writingabout 230, assesses the change in theEmpire's fortunes in 180 (72.36).

'[Marcus Aurelius] encountered a hostof problems practically all through hisreign ... he both survived himself andpreserved the Empire in extraordinaryand untoward circumstances. One thingalone marred his personal happiness: hisson [Commodus] ... our history nowfalls away, as affairs did for the Romansof that time, from a realm of gold toone of iron and rust.'

The Empire functioned best when rulerssurvived for reasonably long reigns with thesupport of both senate and provincialarmies, when conflicts remained localisedand did not coincide with challenges onother frontiers, and when climatic and otherconditions permitted a reasonable level ofagricultural production. The accession ofSeptimius Severus in 193 provided a severejolt, since this was followed by three years ofinternal conflict across much of the Empire.His son Caracalla, who succeeded in 211,had to buy favour with the troops byawarding a 50 per cent pay increase,financed by issuing a new (overvalued) silvercoin and by doubling the 5 per centinheritance tax: to increase the revenue fromthe latter, he gave Roman citizenship to allthe free inhabitants of the Empire and sobrought them into the tax net. The Empiresurvived Caracalla, but if the balance ofimperial prosperity was delicate during thesecond century it now become precarious,with a major external threat or significantinternal upheaval likely to generate a crisis.

Warring sides

Inside and outside the empire

Army of the Roman Empire

The Roman Empire depended on thepower of its armies, which had alwaysbeen composed of a combination of citizenand non-citizen troops. Before the universalextension of citizenship in AD 212 citizens

were recruited into the legions,while non-citizens traditionally enteredthe auxiliary units. Remarkably little isknown about the process of recruitment:

Late Roman cavalry. Artwork by Christa Hook.

(Osprey Publishing)


Late Roman infantry. Artwork by Christa Hook. (Osprey Publishing)

Warring sides 21

conscription was probably always a feature,with manpower needs being apportioned inline with census records of citizens, but therewas also some element of hereditary serviceas units drew on veteran settlements. Attimes, perhaps often, military service offereda reasonably good and quite safe career forthe young provincials, especially if theyserved close to home.

In the later Empire it is often alleged thatthe balance of the armies changed, withcitizens being outnumbered by foreigners,the traditional infantry backbone eclipsedby cavalry units, and frontier units(limitanei) relegated to an inferior status.Romans were progressively demilitarisedand the increasingly un-Roman armiesdeclined in discipline and loyalty. Thesetheories reflect developments in the laterarmy, although they are all ultimatelymisconceptions.

Roman armies did continue to rely onsubstantial units of non-citizens, especiallywhen troops had to be recruited quickly, asin civil war and after military defeat, or forspecial expeditions. These 'outsiders' wereoften excellent troops who provided reliablebodyguards for emperors and generals,whose personal retinues of bucellarii(biscuit-men) might represent the elite partof an army. There were also several seniornon-Roman commanders who playedimportant political roles, especially duringthe fragmentation of the western Empire inthe fifth century, but it is invalid to inferfrom their prominence that non-Romansalso dominated the ranks of the army.

Infantry had always been the particularstrength of the Romans, and it is true thatcavalry units performed a more importantrole in late Roman armies, but there is littleevidence to support the popular notionthat the Romans switched to reliance onheavy-mailed cavalry, an anticipation ofmedieval knights. The Romans had a fewunits of mailed lancers (clibanarii orboiler-boys) in imitation of Parthian andPersian units, but mounted archers on theHunnic model were probably more common.The sixth-century historian Procopius chose

a horseman equipped with a composite bowto represent the ideal contemporary soldier.But infantry remained the basis for mostarmies, and Roman foot-soldiers, whenproperly trained and led, were capable ofdefying all opponents.

Another development in the late Romanarmy was that, from the fourth century,distinctions were drawn, in terms of statusas well as rewards, between limitanei andtroops of the comitatus, i.e. between morestatic provincial units and those whichaccompanied the emperor or seniorgenerals. It is often claimed that limitaneibecame soldier-farmers, losing their militaryquality along with their professionalism,but that misrepresents the nature of theestates which helped to support them andignores their continuing use in conjunctionwith mobile troops on major easterncampaigns. It is noticeable that the limitaneiincluded more cavalry units than thecomitatus, a reflection of the usefulness ofhorses for local patrolling and of the greaterability of infantry to retain fightingstrength when required to move longdistances quickly.

There had been a gradual change in thedeployment of Roman armies. In the earlyempire legions were quartered in majorbases near the frontier (e.g. Cologne), butmilitary need dictated that units weredetached for specific duties as frontiergarrisons or in the interior. Later this ad hocdispersal was consolidated so that troopswere spread across provinces in numerousforts and cities. Emperors, however, alsoneeded mobile forces for more rapiddeployment. In the east there came to betwo armies 'in the presence' stationed nearConstantinople, and others in the Balkansand the east; in the west Gaul and Italy hadtheir own armies until imperial authoritycontracted from the former.

Overall, Roman armies changed betweenthe third and seventh centuries, but themajority of troops were drawn from theEmpire's inhabitants. Specific uplandregions had the reputation for producinggood recruits: the Balkan highlands,


Late Roman parade helmet (AKG London)

mountainous Isauria in southern AsiaMinor, and Armenia. Goths, Germans andHuns also made important contributions,but such soldiers often came from groupswho had been accepted into the Empire andgiven lands with the explicit purpose ofproviding recruits. To educated observersfrom the cities, the people who wrote mostof our evidence, Roman armies undoubtedly

looked quite barbaric and undisciplined,but the same could often have been saidabout early imperial armies.

The size of late Roman armies is a complexgame for which most of the pieces are missing.In the third century army units probablynumbered upwards of 350,000, with a further40,000 in the navy. Numbers increasedsignificantly under Diocletian (284-305) andConstantine (306-37), so that the totalmilitary establishment exceeded 500,000 -

Warring sides 23

perhaps even 600,000. But paper strength willalways have surpassed disposable strength, andmany troops were committed to particularassignments so that only a small proportion ofthe total establishment could be deployed forindividual campaigns. In the fourth centuryan army of 50,000 was large, and by the sixthcentury mobile armies rarely exceeded 30,000.

In spite of complaints about discipline,Roman training appears to have remainedtough. A succession of military manualsindicates that attention was devoted totraining and tactics, at least in the eastern

Folio from the Notitia Dignitatum, depicting theresponsibilities of the Master of Offices which includedthe imperial weapons factories (fabricae). (MS CanonMisc. 378, f. 141 r, Bodleian Library)

Empire, although it is probably correct thatorganisation, rather than basic military skill,increasingly emerged as the way in whichRomans surpassed their opponents. TheRomans had the capacity to co-ordinate troopsover long distances to build up complexarmies, with artillery units as well as infantryand cavalry, and then keep these supplied on


campaign: the infrastructure of roads,warehouses, granaries, arms factories and thebilleting arrangements generated a complexbody of law, and enabled the Romans to movetheir men wherever thev were needed.

Persian arrangements

Only in the East did the Romans face anenemy with a sophistication comparable totheir own. The Iranian Sassanids supplantedthe Parthian Arsacids during the 220s,imposing themselves as a new military eliteon a heterogeneous population, whichincluded substantial groups of Jews andChristians in densely populated lowerMesopotamia. Persian armies are not clearlyunderstood, since almost all our knowledgecomes from Roman informants reportingPersian actions during the repeated conflicts.One important strategic point to bear inmind is that, from the Persian perspective,their north-eastern frontier, the sector inwhich they confronted the nations of centralAsia, took priority; we occasionally glimpsePersian action in this area, as when KingPeroz led his armies to disaster against theHephthalite Huns in the late fifth century, orduring the service of the Armenian SmbatBagratuni in the early seventh, but there isa substantial gap in our appreciation ofPersian might.

The career of SmbatThe Armenian Smbat, a member of thenoble Bagratid house, commandedcavalry for the Romans in the Balkans inthe 580s, but was exiled to Africa forinstigating revolt. In the 590s hereappears in Persian service, beingappointed provincial governor by KingKhusro II; he was trusted to suppressawkward rebellions in the east andreceived the nickname 'Joy of Khusro',but Khusro was reluctant to allow himto return to Armenia and Smbat waskept at court as an honoured advisor.

The Greek historian Theophylact preservesrare information on Persian militaryarrangements.(3.15.4)

'For, unlike the Romans oncampaign, Persians are not paid by thetreasury, not even when assembled intheir villages; the customarydistributions from the king, which theyadminister to obtain income, aresufficient to support themselves untilthey invade a foreign land.'

Persian kings did not maintain a largestanding army until at least the sixthcentury: there were garrisons in frontiercities and fortresses, but for major campaignskings instructed their nobles to mobiliseprovincial levies. Minor gentry of free statusserved as mounted warriors providing abackbone, and they probably brought alongtheir own retinues. The system was feudal,with royal land grants carrying an obligationto serve or send troops on demand;campaigns inside the Persian kingdom seemto have been unpaid, on the assumption thatsoldiers could support themselves from theirestates, but payment was given for foreignexpeditions. Feudal arrangements could beextended to attract troops from outside thekingdom - who worked for specific terms -but mercenaries were also recruited,sometimes from the Hunnic and Turkictribes beyond the north-east frontier,sometimes from specific internal groupssuch as the Dailamites who inhabited themountains south of the Caspian.

Persian armies are often associated withheavily mailed cavalry, but their most potentelement were mounted archers: Romantactical writers advised that the Persianscould not withstand a frontal charge, butthat any delay in engaging at close quarterswould permit them to exploit theirsuperiority at archery. The Persians wereheirs to a long Middle-Eastern tradition ofsiege warfare and they had a formidablecapacity to organise sieges, dig mines anddeploy a variety of engines to capture even

Warring sides 25

the most strongly fortified positions. In thesixth century there was a substantialoverhaul of the tax system as well as aredistribution of land, which was intendedto bolster royal power by permitting thepayment of some permanent units, animitation perhaps of the Roman comitatus.But the feudal link between king andnobility remained crucial, dictating thatmilitary prestige was essential for royalauthority: kings might embark on foreigncampaigns to acquire booty and prestige forinternal consumption.

Enemies in Europe

The personal prestige of the war leader wasalso vital for Rome's various tribal enemies inEurope. These groups ranged from small warbands from an extended family or singlevillage, through more complex clan andtribal bands into which the family unitswould be subsumed, to the occasional butmighty international federation. At thebottom of the scale were the Slav raiders whocrossed the Danube in the sixth century;these might operate in groups of 200 or300, perhaps accompanied by their familiesin wagons as they sought land for settlement.

Most of the German and Gothic groupswho challenged the Empire were collectionsof such smaller clan or village units, unitedunder the authority of a king. The right tolead depended ultimately on success,especially in warfare; although leadingfamilies (such as the Gothic Balti and Amali)attempted to create dynasties, these could notsurvive the shock of prolonged failure or theabsence of a suitable war-leader. There wassome instability in these groups, and units -such as the Carpi, who were prominent downto AD 300 - might disappear permanently;others such as the Lombards are absent fromour sources for several generations before re-emerging in the sixth century. Such changesdid not represent the elimination of thesepeople but their subjection to a different elitewhich imposed its identity on its followers.Powerful German kings might be able to

mobilise 10,000 warriors, and larger forces -such as those that confronted Julian atStrasburg in AD 357 - could be producedthrough alliances. On rare occasionsGerman leaders commanded larger numbers -the Amal-led Ostrogoths fielded25,000-30,000 warriors after subsuming arival Gothic group in the Balkans - butthis was exceptional, the product of Romanpower which forced tribes to coalesce orface defeat.

The most powerful Roman enemies werethe supranational federations, represented bythe Huns in the fifth century and the Avarsin the sixth and seventh. These groupingsswallowed the variety of smaller tribal unitswithin their sphere of action, with terror andbooty providing the cement; their existencerequired regular warfare, and their ruthlessleaders had the manpower to overrun thedefences of even major cities. Both Huns andAvars posed serious challenges to Romanauthority, but their inherent instability wastheir undoing: Attila's death in 453 led tofatal dissension among his potential heirs,while the Avars never recovered from theirfailure at Constantinople in 626, sinceweakness at the top permitted constituentsub-groups to rebel. The image of the Huns isof nomadic warriors whose attachment totheir horses was such that they couldscarcely walk, and it is true that the variouswarrior elites will have fought as cavalry,but all these groupings could also fieldsubstantial infantry forces which wouldhave been provided by less prestigiouselements, for example the Slavs within theAvar federation.

Collectively Rome's enemies rivalled, orsurpassed, its military strength, but theRomans could usually hold their own, partlythrough superior organisation and training,partly through strong defences, but aboveall by the strategy of trying to avoidsimultaneous conflict on different frontiers.Along the Danube or Rhine tribal groupingsmight co-operate in the short term, butRoman diplomacy was adept at exploitingpotential splits. Wider collaboration wasextremely rare, the only real instance


Movement of Goths across Europe

occurring in 626 when Persian troopsencamped on the Bosporus attempted to jointhe Avar attacks on Constantinople, only tobe thwarted by the Roman fleet. Possessionof a small but powerful navy was a factor

which distinguished the Romans from alltheir opponents, with the exception ofSaxon raiders in the North Sea and theVandal kingdom in North Africa which tookover part of the western Roman fleet.

Outbreak

Creating crisis

After the murder of Severus Alexander in 235the Roman Empire experienced 50 yearsof instability, commonly termed theThird-century Crisis, a period which marks thetransition to the later Empire. The 'crisis' canbe viewed from a number of interlockingaspects - frontier pressure, usurpers, religiouschange, financial shortages - but it isreasonable to begin from the frontiers: heredevelopments can be identified which thenarguably prevented the Empire fromcontrolling change in other areas.

Beyond the eastern frontier a new dynastywas inaugurated when the Sassanid Ardashirwas crowned in Ctesiphon in 226. Thechange was significant since the Romans hadgenerally dominated the Parthians, andindeed repeated Roman successes hadcontributed to undermining royal prestige,but the Sassanids propagated a dynamicnationalism, including links with theAchaemenids, who ruled Persia beforeAlexander the Great's conquests. Embassiesdemanded the return of their ancestralproperty, with war as the consequence of the

The Greek historian Herodian recordsdemands of a Persian embassy to AlexanderSeverus in the 220s (6.4.5).

'The mission declared that by order ofthe Great King the Romans and theirruler must abandon Syria and the wholeof Asia opposite Europe, allowing Persianrule to extend as far as Ionia and Cariaand the peoples within the Aegean-Pontus seaboard. For these were thetraditional possessions of the Persians.'

inevitable refusal. Gordian's attempt todiscipline Ardashir's son Shapur I ended inhumiliation in 244, with Gordian defeatedand murdered and his successor Philip theArab forced to purchase the withdrawal ofhis army. Shapur's invasions in 253 and 260resulted in the capture of Antioch, the majorcity of the eastern provinces as well as

The ruined walls of Dura by the River Euphrates.(Ancient Art and Architecture)


The Valerian Wall at Athens, cutting across the agora.(Author's collection)

numerous lesser places such as Dura on theEuphrates, and the transport to Persia ofmassive booty; Emperor Valerian wascaptured in battle at Edessa (Urfa) in 260 andtaken back to Persia. For the next decadeimperial authority in the east was limited,with the most effective resistance to thePersians being provided by the ruler ofPalmyra, Odaenathus. The east had becomean expensive military arena for the Romans,and the substantial tax revenues of itsprovinces were jeopardised.

The problem was compounded by eventson the Danube, where the Romans also hadto face a new enemy. Here change had beenslow, the result of the gradual movement ofGothic peoples from northern Poland. Thefirst attested Gothic incursion came in 238,when they sacked Istria near the Danube

mouth; a decade later they swept across thenorth-eastern Balkans, and Emperor Deciuswas killed and his army annihilated whiletrying to force them back across the Danubein 251. Further ravaging occupied the 250s,with the Goths commandeering shipping onthe Black Sea to cross to Asia Minor and sailinto the Aegean where they sacked Athens in268. Mining operations in Macedonia andThrace were inevitably disrupted.

This great movement of Goths naturallydisplaced other peoples who might findthemselves squeezed against the Romanfrontier; this process could trigger theformation of substantial federations asdifferent tribes steeled themselves for theultimate challenge of attacking the Romans.On the upper Danube the Vandals, Quadiand Marcomanni breached the frontier, andon the upper Rhine the Alamanni increasedtheir strength to the extent that they twiceinvaded Italy in the 260s. On the lower Rhine

Outbreak 29

Porchester Castle. One of the late third-centurySaxon shore fortifications, built to protect southern andeastern Britain from raids across the North Sea.(Ancient Art and Architecture)

the Franks gradually came to dominateanother large federation which threatenedfrontier defences during the latter half of thecentury, and Saxon pirates began to raidacross the North Sea and down the Channel.

Of the Roman world only Africa, theIberian Peninsula and, to a lesser extent,Britain, were spared invasion. Thecumulative nature of the frontier pressure isevident, with emperors unable to diverttroops from one sector to another andinstead constrained to confront invaders inconditions which led to defeat. Theconsequences for imperial prestige areobvious, and by the late 260s the Empire wasvirtually split into three units whichattended separately to their own security.Trouble began in 235 when Severus

Alexander, who had just campaignedunsuccessfully in the east, was overthrownby the Rhine armies who feared hisleadership. They proclaimed as their leaderMaximinus the Thracian (allegedly anuneducated peasant risen from the ranks).Maximinus made no attempt to conciliatethe senate, his control of the armies,especially those in the east, was shaky inspite of a promise to double military pay,and the extensive confiscations needed toprovide funds for his promises damaged hisreputation further. Maximinus survived until238 when his failure to deal with rivalssupported or proclaimed by the senatecaused his troops to mutiny. Seven emperorswithin one year, fighting in North Africa andnorthern Italy, and disturbances in Romewere a foretaste of the anarchy to come; suchsubstantial internal upheavals naturallyafforded external enemies a chance toinvade, which then increased the problemsfor whoever happened to occupy the throne.


The rapid turnover of emperors is bestillustrated by a simple list - with the provisothat it is difficult to include all theshorter-lived local claimants to the throne.

235-38238238238238-4244-19249-51251-53251-53253253-60253-68268-70270270-75275-76276276-82282-83283-85283-84

MaximinusGordian I & Gordian IIBalbinus & MaximusPupienusGordian IIIPhilip the ArabDeciusTrebonianus GallusVolusianusAemilianusValerianGallienusClaudius II GothicusQuintillusAurelianTacitusFlorianusProbusCarusCarinusNumerian

Each new emperor meant anotherdonation to the troops; each bout of civilwar more loss of life, physical destructionand distraction from the frontiers. Ironically,in 248 Philip celebrated the millennium of

Rome's foundation in spectacular fashion,but the military reverses of the 250seffectively split the Empire into three.Odaenathus' defence of the east fuelledambitions for imperial authority, which wereinherited by his wife Zenobia in 268/9, whilein Gaul, the Rhine armies proclaimed theirsuccessful general Postumus. The air of crisisgenerated apocalyptic literature in the east(for example, the Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle),and a circuit of walls for Rome, 11.8 miles(19 km) in length, was rapidly constructed in271. The Empire was only reunited byAurelian in a series of energetic campaigns,which were helped by instability in Gaulfollowing the murder of Postumus in 269and by the death of Odaenathus; also, hewas prepared to abandon the exposedprovince of Dacia and redeploy Romantroops along the lower Danube. Perhapsmost significantly, the energetic Shapur diedin 270 and it was to be 50 years before thePersians had a comparable leader. If militaryfailure guaranteed overthrow, success did notensure survival: both Aurelian and Probus,who continued Aurelian's re-establishmentof the Empire, succumbed to plots inmilitary camps, and Cams died whileinvading lower Mesopotamia, allegedlystruck by lightning.

Aurelian's wall at Rome. (Ancient Art and Architecture)

Outbreak 31

Prolonged warfare inside the frontiers,regular defeat, and the rapid turnover ofemperors cumulatively had major economicconsequences. Emperors required moremoney to pay donatives and salaries to theirtroops, and the available supplies of bullionhad to be squeezed in order to produce thenecessary precious metal coins. UnderGallienus this resulted in the silver contentof the denarius, the standard coin for militarypay, declining to 5 per cent; subsequentlythere were issues of bronze washed in arsenicto provide a short-lived silvery brightness.The declining value of coinage triggered anoffsetting rise in prices which resulted in aninflationary spiral, particularly during thelast third of the third century.

One victim of inflation was thegovernment, whose tax revenues declined invalue; granted the inflexibility of the taxsystem, it was difficult to raise large new

sums of cash. A consequence was anincreasing reliance on taxation in kind:troops needed to be supplied and, rather thanextracting increasingly worthless coin fromrural taxpayers to permit units to purchasefood and other necessities, the cycle wasshort-circuited by the transfer of goodsdirectly to the troops. This developmentmight have been accidental and haphazard,with armies gradually adopting the practiceof securing their own supplies and leavingprovincial administrations to acknowledgethat their appropriations could be offsetagainst tax demands. Other victims ofinflation were the cities, where thespectacular building developments of theprevious 150 years ceased.

Gold medallion ofValerian I and Gallienus Salonimproclaiming Concordia Augustorum. (© R SheridanAncient Art and Architecture)


Coin with legend Carausius et fratres, c.AD 286.(Ancient Art and Architecture)

Another consequence of crisis was themarginalisation of the senate and aprofessionalisation of military command. In238 the senate and armies had contested theimperial succession, but under Gallienussenators were effectively removed frommilitary commands. This developmenthad begun earlier, since the Severanshad sometimes preferred trustworthynon-senators for important commands, butthe insecurity of emperors furthered thechange while troops also demanded reliableleaders rather than aristocratic amateurs.When Aurelian came to power with thebacking of the upper Danube legions andthen used these troops to restore the

Empire, it transpired that Pannonians, andother officers of Balkan extraction, becameprominent. These were professional soldiers,at whom civilian intellectuals might sneerfor their lack of culture, but they provedto be solidly committed to the idea ofRome and its traditions, as well aseffective generals.

The crisis also had a religious impact, sincea natural inference from repeated misfortunewas that the gods had to be placated. At firstthis took the form of intensified supplicationto traditional deities: in 249 Decius issued ageneral instruction to all citizens to offerprayers and sacrifices on his behalf. Aconsequence, probably unintended, of thisorder was that Christians were faced with thechoice of disobedience or apostasy; someabandoned the faith, many more probably

Outbreak 33

Radiate coin of Aurelius (AD 270-275). (Barber Instituteof Fine Arts)

found means to evade or connive in theruling, but there were enough martyrs toidentify Christians as traitors to the Empire.Persecution lapsed with Decius' death, but wasrestarted in 257 by Valerian who specificallytargeted the Christians, with attention focusedon the priestly hierarchy; his defeat in battleterminated proceedings. The successfulAurelian advertised his devotion to thetraditional divinities, especially Victoria, Mars,Hercules and Jupiter who were all connectedwith success in war, and to these he added aspecial devotion to the cult of theUnconquered Sun, Sol Invictus, after the defeatof Palmyra in 273. Devotion to the correctdivinity did bring success, as Diocletian andConstantine would continue to demonstratein their different ways.

A papyrus of AD 250 demonstrates the

consequences of Decius' demand for sacrifice:

everyone needed a receipt to prove compliance.

'To those superintending thesacrifices of the village of Theadelphia,from Aurelia Bellias, daughter of Peteres,and her daughter Capinis. We havesacrificed to the gods all along, and nowin your presence according to orders Ihave poured a libation and offeredsacrifice and eaten of the sacrificialoffering; we ask you to sign below tothis. Farewell.

Signatures: We Aurelius Serenus andAurelius Hermas saw you sacrificing.Signed by me, Hermas.

Year 1 of the Emperor Caesar GaiusMessius Quintus Traianus Decius PiusFelix Augustus, Payni 27.'

The fighting

Challenges to empire

Diocletian's stabilisation

Aurelian reunified the Roman Empire, butDiocletian re-established imperial stabilitythrough a reign of 20 years which ended inplanned retirement. The secret of success wasan imperial college, since one factorpromoting earlier disunity had been thedesire of major armies to have their ownemperor. Power-sharing had worked in thesecond century when Marcus Aureliusco-opted Lucius Verus to command hisParthian campaign, and was tried in thethird century by the families of Valerian andCarus. Family control might enhance loyalty,but perhaps at the expense of ability.Diocletian elevated a long-standingcolleague, Maximian, to the rank of Caesarin 285 and dispatched him to Gaul to quellan uprising of baccaudae, rebels who havebeen variously interpreted as RobinHood-style brigands or supporters of localwarlords. In 286 Maximian was promotedto Augustus, with the relationship betweenthe Augusti represented by their divinecompanions, Jupiter king of the gods

An orator in Gaul addresses Maximian in289, praising his co-operation with Diocletia(Latin Panegyrics 10.11).

'Your harmony has this result,invincible princes, that even Fortuneresponds to you with an equally greatmeasure of success. For you rule theState with one mind, nor does the greatdistance which separates you hinder youfrom governing, so to speak, with righthands clasped. Thus, although yourdoubled divinity increases your royalmajesty, by your unanimity you retainthe advantage of an undivided Empire.'

for Diocletian and Hercules his son forMaximian. After six years of joint reign,rebellion in Egypt prompted Diocletian toincrease his imperial resources by appointingtwo junior colleagues as Caesars, Galerius forthe east and Constantius for the west.Marriage between the Caesars and daughtersof the Augusti united the Tetrarchy.

The energetic campaigning of Diocletianand his colleagues is reflected in the victorytitles which precede his Edict on MaximumPrices of 301:

'The emperor Caesar Gaius AureliusValerius Diocletianus, pious, fortunate,unconquered, Augustus, pontifex maximus,Germanicus maximus six times, Sarmaticusmaximus four times, Persicus maximus twotimes, Britannicus maximus, Carpicusmaximus, Armenicus maximus'.

Constantius was sent to recover Britain,which permitted Maximian to leave the Rhinefrontier and move to Africa to deal withMoorish incursions. In the east the majorachievement was Galerius' success against thePersians in 298, after initial defeat in theprevious year. The decisive action wasGalerius' capture of King Narses' womenfolk,although he also ravaged lower Mesopotamia.Narses sued for peace and surrendered territoryeast of the Tigris to recover his women.

Almost as important as the victories wasDiocletian's administrative overhaul, whichdoubled the number of provinces - wheregovernors were expected to keep closercontrol of their areas - and introduceddioceses which grouped provinces andprovided a judicial buffer between thegovernor and the praetorian prefect at court.The tax system was reformed perhaps todistribute the burdens of land and polltax more fairly, perhaps to improveefficiency. Provision was made for regularreassessment; for the first time it was

The fighting 35

theoretically possible to construct animperial budget. Diocletian also attempted tostabilise the coinage, with new issues of gold,silver and bronze, but he seems to havelacked the bullion to issue enough preciousmetal coins to convince people. As a resultinflation continued, and in 301 Diocletianissued an Edict on Prices, a law for display inall towns and markets of the Empire onwhich was listed the maximum prices for awide range of goods and services. In terms ofmilitary organisation, Diocletian may havebeen less innovative than in other areas,although the evidence for his actions isindecisive. His concern for frontiers wasreflected in the strengthening of defensiveinstallations, the construction of new roads -for example the Strata Diocletiana which ranfrom the Gulf of Aqaba to the Euphrates -and the deployment of troops near thefrontiers. The army most probably increasedin size during his reign, though there are noprecise figures.

Constantine and conversion

Diocletian retired in 305, to a speciallyprepared palace at Spalato (Split), but hissuccession arrangements faltered becausethey disregarded the soldiers' strong dynasticloyalties: when Constantius the new

Towers at Constantina (modern Viransehir. Turkey).The large horseshoe towers of basalt date back to thefourth century. (Author's collection)

Diocletian explains the need to control prices.(Preamble to Edict on Maximum Prices.)

'Who does not know that wherevercommunal safety requires our armies tobe sent, profiteers insolently and covertlyattack the public welfare, not only invillages and towns, but on every road?They charge extortionate prices formerchandise, not just fourfold oreightfold, but so that human speechcannot find words to characterise theirprofit and practices. Indeed, sometimesin a single transaction a soldier isstripped of his donative and pay.Moreover, the contributions of the wholeworld for the support of armies fall asprofits into the hands of theseplunderers, and our soldiers appear tobestow with their own hands the rewardsof military service and their veterans'bonuses upon the profiteers.'

Augustus of the west died at York in 306,his troops promptly acclaimed his sonConstantine. Over the next six yearsConstantine schemed and fought his way tomastery of the whole western Empire, aprocess which culminated outside Rome atthe battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312: hisopponent, Maxentius, son of Diocletian'spartner Maximian, deployed his troops onthe north bank of the Tiber, but they wererouted and during the confused flight backto the city the wooden bridge collapsed. The


most significant aspect of the victory wasthat Constantine's men fought under thesign of Christ, whose inspirationConstantine proclaimed; after the battle heset about rewarding his new God. In someways this marked a decisive change fromDiocletian (who had initiated persecution ofChristians in 303) and Constantine'sconversion did eventually lead to theChristianisation of the Empire and so ofEurope, but the underlying religious attitudewas the same: correct worship of the rightdivinity provided victory.

A contemporary Christian teacher,Lactantius, records how Constantine hadthe chi-rho monogram (the first two Greekletters of Christ's name) painted on hissoldiers' shields (On the Deaths of thePersecutors 44.5-6).

'Constantine was advised in a dreamto mark the heavenly sign of God onthe shields of his soldiers and thenengage in battle. He did as he wascommanded and by means of a slantedletter X with the top of its head bentround, he marked Christ on theirshields. Armed with this sign, the armytook up its weapons.'

For the next 12 years Constantine sharedthe Empire in uneasy partnership withLicinius in the east, but in 324 the twoclashed in a decisive naval engagement inthe Bosporus, with Constantine emerging assole ruler of the whole Empire. This victorywas marked by the construction of a newcapital - Constantinople - on the site of theold city of Byzantium, which gained newwalls, a palace and the other appurtenancesof an imperial seat. Constantine nowinherited responsibility for the Danube andPersian frontiers. During the 330s hecampaigned energetically against the Goths,to such effect that the area was quiet for thenext generation. Towards the end of hisreign tension began to rise in the east, withConstantine probably contacting the

Constantine writes to the king of Persia(Eusebius, Life of Constantine 4.9-13).

'With God's power as ally 1 beganfrom Ocean's shores and progressivelyraised up the whole world with surehopes of salvation ... 1 believe that I amnot mistaken, my brother, in confessingthis one God the Author and Father ofall, whom many of those who reignedhere, seduced by mad errors, haveattempted to deny. But suchpunishment finally engulfed them thatall men saw that their fate superseded allother examples, warning those whoattempt the same ends ... With thesepersons - 1 mean of course theChristians, my whole concern is forthem - how pleasing it is for me to learnthat the chief regions of Persia too arerichly endowed! ... These therefore Ientrust to you, since you are so great,putting their persons in your hands,because you too are renowned for piety.'

Christian population of lower Mesopotamiato raise hopes of 'liberation'; he had alreadywritten to the young Persian king Shapur IIto inform him of the benefits of Christianityand to warn him not to harm his Christiansubjects. In the event Constantinebequeathed the conflict to his successors,since he died near Nicomedia in 337 at thestart of the march east.

Although his accession disrupted theTetrarchy, Constantine was in most ways atrue heir to Diocletian's purpose. For half hisreign Constantine was involved in civilconflicts, which diverted attention fromfrontiers: he reorganised the central forceswhich accompanied the emperor, thecomitatns, and created two prestigiouscommands for cavalry and infantry, themagister eqiutum and magister peditum. Thepraetorian prefect lost operational militaryresponsibility, but took overall charge ofadministration, including military suppliesand recruitment; in recognition of thisincreased role, the Empire was divided into

The fighting 37

four grand prefectures. At provincial levelmilitary command was also separated fromcivilian duties. Constantine's greatestachievement was the establishment of astable currency, based on gold solidi struck at72 to the pound: the bullion gained fromcivil war and confiscations of templetreasures underpinned this coinage.

The eastern Empire

The Empire was divided betweenConstantine's three surviving sons,Constantine II in Gaul, Constans in Rome,with Constantius II in the east inheriting thewar against Shapur. Constantius II hassuffered historiographically, since mostChristian writers regarded him as heretical,while the major contemporary secularauthor, Ammianus Marcellinus,misrepresented him because of his clash withthe pagan Julian. As a result his doggedconduct of 24 years of war with Persia isunderrated, although he managed topreserve the eastern frontier with onlylimited losses in the face of one of the mostdynamic Persian rulers. There was only onepitched battle during the conflict, outsideSingara in 344: the Romans had theadvantage until a disorderly pursuit andattack on the Persian camp permitted theenemy to recover so that the engagementended indecisively. Constantius' strategy wasto build new forts and rely on the majorcities of the frontier to hold up Persianincursions, with Nisibis holding the key toadvances across upper Mesopotamia: Shapurbesieged the city three times, bringing thefull might of Persian siege technology tobear, but the defences held, with divinesupport provided through the city's deceasedbishop, Jacob, whose corpse was paradedaround the ramparts as a talisman. Singara,however, was captured in 360 when a newlyrepaired section of wall was undermined,and Bezabde also fell that year.

The siege of Amida (Diyarbakir) in 359, ofwhich Ammianus was a fortunate survivor,illustrates the dynamics of strategic

confrontation. Constantius was engaged onthe Danube, when Shapur II planned tostrike deep into Roman territory, for oncedisregarding Nisibis. The Romansimplemented a scorched-earth policy andplaced strong guards at the Euphratescrossings, but the river was in flood and thePersians turned northwards. At AmidaShapur attempted to overawe the defendersby a display of might, but a Romanartilleryman disrupted proceedings when abolt aimed at the king struck a member ofhis entourage. Shapur felt obliged to punishthe city, which eventually fell after 73 daysof determined resistance, but thecombination of delay and heavy casualtiesterminated the Persian invasion.

Civil conflicts as well as the demands ofother frontiers distracted Constantius,especially after he became sole ruler in 353.Between 351 and 353 Constantius co-optedhis cousin Gallus to supervise the east, buthe proved unsuitable. In 355 Constantiusturned to Gallus' younger brother, theintellectual Julian, and used him to controlthe west, with better results until in 360Julian's troops - quite possibly with Julian'sencouragement - demanded imperialequality for their commander. Constantiusstabilised the frontier before turning west toconfront his rival, but he died en route;Julian inherited the Empire without a battle.

Julian arrived in the empire of the east in361 with a reputation as a successful generaland a need to demonstrate that he couldsurpass Constantius. A major factor in thiswas religion: Julian espoused the old godsand had renounced formal adherence toChristianity when challenging Constantius.Persia offered the great testing ground, whereJulian could prove the rectitude of his beliefsand the pusillanimity of Constantius'policies. Preparations were made for a grandinvasion in 363: Julian himself would lead anarmy down the Euphrates while a secondarmy created a diversion in northernMesopotamia. The campaign began well,with Julian overrunning Persian forts alongthe Euphrates and reaching the vicinity ofthe capital Ctesiphon in spite of Persian


The arch of Galerius. Thessaloniki, showing fightingbetween Romans and Persians. (Author's collection)

attempts to thwart his advance by breachingtheir irrigation canals. However, he nowrealised that he had little chance of capturingthe city, and resolved to march back up theTigris; this entailed burning his fleet of

supply ships which could not be hauledupstream. Treacherous guides led him astrayand then Shapur, whose army had not beentied down effectively in the north, began toharass; Julian was mortally wounded in askirmish, and his successor, the officer Jovian,could only extricate his army by surrenderingterritories to the east of the Tigris, plus

The fighting 39

Eastern frontier in the fourth century

Nisibis and Singara. Bitter opposition fromthe inhabitants of Nisibis who pleaded tocontinue their battle with the Persians wasoverruled, and they were resettled in Amida.

Blame for the Roman reverse wasallocated in accordance with religiousloyalties: for pagans the heroic Julian'ssuccess was squandered by the cowardlyJovian, whereas for Christians Jovian's pietyrescued the Romans from Julian's folly. Theloss of Nisibis rankled, and its recovery wasstill on the imperial agenda two centurieslater, but the agreement of 363 ushered inthe most prolonged period of peace whichthe Roman eastern frontier had ever

experienced, a fact crucial for the easternEmpire's survival during the fifth century.There were moments of tension, and twobrief conflicts, but no prolonged warfareuntil 502. Tension persisted for a time,primarily over control of Armenia, but thiswas settled in 387 when the Armeniankingdom was suppressed and its territorypartitioned between Rome and Persia. In421/2 war was provoked by the behaviour ofChristian activists in Persia againstZoroastrian shrines; the Christians fled westand Theodosius II refused to surrender hisco-believers. In 440-42 conflict flared again,this time over Roman payments for the


Tne Baptistery at Nisibis with the lintels of the originaldoors just visible. Only a year after the building'sdedication Nisibis was transferred to Persian control byJovian (AD 363). (Author's collection)

defence of the Caucasus; the Romans oncemore had the better of limited fighting. Oneach occasion the Romans were prompted toagree peace because of Hunnic activity in theBalkans, while the Persians also haddistractions on their north-eastern frontier.

During these years there emerged asystem of diplomatic arrangements, whichreduced the risks of disagreements spillingover into full-scale war. The rights ofminority religions were recognised, whichprotected the Christians in Persia; their

position also became easier when doctrinalquestions separated them from RomanChristians. Attempts were made to regulatethe transhumant Arab tribes of the frontier,construction of new fortresses was banned,the defence of key fortifications in theCaucasus was accepted as a shared burden,and trade was funnelled through specificmarkets at Nisibis, Callinicum andArtaxata. Rome and Persia came to seethemselves as the two lights of the world,with a mutual obligation to help eachother against disruptive and uncivilisedoutsiders. There was even a story thatEmperor Arcadius appointed his Persiancounterpart Yazdgard as guardian for hisinfant son Theodosius.

The fighting 41

Khusro appeals to Emperor Maurice,recalling the tradition of collaborationbetween their states. (Theophylact 4.11.2-3)

'God effected that the whole worldshould be illumined from the verybeginning by two eyes, namely by themost powerful kingdom of the Romansand the most prudent sceptre of thePersian state. For by these powers thedisobedient and bellicose tribes arewinnowed and man's course iscontinually regulated and guided.'

European frontiers in thefourth century

After Constantine's death, the crucial factorin the west was civil war: Constantine 11 waskilled while fighting Constans in 340; in 350Constans was overthrown by Magnentius, anofficer on his personal staff, who thendispatched a rival in Rome. Constantius, afterseducing the troops of another usurper inIllyria, clashed with Magnentius at Mursa on28 September 351 in one of the mostdestructive battles of the century. OnceMagnentius was eliminated after a furtherdefeat in 353, the Rhine armies were againdisrupted when court intrigues pushed aFrankish general Silvanus into revolt in 354;finally Julian (who had been sent to Gaul in355 because internal conflict had permittedFranks and Alamanni to breach the frontier)was acclaimed Augustus at Paris in February360; he marched his best troops east toconfront Constantius.

Julian's actions in Gaul are painted in rosycolours by Ammianus, whose surviving booksopen with the suppression of Silvanus, adaring action in which Ammianusparticipated. During 356 Julian campaignedenergetically and re-established Romanauthority along the Rhine. In 357 anambitious campaign was planned to take thewar into Alamannic territory, with the armiesof Gaul and Italy operating a pincermovement. Problems of co-ordination

(perhaps compounded by jealousies)unravelled the strategy and the army of Italywas defeated near Basel. But in August Julianconfronted the Alamanni on the right bankof the Rhine near Argentoratum (Strasburg): itwas a hard-fought struggle. Since Ammianusdescribed it in reasonable detail, it is one ofthe few battles in late antiquity whose coursecan be reconstructed. Ammianus commentedthat superior Roman discipline and trainingovercame the Alamanni's advantage inphysical size, which gave their intitial chargesuch ferocity; it is also noticeable that thebattle was won by the Roman infantry,whereas their cavalry, which included someheavy-armed cataphracts (suit of armour), wasforced to flee.

After Jovian's brief reign, the brothersValentinian and Valens shared the Empire,with the senior Valentinian taking charge ofthe Rhine and upper Danube and Valensresponsible for the lower Danube and east.On the Danube the stability established byConstantine was broken, the reason, as sooften, Roman internal conflict. The Goths'relations with Constantius had moments oftension, especially when imperiallysponsored attempts to promote Christianityprovoked a backlash, but they remainedallies of the house of Constantine to theextent that when Procopius, Julian's cousin(and hence distant relative of Constantine)revolted against Valens in 365, he was ableto secure help from the Tervingi, the mainconfederation on the Danube. ThereafterValens set about disciplining these rebels, butsevere flooding and the Goths' ability todisappear into the swamps and mountainsprevented a decisive encounter. When Valenshalted proceedings in 369, the Tervingisecured better terms, which included areduction in their obligation to providetroops for the Romans. South of the riverValens embarked on energetic fortification,while the Tervingi returned to persecution ofChristians. Further west Valentinian wasengaged in similar operations against theAlamanni, Quadi and Sarmatians, while hissubordinates dealt with disturbances inNorth Africa and Britain.


Battle of ArgentoratumLEFT BATTLE OF ARGENTORATUMPhase I: I Alamanni infantry in ambush; 2 MainAlamanni infantry in wedge formation; 3 Alamanniskirmishes; 4 Alamanni cavalry; 5 Roman flank guardunder Severus: 6 Roman light infantry; 7 Roman frontline including Cornuti and Brachiati: 8 Roman second lineincluding Batavi and Reges; 9 Roman reserve includingPrimni; 10 Julian's personal guards; I I Roman cavalry;12 Roman baggage and camp guards.Phase 2: 13 Alamanni infantry drives Roman lightinfantry behind front line; 14 Alamanni cavalry routsRoman cavalry on right wing; IS Alamanni ambushdiscovered and neutralised by Roman left wing, helpedby Julian's personal guard.

Phase 3: 16 Alamanni break through Roman front line,but are held by second line; 17 Julian re-forms Romancavalry and stabilises right wing; 18 Roman left wingpursues Alamanni ambush from field; 19 Alamanni driveback Roman lines to foot of hill where camp sited;20 Roman reserve and camp guards push Alamanniback: 21 Alamanni flee towards Rhine, pursued byRomans.

RIGHT BATTLE OF ADRIANOPLEPhase I: Roman army deploys from front line of marchwith cavalry on the right wing and light infantry in lead.I Gothic wagon circle defended by infantry; 2 Gothiclight infantry; 3 Roman light infantry; 4 Roman cavalry onright wing (sagitatti and scutarii); 5 Roman heavy infantry;6 Roman cavalry on left wing; 7 Roman reserves(Batavi); 8 Gothic cavalry (arriving late).Phase 2: While Goths try to delay the battle to allowtheir cavalry to return, the two armies come to blows.9 Gothic infantry withdraws to laager duringnegotiations; 10 Sagitatti and scutarii repulsed; I I MainRoman infantry force attacks laager; 12 Part of cavalryon Roman left wing attacks laager; 13 Gothic cavalryreturns, shatters Roman left wing; 14 Roman cavalry onleft still forming up.

Phase 3: 15 Most Roman cavalry driven from field;16 Roman reserves withdraw; 17 Roman army trappedbetween Goths counterattacking from laager andGothic cavalry.

In the 370s the position on thefrontiers changed. In the west Valentiniansuffered a stroke while trying to overawe adelegation of Quadi, and was succeeded byGratian, whose military experience waslimited, and the infant Valentinian II.On the lower Danube masses of Gothsarrived to pester Roman officials for theright to cross and settle peacefully. Theirdesperation was caused by the westwardmovement of the Huns, who had beendisplaced from further east and were nowapproaching the Black Sea with a

The fighting 43

Battle of Adrianople


consequent domino effect on the tribesthere. The most powerful Gothic group, theGreuthungi, who had been based betweenthe Dneister and Dneiper, was destroyed andthe Tervingi were the next to be threatened:the might of Rome appeared less dauntingthan the Hunnic scourge, and the Danubeseemed to offer safety. Roman attempts tocontrol the Goths, by admitting only theTervingi and removing their leaders failed,but thereafter they managed to containthe Gothic threat quite successfully byexploiting control of food and by harassingthe Goths as soon as they dispersed toseek supplies.

In 378 it appeared that the Romanswould crush the Goths as Valens returnedfrom Antioch and Gratian marched fromthe Rhine to co-operate against them.However, Gratian's arrival was delayedwhen the Alamanni heard about his plansand decided to invade. Valens still feltconfident of defeating the Goths, and on9 August 378 he led his army out of campat Adrianople towards the Gothic position.The Romans probably outnumbered theGoths, but their deployment from the lineof march was confused and the battle wasjoined haphazardly, with the result that theRoman wings were driven back. At thismoment the Gothic cavalry, which hadbeen absent foraging, returned and thecombination of their flank attacks, theheavy fire of Gothic archers, and the heatof the long day gradually wore down theRoman centre. Resistance was stubborn,but two-thirds of the army, includingValens, were killed.

Adrianople is often seen as the turningpoint for the Roman Empire, but it isnecessary to remember that the easternforces survived the destruction of one of itsfield armies and the Gothic victors weresuccessfully managed by the new easternEmperor, Theodosius, who gave them landsin Thrace in return for military service. Theywere a major nuisance, but their inability tocapture walled cities limited their impact.Gothic help was fully exploited whenTheodosius was drawn westwards to

intervene against usurpers, first in 387 andthen in 394: the destruction of these battles,especially at the Frigidus River in 394,certainly weakened the Goths, but moreimportantly they destroyed the bestelements in the western armies. WhenTheodosius died at Milan in AD 395 theEmpire was divided between his young sons,Arcadius in the east and Honorius in Italy. Itwas the east which was in a much strongerposition, as can be seen from theincreasingly desperate legislation onrecruitment and other military mattersissued by Honorius' court over the nextdozen or so years.

Ammianus reports the recognition by thevictor of Adrianople that his men could notattack cities (31.6.4).

'Fritigern realised that it was pointlessfor men without experience of siege-works to fight at such a disadvantage.He suggested that the siege should beabandoned and a sufficient force leftbehind to contain the enemy. He had noquarrel, he said, with stone walls, and headvised them to attack and pillage inperfect safety rich and fruitful regionswhich were still unguarded.'

Ammianus (16.2.12) made the samepoint with regard to the Alamanni.'They avoided the actual towns as if theywere tombs surrounded by nets.'

The Huns

The Huns began to arrive along theDanube in the early fifth century, butuntil AD 395 their epicentre had beenfurther east as they had raided across theCaucasus. In 408/9 a Hunnic chief Uldincrossed the lower Danube but his followerswere seduced by Roman diplomacy. Bythe middle of the next decade the Hunswere established on the Hungarian plains,and their approach should probably beconnected with the construction of a

The fighting 45

The Greek historian Priscus, who served onan embassy to Attila's court, records Hunnicdemands, (fr.11)

'Edeco came to court and handedover Attila's letters, in which he blamedthe Romans in respect of the fugitives.In retaliation he threatened to resort towar if the Romans did not surrenderthem and cease cultivating the territoryhe had won, extending along theDanube from Pannonia to Novae inThrace; furthermore, the market inIllyria was not to be by the Danube aspreviously, but at Naissus, which he hadlaid waste and established as the borderbetween Scythian and Roman territory,it being five days' journey from theDanube for an unladen man. He orderedthat ambassadors come to him, not justordinary men but the highest ranking ofthe consulars.'

Defences at Diocletianopolis (modern Hissar. Bulgaria)showing the characteristic late Roman brick-bandedrubble core of city walls. (Author's collection)

massive new set of walls for Constantinoplein 413.

In the 420s Hunnic power expandedthrough subordination of neighbouringtribal groups and consolidation ofauthority within a single ruling family,that of Rua, who was succeeded by hisnephews, Attila and Bleda. Rua extractedannual peace payments from the easternEmpire, which were 700 pounds of gold inthe 430s increasing to 2,100 pounds in447 (perhaps 5 per cent of total imperialrevenue) at the height of Attila's power.During the 440s Attila ravaged the northernBalkans, sacking cities and driving off bootyto fuel Hunnic prosperity, but in 450 heturned westwards where Honoria, sisterof Emperor Valentinian III, offered herselfin marriage.


The fighting 47

Hunnic power depended upon thepersonal authority of their leader, his abilityto dominate all members of his federation.This was achieved partly through the exerciseof patronage and the disbursement of therewards of military victory, but even more bythe exercise of sheer terror: Attila repeatedlydemonstrated that it was impossible to escapehis grasp, and potential rivals were painfullykilled. As a result the Romans could notoperate their traditional diplomatic strategyof divide and subvert: they were required tohand back Huns, who were probably refugeesfrom Attila's power, and so were denied thechance to cultivate alternative leaders. Attilawas also a skilled diplomat, with a wideknowledge of the international scene: heknew the invasion routes into Persia, timedhis attacks on the Balkans to coincide withan eastern military expedition to Africa, andexploited tensions between Goths, Franksand Romans in the west; his reception ofRoman envoys was a masterfuldemonstration of psychological pressure. Ashis federation expanded he came to controlvast military resources, which it was in hisinterest to exploit. His armies, spearheadedby Hunnic cavalry, were capable of rapidmovement to anticipate defences, while themasses of expendable subordinates could bethrown at Roman walls to supplement theHuns' considerable skill at siegecraft. Thethreat was such that Constantinople wasprovided with a further set of fortifications,the Long Walls, which stretched from theSea of Marmara to the Black Sea.

Salvation for the Romans lay in the factthat the Hunnic federation could not standstill: military success and booty were regularrequirements, and any interruption createdtensions within the internationalconglomeration. Attila's attacks on the westproduced only limited success, and this joltwas compounded by his death: his sonsfought over the succession, and subordinatetribes rebelled: in 454 the Gepids and thenthe future Ostrogoths, Lombards, Heruls plusothers emerged from the shadow of Hunniccontrol to confront the Romans along theDanube frontier. For the next generation the

northern and central Balkans were repeatedlycrossed by Gothic groups in search of landand safety, while the Romans reverted toreliance on fortifications and control of foodsupplies, plus the incentive of imperialmilitary titles with their accompanyingsalaries, to hold the balance. The Gothsrecognised the Roman strategy of playing offdifferent groups, and on occasions tried tocounteract this, but the incompatibleambitions of Gothic leaders played intoRoman hands. Only the opportune death ofone powerful leader permitted his main rivalTheoderic the Amal to unite most of theBalkan Goths into an army whose strengthwas such that the Emperor Zenocommissioned them to invade Italy andreassert imperial control there.

Two Gothic leaders (Theoderic Strabo - sonof Triarius - and Theoderic the Amal)reproach each other for playing into Romanhands. (Malchus, fr. 18.2.30-38)

'But the son of Triarius kept riding upto the other's camp, insulting andreproaching him and calling him aswearer of useless oaths, a child and amadman, an enemy and betrayer of hisown race, who did not know theRomans' mind or recognise theirintentions. "For they remain at peace,while the Goths wear each other down.Whichever of us loses, they will be thewinners without effort."'

Loss of the west

In 395 the young Honorius succeededTheodosius, but the west was controlled byStilicho, a general of Vandal descent. Stilichoclaimed that the dying Theodosius had alsoinstructed him to protect the eastern emperorArcadius, and that two Balkan provincesshould be transferred to western authority.This rivalry drew Stilicho into Balkan affairs,where imperial competition permitted theGoths (who had been weakened bv casualties


Ivory plaque depicting Stilicho as defender of the state.

(Ancient Art and Architecture)

in Theodosius' service) to demand a betterdeal. Alaric, a Gothic commander underTheodosius, emerged as leader of a forcecapable of withstanding an imperial army, buthe still struggled to secure lasting benefits:success only came after other tribal groupsbreached the western frontiers.

On 31 December, 406 Vandals, Alans andSueves swarmed across the Rhine, triggeringthe proclamation of local commanders asemperors. Stilicho's authority crumbled, andhis family - which had been trying to marryinto the imperial house - was eliminated;with it disappeared the main Roman army innorthern Italy, since many of Stilicho'sGothic troops chose to join Alaric. Alaricfailed to obtain concessions from Honorius

Edict of Arcadius and Honorius addressedto the provincials (February 406) pleads formore recruits (Theodosian Code 7.3.17).

'On account of our pressingnecessities, by this edict we summon tomilitary service all men who are arousedby the innate spirit of freedom. Freebornpersons, therefore, who take arms underthe auspices of the country shall knowthat they will receive 10 solidi each fromour imperial treasury when affairs havebeen adjusted.'

(who had abandoned Milan for the greatersecurity of Ravenna), established his ownemperor, and on 24 August 410 capturedRome.

This brief sack of Rome was of symbolicsignificance; of greater importance wereHonorius' imperial rivals in Gaul and Spainwhose ambitions permitted the invadingtribes to exploit Roman divisions. Honoriushad already demonstrated his inability toprotect his subjects in his desperate militarylegislation of the previous decade. Inevitablylocal protectors appeared who had to exploitthe available military manpower, which wasoften roaming tribal bands: incompatibleobjectives emerged, with the policy ofcrushing invaders at odds with a desire topreserve their manpower for future use.

Alaric died while trying to reach Africa,and his followers, whom it is now convenientto call Visigoths (west Goths), moved toSpain where they helped to subdue theSueves and Vandals. In 418 they eventuallysettled in the Garonne valley in south-westGaul, where Honorius granted them estateswith their revenues; in return they were tocampaign for Honorius, who sent them backto Spain. Theoderic (417-51) gave essentialstability: he challenged the Romans insouthern Gaul whenever they seemed weak,and expanded his power in Spain by buildinglinks with the Sueves, while appearingco-operative when it suited his interests.

One consequence of Visigothicinvolvement in Spain was the Vandal crossing

The fighting 49

to Africa, although the precise cause was,naturally, internal Roman conflict: Boniface,governor of Africa, invited the Vandals to helphim to resist pressure from rivals at Ravenna.The Vandals' arrival in 429 condemned thewestern Empire: within a decade they hadtaken over the north African provinces,captured Carthage (in 439) and withstoodeastern empire attempts to repulse them. NorthAfrica was the most prosperous part of thewest, and its wealth had escaped the impact oftribal invasion; its loss decisively reduced theresources on which emperors at Ravenna couldcall and, to compound the problem, theVandals used Roman ships at Carthage todominate Sicily and Sardinia and to ravageItaly; they sacked Rome in 455, a much moredestructive event than Alaric's entry in 410.

From the Roman perspective the prioritieswere to restore battered imperial authority,stabilise the tribal groups, and then graduallyweaken their independence. In the latter partof his reign Honorius relied on the generalConstantius, who was granted the title ofpatrician, which thereafter became thedesignation for the senior westerncommander. Constantius married Honorius'

The Gallic chronicler Hydatius describes theloss of Spain (Chronicle, 17).

'When the province of Spain had beenlaid waste by the destructive progress ofdisasters just described, the Lord in hiscompassion turned the barbarians to theestablishment of peace. They thenapportioned to themselves by lot areas ofthe provinces for settlements: the Vandalstook possession of Gallaecia and theSueves that part of Gallaecia which issituated on the very western edge of theOcean. The Alans were allotted theprovinces of Lusitania andCarthaginiensis, and the Siling VandalsBaetica. The Spaniards in the cities andforts who survived the disasterssurrendered themselves to servitude underthe barbarians, who held swaythroughout the provinces.'

daughter (Galla Placidia - the widow ofAthaulf), but died in 421. At Honorius' deathin 423, Constantius' widow appealed toConstantinople on behalf of her infant son,Valentinian while a usurper at Ravennasought help from the Huns. Valentinian IIIwas installed in 425, but the dispute broughtthe Huns into western empire affairs.

Aetius emerged as the new patrician. Hisgreatest achievements were in Gaul, wherehe contained the Visigoths - often with helpfrom the Huns whom he also used to crushthe Burgundians. Aetius had been a hostagewith the Huns and so was well connected,but the culmination of his successes was therepulse of Attila's invasion in 451 at thebattle of the Catalaunian plains, with thehelp of an improbable coalition of Franks,Burgundians and Visigoths (whose kingTheoderic died heroically). When Attilaturned to northern Italy in 452, Aetius couldnot prevent the loss of northern citiesincluding Aquileia. He could harass the Hunsbut without bringing the Visigoths across theAlps he dared not attack directly - instead

The King of the Visigoths marries acaptured imperial princess in 414 in aceremony intended to signal arapprochement between Romans and Goths(Olympiodorus, 24).

'Athaulf married Placidia at thebeginning of January in the city ofNarbo at the house of Ingenuus, one ofthe leading locals. There Placidia, dressedin royal raiment, sat in a hall decoratedin Roman fashion, and Athaulf sat byher side, wearing a Roman general'scloak and other Roman clothing. Amidstthe celebrations, along with otherwedding gifts Athaulf gave Placidia 50handsome young men dressed in silkclothes... Then nuptial hymns weresung, first by Attalus, then by Rusticiusand Phoebadius. Then the ceremonieswere completed amidst rejoicings andcelebrations by both the barbarians andthe Romans amongst them.'

The fighting 5 I

Pope Leo was deployed to encourage Attilato leave.

Like Stilicho and Constantius before him,Aetius schemed to link his family to theemperor by marriage, but this contributed tohis downfall. In September 454 Valentinianpersonally assassinated Aetius, only forAetius' bodyguards to take revenge in March455. For the next two decades control wascontested between the different power blockswith interests in the western state: theVisigoths, Vandals, the eastern Empire andthe Italian army under the patrician Ricimer,backed a rapid succession of rulers. Theproblems are illustrated by the reign ofMajorian (457-61), Ricimer's appointee, whocurbed Vandal raiding in central Italy andreasserted Roman authority in Gaul andSpain; he appears to have been too successfulfor when an attack on Africa was foiled,Ricimer had him executed.

One final attempt to crush the Vandalsand restore western resources was made in468 when a massive naval expedition was

Mosaic in S. Apollinare Nuovo. Ravenna, depicting thepalace of Theoderic. (Ancient Art and Architecture)

An appreciative assessment by a Latinauthor of Theoderic the Ostrogoth's regimein Italy (Anonymus Valesianus 59-60).

'Theoderic was a man of greatdistinction and of good-will towards allmen, and he ruled for 33 years. Italy for30 years enjoyed such good fortune thathis successors inherited peace, forwhatever he did was good. He sogoverned two races, Romans and Goths,that although he was an Arian, henevertheless did not attack the Catholicreligion; he gave games in the circus andamphitheatre, so that even by Romanshe was called Trajan or Valentinian,whose times he took as a model; and bythe Goths, because of his edict in whichhe established justice, he was judged inall respects to be their best king.'


sent from Constantinople, but this wasthwarted by Vandal fireships. Failure wasruinous for the eastern state - which spent64,000 pounds of gold (more than a year'srevenue) - and fatal for the western state: in476, after a rapid turnover of rulers, thearmy of Italy under Odoacer deposed theyoung Romulus, who was derisivelynicknamed Augustulus ('little Augustus'),and returned the imperial insignia toConstantinople. Odoacer controlled Italyuntil Theoderic the Amal took Ravenna in491 and established the 'Ostrogothic' (eastGoth) kingdom. Theoderic in his longreign (491-526) created a successfulRomano-Gothic realm during whichItaly prospered and a ruler at Ravennasecured considerable power in southernGaul and Spain and intermittent influencein Vandal Africa.

Sixth-century wars

While the western Empire flounderedtowards disintegration, the eastern Empireprospered, in spite of repeated destruction inthe Balkans, since the eastern frontier wasquiet and the rich provinces of Asia Minor,Syria and Egypt generated surpluses. Easternrulers attempted to help the west, especiallyin the struggle against the Vandals, whosemaritime raiding threatened to affect theeastern Mediterranean, but to no avail.Conflict resumed with Persia in 502 whenKing Kavadh invaded Armenia, capturing

various fortresses and finally, after a fiercesiege, Amida. The origins of the outbreak laymuch further east in Persian dealings withthe Hephthalites of central Asia, who hadhelped Kavadh regain his throne; they werenow demanding subsidies and Kavadh askedthe Romans for financial help but theeastern emperor Anastasius refused, perhapsreviving the issue of Persian control ofNisibis or perhaps just reluctant to build upPersian strength.

The Roman response was slow sinceBulgar Huns were ravaging the Balkans in502, but the position slowly stabilised, inspite of dissension between Romancommanders; by 505 Kavadh was distractedby another Hephthalite invasion andagreed a truce for seven years. Anastasiusinterrogated his generals about theirproblems, and the lack of a secure base nearthe frontier was identified as a key. Thereforea site was chosen at Dara and constructionof a massive new fortress was undertaken;financial responsibility was entrusted toBishop Thomas of Amida. By 507 he hadraised the walls to a sufficient height todisregard Persian protests that the Romanshad breached the agreement to ban newfrontier fortifications.

In spite of this tension the truce persistedfor a further 20 years, although competition

The southern watergate at Dara showing the full heightof the wall (the upper half has now fallen), part of atower and the arches of a bridge over the stream.(The Bell Collection, University of Newcastle.)

The fighting 53

between the two superpowers of the ancientworld continued on the fringes of theirspheres of influence, in sub-Caucasia andArabia where religious factors exacerbatedtensions. But the occasion for renewedconflict in 527 came from an incident whichreflected the continuing strength of the fifth-century traditions of peaceful co-operation:the elderly Kavadh asked Emperor Justin toadopt his son Khusro and so guarantee hissuccession in a mirror image of Arcadius'appeal to Yazdgard over a century before;Justin was persuaded that full adoptionmight compromise the Roman successionand so offered Khusro a lesser form ofadoption.

The war began badly for the Romans withreverses in Armenia and upper Mesopotamia,but Justinian, who succeeded his uncle inautumn 527, reorganised eastern defences bycreating a new military command forArmenia, initiating major defensive works atkey sites, and appointed a new general for theeastern command, Belisarius. (Procopius, themain historian for Justinian's wars, joinedBelisarius' staff). In 530 the Persians weredefeated in Armenia and Belisarius overcamethe Persian army outside his base of Dara, butthese victories were offset in 531 whenBelisarius was defeated at Callinicum on theEuphrates. Justinian's main concern

The southern Watergate at Dara. from inside the city,showing the two stages of the construction of thecircuit wall. The first stage. 30 feet (10 m) high, wasconstructed by Anastasius, while the thinner arcadedsuperstructure is Justinianic. (The Bell Collection,University of Newcastle.)

An example of the international linksconstructed by Theoderic, who here writesto the Burgundian king to accompany thegift of a clock and urge the benefits of'civilisation'. (Cassiodorus, Variae 1.46)

'Therefore I greet you with my usualfriendship, and have decided to sendyou by the bearers of this letter thetime-pieces with their operators, togive pleasure to your intelligence ...Possess in your native country whatyou once saw in Rome. It is proper thatyour friendship should enjoy my gifts,since it is also joined to me by ties ofkinship. Under your rule let Burgundylearn to scrutinise devices of highestingenuity and to praise the inventionsof the ancients. Through you it laysaside its tribal way of life and, in itsregard for the wisdom of its king, itproperly covets the achievements ofthe sages.'


Eastern campaigns in the sixth century and Heraclius' campaignsagainst the Persians

throughout had been to stabilise the situationon the eastern frontier, and negotiations werenow pursued to achieve the Endless Peace towhich the new Persian king Khusro agreed in532: Justinian paid 11,000 pounds of gold,and agreed to withdraw the Romancommander and his troops from Dara.

From the start of his uncle's reign in 518Justinian had been interested in westernaffairs and had rapidly rebuilt links betweenthe Eastern Church and the Pope at Rome.This caused strain in Ostrogothic Italy wherethe Goths, in spite of their heretical status,had sustained good relations with the papacybecause of tensions between Rome andConstantinople. The death of Theoderic theAmal in 526 and the struggle of his daughterAmalasuintha to retain the throne for herson Athalaric upset the internationalbalances which had developed in the westduring the previous generation. Peace withPersia provided Justinian with theopportunity to advance his grand idea.

The Vandals came first: they were themore obnoxious to eastern Christiansbecause some mutilated refugees from theirintermittent persecutions had reachedConstantinople. There had been two easternexpeditions against them during the fifthcentury, and the prospects for diplomacywere better in Ostrogothic Italy. In 533 anexpedition sailed in 500 transports escortedby 92 warships and comprised 15,000Roman soldiers, 1,000 foreign allies andBelisarius' retainers, his bucellarii. TheVandal king, Gelimer, was distracted byrebellion on Sardinia whereas Belisariusreceived help with supplies from theOstrogoths in Sicily, and the Romans landedwithout encountering the Vandal fleet.Belisarius advanced on Carthage, defeated ascratch army raised by Gelimer, and capturedthe city; later that year, when their troopshad returned from Sardinia, the Vandalsattempted to recapture Carthage but theywere heavily defeated just outside the walls.

The fighting 55

Justinianic defences at Martyropolis (modern Silvan,Turkey) built when the city became the base for thenew general of Armenia. (Author's collection)

Justinian reorganised the province, restoringurban fortifications which the Vandals hadslighted, reconstituted frontier defences, andreturned property to the Catholic Church.Belisarius sailed to Constantinople withseveral thousand Vandal captives, who wereenrolled in the eastern armies, and waspermitted to celebrate a triumph, the firstnon-imperial triumph for over 500 years.

An opportunity now presented itself inItaly where Athalaric had died andAmalasuintha, imprisoned by her cousinTheodahad, was killed. Justinian protested,and sent expeditions to Dalmatia and Sicily.Negotiations with Theodahad aboutaccepting Roman suzerainty broke down,and Belisarius was ordered to invade Italy,even though he had been sent to Sicily withonly 7,000 Roman soldiers, 500 allies and hisbucellarii: he captured Naples by siege -although some inhabitants supported theGoths - and then marched into Rome fromwhich the garrison had withdrawn.Theodahad had now been replaced by

Vitigis, who moved to besiege Rome inFebruary 537; in spite of shortages of troopsand supplies Belisarius defended the massivecircuit, and gradually harried the besiegers sothat they were suffering as much as thedefenders when the siege was ended inwinter 537/8. The arrival of reinforcementspermitted Belisarius to take the offensive andhe secured Liguria, Milan and Rimini, butdisagreements between Roman commanders,especially those involving Narses, who didnot recognise Belisarius' seniority, led todisaster when an invading army ofBurgundians sacked Milan; allegedly300,000 of its male inhabitants weremassacred. Narses was recalled toConstantinople, and in 539 Belisarius drovethe Goths out of all Italy south of the Povalley and began to close on Ravenna,whose surrender was negotiated in 540.

So far the reconquest had been aspectacular success since with limited forcesthe eastern Romans had eliminated twopowerful western kingdoms, in spite of thedistraction of regular incursions into theBalkans by Bulgars and Slavs, and ofproblems with mutinies and raiding Moorsin Africa. The key was peace in the east, but


The walls at Edessa (Urfa.Turkey) which withstoodthree Persian sieges during the sixth century.(Author's collection)

in 539 this was breaking down at the timeKhusro, perhaps already jealous of Justinian'swestern victories, received an embassy fromVitigis urging him to act before Justinianbecame too powerful. A quarrel over grazingrights between allied Arabs gave Khusro anexcuse to attack, and in 540 he marched upthe Euphrates to seek booty or protectionmoney: cities on his route were stormed orintimidated into buying protection, andAntioch was captured after a fierce siege; itwas systematically ransacked to the extentthat marbles and mosaics were transportedto Persia, while the surviving inhabitantswere marched off to found a city of NewAntioch near Ctesiphon. During his returnto Persia more cities were pillaged or coercedinto buying safety. Khusro's successes areoften cited as proof that Justinian neglectedmilitary matters, but the truth is that,although Roman defences were in areasonable state, scattered garrisons had nochance of opposing a Persian royal army;there was little to be done except to hold out

in defended cities until mobile units weresent from Constantinople.

In 541 Khusro switched his attention toLazica in the north, while Belisarius, whohad been recalled from Italy to handle thesituation, raided into upper Mesopotamia. In542 Khusro intended to move on Palestine,but was dissuaded by improvements inBelisarius' army. Another factor may havebeen bubonic plague, which was raging inthe Roman Empire. In 543 plague haltedPersian moves in the north, but in 544Khusro returned to Mesopotamia with thespecific target of Edessa. Religion appears tohave been the main cause, because Edessawas believed to have received a guarantee ofprotection from Christ in the form of a letterwhich was engraved over the city gates.Khusro therefore deployed all the resourcesof Persian siege technology, only to bethwarted, and the story emerged that hisgreat siege mound had been destroyedthrough the intervention of a miraculousicon of Christ - the start of the fame of theMandylion of Edessa, the future Shroud ofTurin. In 545 Khusro agreed a truce for fiveyears, in return for 5,000 pounds of gold andthe provision that operations could continue

The fighting 57

The Greek historian Menander records theratification of peace with Persia in 561/2(fr.6.1.304-19).

'When these and other matters hadbeen thoroughly debated, the 50-yeartreaty was recorded in Persian and inGreek, and the Greek was translated intoPersian speech and the Persian intoGreek. Those of the Romans who ratifiedthe concordats were Peter the Master ofOffices and Eusebius and others, while ofthe Persians Yazdgusnasp the Zikh andSurenas and others. When each side's

agreements had been entered inthe records they were compared toestablish the identity of their contentsand wording.

The first clause was written thatthrough the pass at the place called Tzonand the Caspian Gates the Persiansshould not admit either Huns or Alansor other barbarians to gain access to theRoman realm, and that the Romansshould not in that region or in otherparts of the Median frontier send anarmy against the Persians.'

in Lazica; the truce was extended in 551 andagain in 557 before a peace agreement for50 years was signed in 561/2. The treatycontained very detailed provisions aboutfrontier relations, as well as a guarantee fromKhusro that he would not persecute hisChristian subjects.

In Italy the Roman position soondeteriorated. The Goths believed thatBelisarius had tricked them into surrenderby appearing to agree to become their rulerand so, although they had lost Ravenna,

they chose a new leader. Totila proved tobe a dynamic commander: Roman forcesinitially outnumbered him, but these weredispersed and their individual commandersfailed to co-ordinate their actions. As aresult Totila recovered much of southernItaly in 542 and starved Naples intosubmission in 543. Belisarius returned in

Mosaic of Justinian accompanied by Bishop Maximian,civilian dignitaries and bodyguards. From S.Vitale.Ravenna. (Ancient Art and Architecture)


544 to confront the crisis, with 4,000 newrecruits but little money, but he was unableto engage the Goths. Totila captured Romein 546 and, though Belisarius recaptured itthe next year, his lack of resources led himto request a recall. When Totila regainedRome in 550 and threatened Sicily,Justinian was eventually prompted to act.Narses was sent to end the war, havingdemanded the resources which he deemednecessary. In 552 and 553 he twice defeatedthe Goths; he then had to deal with ahorde of Franks and Alamanni who hadtaken the opportunity to invade Italy, butin 554 peninsular Italy was firmly underRoman control and at peace. Narses wasleft in charge of the reorganisation of thecountry with combined civilian andmilitary authority.

One criticism of Justinian's grandreconquest is that it overstretched east Romanresources, so that his successors struggled tocope with the various challenges of the latesixth century. If hindsight makes thisapparent, the contemporary perspective needsto be remembered: Justinian pacified the eastto the best of his ability before embarking onhis western ambitions and, even thoughKhusro broke the peace agreement, thefrontier was again stabilised after the losses of540; bubonic plague exacerbated Romanproblems, but the prosperity of Africa in thelate sixth century illustrates that peace couldhave brought long-term dividends.

Fortifications at Dara showing main horseshoe towersand smaller intermediate square towers.The citadel isvisible in the middle distance. (Author's collection)

The fighting 59

Invasion of the Balkans in the sixth century

Justinian's successors

Unfortunately a new threat emerged in thelate 550s, when Avar envoys contacted theRoman commander in the Caucasus. Like theHuns, the Avars were the former elite of acentral Asian federation who had been forcedto flee westwards, and they shared the Huns'grand ambitions and ruthless purpose. Oncethey occupied the Hungarian plain theBalkans, a military backwater under Justinian,became a serious problem again; the threat ofAvar domination prompted the Lombards tomigrate to Italy where they overran Romanpositions in the Po valley. Justin II, who hadsucceeded his uncle in 565, had grand ideas

about Roman dignity: he dismissed Avarrequests for subsidies and then provoked warwith Persia. His bellicose behaviour was notcomplete folly, since he believed that theTurks in central Asia would co-operate byattacking the Persians on their north-easternfrontier, and a revolt of the Christianaristocracy of Persian Armenia suggested thatKhusro had further distractions: Justinasserted that he could not abandon hisco-believers and refused to make the annualpayments agreed under the 50-year peace.

Justin's ambitions were not matched byaction and in 573 the Persians captured Daraafter a six-month siege: the shock sent Justinmad, and the Romans were compelled to


seek a truce. In 576 Khusro campaigned intoArmenia, but failed to take any cities andwas outmanoeuvred in the mountains; theroyal baggage was captured and manyPersians were drowned when escaping acrossthe Euphrates. Thereafter the Romansgenerally contained Persian attacks whileravaging their territories so that Khusro andhis successor Hormizd (578-90) wereprompted to pursue negotiations. These,however, foundered on the Roman insistenceon recovering Dara and peace was onlyrestored in 591: Hormizd was overthrownfollowing disagreements with his leadinggeneral Vahram, and his son Khusro II fledto the Romans when Vahram approachedCtesiphon to beg for help. The Romansrestored him to power, in return forconcessions in the sub-Caucasianprincipalities and the restoration of Dara andother places captured in the war.

Eastern campaigns traditionally tookprecedence over other theatres for theRomans, and during the 570s and 580s theBalkans and Italy were neglected: the mainimpediment to Lombard progress were theirown disputes, while in the Balkans Tiberiushad few troops with which to repel the Avarswhen they turned their attentions south in579. For the next decade the Romans had torely on increased peace payments and urbandefences, which the Avars - like the Hunsbefore - captured. In the early 580s Slavbands pushed south - partly in conjunctionwith the Avars and partly to escape theirdomination - ravaging Athens and Corinth,approaching the Long Walls ofConstantinople in 584, and attackingThessalonica in 586.

Maurice, who succeeded Tiberius in 582,could do little until the eastern peacepermitted him to transfer troops. Thereafterhe embarked on an energetic series ofcampaigns which gradually stabilised theDanube frontier from the Delta toSingidunum (Belgrade) and permitted theRomans to reassert their authority in theinterior. The war was carried north of theriver, first in attacks on the Slavs across thelower Danube and then into the Avar

homeland on the Hungarian plains. Butconstant fighting gradually took its toll, andin 602 the army, already discontented overchanges to military pay (which reduced thecost of equipment and horses) mutiniedwhen it was ordered to stay north of theDanube for winter campaigning. A march onConstantinople toppled Maurice andinstalled the officer Phocas in his place.

Phocas' accession would inevitably havereduced the intensity of Roman activity inthe Balkans, but it had more seriousconsequences: Khusro II seized the excuseprovided by the overthrow of his protector,Maurice, to attack the Romans in order torecover the possessions and prestige he hadlost in 591. During Phocas' reign (602-10)the Persians gradually captured the Romanpositions east of the Euphrates, often afterprolonged sieges. In 609/10 Heraclius, theson of the governor of Africa, revoltedagainst Phocas, whose regime inConstantinople had become increasinglyunpopular and violent; the distraction ofcivil war once more proved the Romans'undoing. Heraclius captured Constantinoplein 610, but was not fully in control of theeast until 611/12, by which time the Persianshad pushed on to Antioch and Caesarea(Kayseri) in Cappadocia.

Heraclius was no more successful thanPhocas in stemming their advance: in 614Jerusalem fell to a Persian siege, itsinhabitants and the relics of Christ's passionbeing taken into Babylonian captivity; Egyptwas invaded in 616 and captured completelyin 619, depriving Constantinople of its foodsupply and the Empire of its richestprovince. In 622 Heraclius in desperation'borrowed' the wealth of theConstantinopolitan Church and embarkedon a series of campaigns which assumed theaspect of a crusade: Khusro II, who hadflirted with conversion to Christianity in590/1, now showed himself to be anintelligent enemy of the orthodox, since hefavoured the Jews and tolerated heretical anddissident Christian groups. At least Heracliuscould legitimately present himself asdefender of the faith. Heraclius abandoned

The fighting 61

attempts to defend Roman territory andinstead took the war into Persia, basinghimself in Armenia and the sub-Caucasianprincipalities, ravaging Azerbaijan, andavoiding the Persian armies which attemptedto trap him.

War in the east had again led to neglect ofthe Balkans, and in the first quarter of theseventh century Slavs and Avars took controlof much of the north and the centre.Heraclius had no troops to oppose theiradvance, and he had come close to capturehimself in 623 when organising a diplomaticreception for the Avar Chagan near the Seaof Marmara: apparently Heraclius was forcedto scamper back to Constantinople with hiscrown under his arm. Escalating peacepayments were the only solution, but thesedid not work in the face of growing Romanweakness. In 626 the Avars besiegedThessalonica and then turned their attentionto Constantinople, which was subjected tofierce bombardment by massed siege enginesand waves of Slav attackers. A Persian armyencamped on the Bosporus liaised with theChagan, and an attempt was made to ferryPersian soldiers to reinforce the assault, buttheir crossing was disrupted by the Romannavy. Roman ships were also instrumental inbreaking up a Slav attack across the GoldenHorn, and the Avar Chagan was forced towithdraw with his prestige badly dented;stories soon emerged about the divineprotection which the Virgin Mary gave thecity which housed several of her relics.

Heraclius had declined to return toprotect his capital, and his decision to focuson the eastern war was justified. First, withthe assistance of Turkish allies he ravagedPersian territory extensively and then, afterthe Turks withdrew beyond the Caucasus, hedefeated the Persians in battle outsideNineveh in December 627. The threat to

This message from Heraclius announcingthe overthrow of Khusro II was read out inthe Church of S. Sophia at Constantinople(Chronicon Pashale p.728).

'Let all the earth raise a cry to God;serve the Lord in gladness, enter intohis presence in exultation, andrecognise that God is Lord indeed. It ishe who has made us and not weourselves. We are his people and sheepof his pasture.

And let all we Christians, praisingand glorifying, give thanks to the oneGod, rejoicing with great joy in his holyname. For fallen is the arrogantChosroes, opponent of God. He is fallenand cast down to the depths of theearth, and his memory is utterlyexterminated from earth; he who wasexalted and spoke injustice in arroganceand contempt against our Lord JesusChrist the true God and his undefiledMother, our blessed Lady, Mother ofGod and ever-Virgin Mary, perished isthe profaner with a resounding noise.'

central Persia led to a palace coup againstKhusro, with his son agreeing to peace withHeraclius in return for support. This usheredin a period of extreme instability at thePersian court with a succession of short-livedrulers, including a Christian general inKhusro's service. From this chaos Heracliusextracted the return of Roman territories andthe spoils taken from Jerusalem, includingthe relic of the Holy Cross, which Heracliusreinstalled in its rightful place in a grandceremony at Easter 630. The Roman worldappeared to have been put to rights and aperiod of consolidation and recovery couldbegin.

Portraits of soldiers

Brothers in arms

Abbinaeus, commander ofprovincial garrison

Flavius Abbinaeus joined the army in304/5 and served for 33 years in thecontingent of 'Parthian Archers' based inmiddle Egypt; this was a mounted unitwhose name indicates that it was originallyraised for service on the eastern frontier, orfrom captives taken on that frontier, butwhich was later recruited in the normal wayfrom Roman provincials. In 337/8Abbinaeus, now a non-commissionedofficer, escorted an embassy of Blemmyes(tribesmen from the southern Egyptianborder) to Constantinople, where he waspromoted to protector by Constantius, astep which included the honour of beingallowed to kiss the purple imperial robe.Protectors operated as a group of junior staffofficers who undertook a variety of imperialbusiness, and Abbinaeus was detailed toescort the embassy home; after three yearsamong the Blemmyes, Abbinaeus returnedto Constantius, who was then in Syria,and received promotion to command thecavalry squadron at Dionysias.

Back in Egypt Abbinaeus facedcompetition for this position since othersalso had secured letters of appointmentthrough patronage. Abbinaeus appealed toConstantius and had his post confirmed,but in 344 he was dismissed by the localCount; his position was ratified on appeal.He then remained in office until after 351.The desirability of Abbinaeus' command isrevealed by a collection of papyri whichillustrate the vicissitudes of his career, theinteraction of his troops with the localpopulation, and his soldiers' closeinvolvement in the maintenance of lawand order and the extraction of imperialrevenues from their district.

Alaric, Roman officer and tribalwarlord

Alaric was born in about 370 into the Balthi, aleading family among the Gothic Tervingi. As ayouth he probably participated in the Danubecrossing of 376 and observed the subsequentencounters with imperial forces; at some stagehe became an Arian Christian, the standardcreed among the Goths. By the early 390s hehad emerged as leader of a warband in theBalkans who opposed Emperor Theodosius, butin 394 he commanded tribal allies inTheodosius' expedition against the westernusurper Eugenius. Disenchanted by inadequaterecompense for his contribution to victory atthe Frigidus River and the heavy casualtiessuffered by his followers, he proceeded toravage the central and southern Balkans,taking advantage of tensions between Romeand Constantinople. By 399 he had securedone major wish, the senior Roman commandof General of IHyricum, which provided himwith salaries and provisions for his followers.

In 401 he invaded Italy and besieged thewestern emperor Honorius in Milan, but wasdefeated by the western generalissimo Stilicho;he was forced to withdraw to the Balkans as hismen suffered from heat and poor food. Heremained in the north-eastern Balkans,attempting to secure a permanent territory,until 407 when he was appointed general byHonorius as part of a western attempt to annexthe Balkans. The planned campaign wascancelled, relations between Alaric andHonorius deteriorated, and Alaric invaded Italyagain to secure payment for his contractedservices. While negotiating with Honorius atRavenna about territory, alliance, andpayments of gold and corn, Alaric besiegedRome. Honorius procrastinated, but in 409 thethreat of starvation forced the senate at Rometo agree terms; Alaric had the senator Attalus

Portraits of soldiers 63

proclaimed emperor and Attalus appointedAlaric as senior Roman general.

Tensions between Attalus and Alaric, plusfurther unsuccessful negotiations withHonorius, resulted in Alaric returning toRome, which was easily captured on 24 August410. Occupation of the city for three days mayhave relieved Alaric's frustrations, but did notsatisfy his followers' needs for territory.Thereafter he led his forces south, with NorthAfrica as his probable goal, but was thwartedwhile trying to cross to Sicily; as he withdrewnorthwards he became ill and died. Hisbrother-in-law Athaulf took over the army,which he led into southern Gaul in 412 where

Theodoric's mausoleum at Ravenna. Constructed fromIstrian marble, with the dome formed from a single blockweighing 300 tons, this projected Theoderic's ambition tocreate a lasting regime. (Ancient Art and Architecture)

the Visigothic kingdom was established inAquitania.

Theoderic, Ostrogothic king

Theoderic was born in the mid-fifth centuryinto the Amal family which led one of theGothic groups in the northern Balkans. In461/2 he was sent as hostage toConstantinople, where he remained for10 years, receiving his education. Aftersucceeding his father in 474, he spent15 years attempting to establish a base forhis people in the Balkans, either throughnegotiation with or intimidation of theeastern emperor Zeno. Theoderic's successeswere marked by appointments as Romangeneral in 476/8 and again 483-87, whenZeno employed him against other tribesmen


in the Balkans as well as Isaurian rebels inthe east. Rebuffs resulted in the sacking ofcities, such as Stobi in 479, or the ravagingof provinces, for example Macedonia andThessaly in 482.

Theoderic writes to Emperor Anastasiusprotesting his loyalty; the letter illustrates atribal warlord's attachment to the ideal ofRome (Cassiodorus, Variae 1.1).

'Our royalty is an imitation of yours,modelled on your good purpose, a copyof the only Empire; and in so far as wefollow you do we excel all other nations.Often you have exhorted me to love thesenate, to accept cordially the laws ofpast emperors, to join together in oneall the members of Italy. How can youseparate from your august alliance onewhose character you thus try to makeconformable to your own? There ismoreover that noble sentiment, love forthe city of Rome, from which twoprinces, both of whom govern in hername, should never be disjoined.'

The death of his main Gothic rival,Theoderic Strabo, in 481 allowed Theodericto unite most Balkan Goths under Amalleadership, but he was still unable to achievehis main goal of acquiring a secure andproductive territory. In 488 Zeno agreed thatTheoderic should move to Italy to attackOdoacer (who had ruled since deposing thelast western emperor in 476): if successful,Theoderic could rule on behalf of Zeno.Theoderic forced Odoacer back intoRavenna; after three years of blockade therivals agreed to share power, but Theodericsoon accused Odoacer of treachery and hadhim killed. Zeno's death in 491 complicatedTheoderic's position, but in 497 EmperorAnastasius recognised him as ruler of Italy;to his Gothic followers Theoderic was king,even sometimes Augustus (emperor), thestatus to which he clearly aspired, althoughhe was careful to protest his subservience indealings with Constantinople.

Theoderic's 33-year reign (493-526) cameto be regarded as a golden age in Italy,especially in contrast to the fighting of the540s, and his first two decades were highlysuccessful. Marital diplomacy built links withthe main tribal groups in the west, and from507 brought the Visigothic kingdom in Spainunder his control. The senate and Pope atRome were courted by special treatment andthe carefully crafted Roman image of thenew regime; religious divisions betweenRome and Constantinople facilitated thisrapprochement. For Goths Theodericremained the war leader, but this was nowonly one facet of his complex public image.Theoderic's last decade was less rosy. Theabsence of a son, and the early death of hisson-in-law raised the issue of succession,while Anastasius' death in 518 broughtreligious reconciliation between Rome andConstantinople and so made Theoderic moresuspicious of leading Romans. Theoderic'sdeath in 526 rapidly brought to the surfacethe tensions within his kingdom, whichBelisarius' invasion was to exploit.

Narses, imperial eunuch andtrusted general

The eunuch Narses originated from the Persianpart of Armenia but was brought up in thepalace at Constantinople in the late fifthcentury. He advanced through the grades ofservants of the Bedchamber, reaching theposition of treasurer and senior official in530/1; in this capacity he provided money toPersarmenian deserters, and travelled to theeast to secure valuable booty. In 531/2 hebecame imperial sword-bearer, and on18 January 532 his distribution of bribes wascrucial in undermining the cohesion of riotersin Constantinople whose violence wasthreatening to topple Emperor Justinian. In535 he undertook another delicate mission,this time for Empress Theodora, to reinstateBishop Theodosius at Alexandria and exile hisopponents; for over a year Xarses remained inAlexandria, conducting a virtual civil waragainst Theodosius' opponents.

Portraits of soldiers 65

The Barberini ivory probably showing Emperor Justinian.Above Christ blesses the emperor who is honoured by avictory to his left while a defeated easterner standsbehind his spear and other easterners offer gifts below.To one side a general offers a statue of victory andEarth displays her bounty beneath the horse's hooves.(AKG London/Erich Lessing)

In 538, at nearly 60 years old, Narsesembarked on what was to prove a highlysuccessful military career by leading

reinforcements to Belisarius in Italy. Narsescriticised Belisarius' conduct, and theirrivalry led to the loss of Milan. Narses wasrecalled to Constantinople, to be followed bythe allied contingent of Heruls, who refusedto remain without him. In 541/2 Narses wasagain employed on sensitive business, first tospy on an alleged plot that involvedJustinian's senior financial minister and thento investigate unrest in Constantinople. In


545 his contacts among the Heruls wereexploited to persuade their leaders to enrolfor service in Italy.

Narses' big chance came in 551, afterBelisarius had failed to stabilise the militaryposition in Italy and Justinian's first choice asreplacement (his nephew Germanus) had died.Narses was now appointed supremecommander in Italy, a post he accepted oncondition that he was provided with the menand money needed to finish the war. Assemblyof troops and other preparations detainedNarses in the Balkans, and he did not arrive inRavenna until 6 June 552 after outmanoeuvringGothic contingents blocking the main routes.Later that month Narses marched against theGoths' leader Totila, whose various attempts atdeception he outwitted and whom he thencrushed in battle through intelligent tactics. InJuly Narses rapidly recaptured Rome beforeconfronting the Goths near Naples. Cleverplanning again secured victory, althoughcontemporaries also gave credit to Narses'devotion to the Virgin Mary.

For the next decade Narses was occupied inreducing Gothic strongholds in central andnorthern Italy and defeating Frankishinvasions. Meanwhile he was entrusted byJustinian with the massive task of returningItaly to civilian rule, as well as ensuringadherence to the emperor's preferred religiousdoctrines. By 559 he had received the title ofpatrician, the Empire's highest honour, and by565 he had also become honorary consul, ademonstration of his place in the traditionalRoman hierarchy. Justinian's death in 565complicated Narses' last decade, as hisrelations with Justin II were naturally less close.The migration of Lombards into the Po valleyfrom 568 posed new military challenges,but he remained in post until his death in573/4, at the age of almost 95.

Shahvaraz, Persian generaland usurper

Farrukhan was a Persian Christian, nicknamedShahvaraz, 'wild boar', by King Khusro II forhis energy in attacking the Romans. In 614 heoverran Palestine and captured Jerusalem aftera bloody siege; he dispatched the survivingChristian population into captivity inBabylonia, along with the relic of the TrueCross, although other lesser relics such as theHoly Sponge and Lance were presented toEmperor Heraclius. Over the next three yearshe organised the capture of Egypt, and thenfrom 622 campaigned in Asia Minor asHeraclius marshalled the Roman counter-offensive. Heraclius had the better of theirmanoeuvring and engagements, but in 626Shahvaraz advanced to the Bosporus where heattempted to assist the Avars' attack onConstantinople. Roman naval powerprevented him from crossing to Europe, butafter the Avar withdrawal he remained atChalcedon. Apparently Khusro tried to havehim assassinated at this time, but the plan wasuncovered (allegedly with Heraclius' help) andShahvaraz refused to commit his army againstthe Romans.

In 628 Shahvaraz's sons supported theoverthrow of Khusro, but in 630 he securedHeraclius' support for a coup against theyoung Ardashir. Shahvaraz, whose army wasstill occupying the eastern provinces, agreedto withdraw from Roman territory andreturn the relic of the Holy Cross. Shahvarazonly survived for two months as king beforebeing murdered. His son Nicetas, whosename suggests an attachment to the familyof Heraclius, commanded Roman troopsagainst the Arabs in Syria in the 630s, butwas executed by the caliph Umar in 641 afteroffering to subdue Persia for the Arabs.

The world around war

Impact of conflict

Administration

Prolonged warfare was not a novelty for theRomans; indeed during their expansion theyhad almost prided themselves on theregularity of their involvement. But repeatedcampaigning inside the Roman Empire,with the consequent ravaging of estates,destruction of cities, and death or capture ofcivilians was unusual: before the frontierproblems of the mid-third century, thecivil wars of AD 69-70 and 193-97 hadbeen the only serious instances; Hannibal'sinvasion of Italy in the late third century BCis the nearest parallel for such damagebeing inflicted by a foreigner. The newsituation affected the Empire's organisation,economic and social structures, and systemsof belief.

Military need prompted a fundamentalchange in government, from a singleemperor to the collegiate rule whichemerged under Diocletian. Subsequentemperors who had the opportunity torule alone, for example Constantius IIand Valentinian I, chose to appoint acolleague to share the burden of command:regional armies and provincial populationshad greater confidence when an emperorwas on hand. However, having multiplerulers could create tensions, as happenedbetween Constans and Constantius II orArcadius and Honorius; the most seriouscase of full-blown conflict betweenaccepted colleagues, after Julian'sproclamation in 360, was averted byConstantius' death. Even in the fifthcentury, when the greater problems andclearer separation of the two halves mighthave reduced co-operation, the east senthelp to the west when possible. Imperialproliferation had administrativeconsequences: Diocletian's three colleagues,

and then Constantine's three sons, neededtheir own officials, with the result that thepraetorian prefecture split into regionalunits.

Administrative units were also dividedbecause of pressure from below. In the thirdcentury the financial problems caused byrepeated invasion and rapid imperial turnovermeant that new ways had to be devised topay and supply the armies. As the value andregularity of traditional sources of tax revenuedeclined, so it seems that armies wereincreasingly encouraged to take affairs intotheir own hands and secure necessarysupplies and other resources: instead ofmonetary taxation being extracted fromprovinces and delivered to the legions, whowould then return much of it to theprovinces through purchase of commodities,the armies short-circuited the process bytaking what they needed in kind whileleaving provincials to offset this against taxliabilities. Under Diocletian the state caughtup with this process and acted toinstitutionalise it.

There had also been a long-termtendency for legions to be divided intosmaller operational units whose separateexistence gradually solidified as theybecame accustomed to campaigning andbeing quartered away from their parentlegions. Dispersal of concentrations oflegions and the attachment of units toprovincial cities also facilitated problemsof supply, while this distribution of troopsalso offered wider security when frontierdefences no longer excluded invaders.These developments meant that soldiershad closer and more regular interactionwith civilians, while the logistics of the taxsystem became more cumbersome asagricultural produce had to be gatheredand stored.


A law of the early 370s illustrating some ofthe problems in accounting for officialsupplies (Theodosian Code 7.4.16).

'If the military accountants shouldnot deliver at once at the end of aperiod of 30 days their originalrequisitions, they shall be compelled torestore from their own property, eitherto the soldiers themselves or to the fiscalstorehouses the supplies which theyfailed to withdraw from the fiscal storesor which they omitted to issue to theservice units whose accounts they kept.'

The traditional system of provincialgovernment, which relied heavily on theparticipation of local urban elites, could notcope. This was partly because of thecomplexity of the changes, but moreimportantly the position of local elites wasbeing undermined by the economic andmilitary developments which surroundedthem. Inflation and the decline in value ofcoinage meant that they had less wealth tospend in their cities, while invasion and civilwar might destroy the agricultural prosperityon which aristocrats and cities alikedepended; in the worst cases even fortifiedcities might be sacked. The vitality of citiesdeclined and their elites, who remainedwealthy through possession of land, mightdecide that it was better to withdraw to theirestates rather than spend limited resourceson sustaining an urban lifestyle. There wasan interlocking cycle of urbanimpoverishment and decay, so that it washarder for cities to play their expected partin imperial government at the very momentwhen administrative demands werebecoming greater.

One result was an increase, approximatelytwofold under Diocletian, in the number ofprovinces: if provincial elites could notperform their traditional functions, it wasnecessary for governors to be more closelyinvolved in supervising tax collection andlocal justice. This encroachment of imperialgovernors on customary spheres of operation

for local aristocrats further undermined thelatter's authority and contributed to thecycle of decline mentioned above.

Provincial cities - one of the glories ofthe early Roman Empire whose extensiveremains still dominate our perception of theclassical Mediterranean world - came underincreasing threat as their governing classbecame less interested in exercising localcontrol. Leading locals could secure morepower for themselves by entering the centraladministration, whose expansion at all levelsfrom the provinces to the imperial courtsrequired more educated participants. Insteadof competition for municipal office, serviceto individual cities often became a chore forlocal aristocrats whose performance wasbolstered by frequent imperial legislation;where this failed, tasks had to be overseen byappointees of the provincial governor, afurther extension of central power anderosion of local pride. Ironically one factorwhich contributed to the continuedimportance of cities was military insecurity,since urban defences provided refuge for theinhabitants of the surrounding countryside,but this offered only a partial balance. If thethreat became too intense or persisted toolong, the cities would be in danger ofsuccumbing and the local population,inevitably led by their richest, and hencemost mobile members, contemplated flight.

The desertion of parts of the Empireemerged as a problem during the thirdcentury when repeated invasionsdepopulated considerable regions along theRhine and Danube frontiers. The morefortunate inhabitants would have slippedaway southwards, thereby contributing tothe increased prosperity in late antiquity ofsouth-western Gaul and the southernBalkans, but the majority either perished orwere captured. These developmentscontributed to the Empire's tax problems,since certain areas produced little ornothing, while it took time to recognise theincreased potential of other areas. In theory,the process of regular censuses to update taxregisters instituted by Diocletian should havecoped with such movements, but the

The world around war 69

Folio from the Notitia Dignitatum showing the office ofthe Count of the Sacred Largesses, displaying, in additionto the standard letter of appointment, different formsof wealth for distribution. (MS Canon Misc. 378, f. I42v,Bodleian Library)

thorough reassessment of even one provincewas such a major undertaking that thecrucial lists could not remain accurate. Inpractice the easiest way to make up forshortages in revenue was to squeezeaccessible producers harder, both throughincreasing the standard tax demand and byimposing supplementary superindictions.

In some parts of the Empire the taxburden at times was probably excessive,which encouraged people to try to evadetheir dues. The richest and most powerfulcould ignore demands, while waiting for anemperor to announce one of the periodiccancellations of arrears. The poor and weakdid so either by placing themselves underthe protection of a rich neighbour whomight (in return for payment or service ofsome sort) exercise his powers ofobstruction for these new clients, or bymoving to a new region to escape officialnotice. These developments promptedimperial legislation that attempted to tiepeople to their places of work: thus manytypes of urban craftsmen and shopkeepersbecame, in legal theory, hereditary

occupations, and in the countrysideagricultural tenants were repeatedly decreedto be tied to their estates, although thefrequent need for legislation suggests thatthe process was not all that easy.

Warlords

However complex the economic andadministrative problems which protractedwarfare caused, the Empire managed tosurvive the crisis of the third century toflourish for much of the fourth century. Inthe east this prosperity continued into thesixth century, but the western Empire relapsedinto a cycle - ultimately fatal - of shrinkingrevenues and declining power during the fifthcentury. Invaders ravaged and depopulatedlarge areas, but this time the damageextended much deeper into the Empire. Theinability of the imperial government to repelgroups such as the Visigoths led to theirsettlement, with official agreement, inproductive provinces: south-western Gaul,much of Spain and finally, and most crucially,North Africa, passed out of Roman control.In some cases, such as the allocation ofsouth-west Gaul to the Visigoths, the Empirein theory gained a powerful contingent ofsoldiers; in practice this resource could onlybe used when it suited the Visigothsthemselves, as for example in a series ofcampaigns into Spain which ultimatelybenefited the Visigoths, and on otheroccasions emperors had to act against theirnominal allies.

One important consequence of reductionsin imperial power, perceived as well as real,was the emergence of local warlords whowould control and defend particular areasagainst external pressures, both central andforeign. On occasions this happened withimperial consent: in the fifth century westernemperors relaxed legislation against thecarrying of arms by private individuals, anadmission that taxation no longer boughtsafety. The Roman 'withdrawal' from theBritish Isles in 410 was probably such anincident, with the removal of the last official


Roman troops being accompanied by anexhortation to the Romano-British provincialsto attend to their own defence. More oftensuch developments occurred despite imperialwishes. At worst a powerful provincial warlordmight come to be regarded as emperor, as wasthe case with Odaenathus of Palmyra, theseparate Gallic emperors of the later thirdcentury, and Carausius in Britain; from theperspective of the imperial centre, these menwere usurpers who had to be crushed whenconditions permitted. When Roman rule wasdisintegrating similar rulers, such as Syagriusin northern Gaul in the 460s, could be seen asresolute champions of Roman authority.

Most warlords were less powerful and morelocal than such grand figures. They provideone plausible way of understanding thephenomenon of bacaudae, peasant brigands,who are said to have dominated parts of Gauland Spain for limited periods between thethird and fifth centuries. Rather than beingclass warriors keen to overthrow theirlandlords and the Roman state, they wereprobably an alliance of different inhabitantsof a particular region ranging from poortenants to local aristocrats, with the latterproviding leadership. Such groups could easilymove in and out of formal attachment to theEmpire, as illustrated by the Isaurians,inhabitants of the mountains of southernTurkey. In the fourth century they revoltedintermittently, probably when the tiesbinding local Isaurian leaders to the cities ofneighbouring regions broke down. In the fifthcentury Isaurians came to be recognised as aprecious military resource, being recruitedinto imperial service by Zeno, an Isaurianwho became consul, senior general andpatrician. In the next generation, throughtheir domination of the imperial bodyguard,their leader, another Zeno, became son-in-lawof Emperor Leo and eventually his successor.Their fall from favour after Emperor Zeno'sdeath in 491 prompted a return to regionalrevolt, with even an attempt to proclaim arival emperor.

Emperors had to strike a balance betweentolerating the existence of such powerfullocal barons and dissipating their own

Charietto came to prominence in theearly 350s as a tribal supporter of thewestern usurper Magnentius, but afterthe latter's defeat and death he had tosustain himself as a brigand. In 355Julian, the newly appointed westernCaesar, decided it was best to reach anaccommodation with him. Chariettobecame a feared defender of the Rhinefrontier, surviving Julian's departure tothe east to die in action against invadingAlamanni in 365, by which time he heldthe rank of count.

strength in attempts to discipline them.Many of the most important figures in theEmpire had their personal retinues ofsupporters, most visibly in the form of thebucellarii who surrounded leading generals,but also in the monks or other ecclesiasticalattendants in the entourage of major bishopsand the lance-wielding guards for Anatolianestate owners whose misdeeds Justinian triedto regulate. These developments entailedthat emperors did not have a monopoly ofviolence: a bishop of Alexandria couldintimidate a general church council andprevent imperial officers from achievingtheir wishes, while at home his supportersmight dismember a rival bishop and overaweimperial troops attempting to restore order.Legislation was meant to restrict suchbehaviour, but compromise was often easier;we find estates in Egypt which maintainedtheir own groups of bucellarii and had privategaols. It was cheaper to uphold imperialauthority in collaboration with such people,even if this effectively reduced the overallsupremacy of the individual emperor.

The leaders of tribal groups whoestablished themselves in Roman provincescould be placed in this category of warlords,effective military protectors whose authoritygradually came to be accepted by remainingRoman inhabitants, even aristocrats, as wellas their tribal followers. Visigothic andOstrogothic kings had to maintain twocontrasting images, as civilised dispensers of


In response to the Vandal conquest of Africa,Valentinian relaxed the ban on privateindividuals carrying weapons (June 440)(Valentinian III, Novel 6.2.3).

'As often as the public welfaredemands we consider that the solicitudeof all must be summoned in aid ... weadmonish each and all by this edictthat, with confidence in Romanstrength, if the occasion should sodemand, they shall use those armswhich they can, but they shall preservethe public discipline and themoderation of free birth unimpaired.'

laws whose ability to uphold local peacejustified their appropriation of propertieswhich had once been Roman and of taxrevenues, and as effective war leaders whocould still circulate gifts to their entourages.Latin rhetoric, as seen through the writingsof Cassiodorus, and Roman law as in theCode of Euric underpinned the formeraspect. On the other hand, the continuingimportance of military prowess contributedto a militarisation of the Roman elements intheir kingdoms: in Merovingian France andVisigothic Spain in the sixth century thesurviving Roman cities maintained their ownmilitias which could be quite effective, ifsmall, military units.

Christianity

War fundamentally affected the Empire in avariety of ways, but perhaps thedevelopment of greatest long-termsignificance was its impact on religiousbeliefs; war and victory underpinned theexplosion of Christianity as the Empire'sdominant religion. In the third century thetraditional Graeco-Roman gods oversaw thesalvation of the Empire, aided in accordancewith individual preference by a variety ofother local or imported deities such asMithras or the Unconquered Sun. Worshipwas an important factor in ensuring the

allegiance and discipline of the armies, asillustrated by the calendar of religioussacrifices from Dura Europus (the Romanoutpost on the Euphrates): the life of militaryunits was organised around a series ofsacrifices, in which commemoration ofimportant imperial anniversaries wasprominent, while images of the currentemperor or emperors were placed between thelegionary standards so that they shared thefierce loyalty which the eagles attracted. Themajor persecutions of Christians in the thirdcentury were triggered by imperial demandsto sacrifice for the safety of the Empire.

The religious world changed, at least inoutward appearance, when Constantineadopted the Christian God as his divinecompanion and granter of victory, a movejustified by successes at the Milvian Bridgeand then over Licinius. Thereafter theChristian God assisted his servants, whetherin civil war as at Mursa in 351 whenConstantius' victory was signalled by theappearance of a cross in the sky at Jerusalem,or in foreign adventures as in Justinian'sreconquest of Africa, which was guaranteedby a bishop's dream and Christian omens.Emperors might consult prominentChristians about future campaigns, as whenZeno visited Daniel the Stylite, who hadtaken up residence on a column near theBosporus, to ask his advice about anexpedition to fight the Vandals. The Churchbecame involved in victory celebrations tothe extent that the victorious entry ofJustinian to Constantinople in 559culminated in prayers at the altar of S.Sophia. Imperial warfare might even take oncrusading overtones: Constantine's finalcampaign against Persia was accompanied bypropaganda about the liberation ofChristians in Mesopotamia, and in the 620sHeraclius mobilised the rump of his Empireto ward off Persians and Avars by presentingthe Romans as the beleaguered children ofIsrael with a mission to crush the heathenand recover the relic of the Holy Cross fromBabylon.

In contrast to such successes, non-Christians were spectacularly unsuccessful:


Ankara citadel. (Authors collection)

Julian the apostate led a massive army todisaster in Persia, while his own death in askirmish was attributed by some to themiraculous intervention of St Mercurius; thepagan usurper Eugenius was overwhelmed bythe orthodox Theodosius at the FrigidusRiver; and Constantinople was deliveredfrom the threat of an alleged Gothic plot bythe intervention of an angel. HereticalChristians might be as unsuccessful: EmperorValens, an opponent of Nicene Christianity,died after the catastrophe of Adrianople.

Everything conspired to demonstrate thepower of the true Christian God and theimportance of correct worship, an issuewhich had already exercised Constantine: heurged the importance of Christian unity toachieve efficacious supplications to God andprovided support for clergy attached to thecorrect, orthodox, group. As a result,emperors became closely involved in theagreement and enforcement of what wasdoctrinally right, and in ecclesiasticaldiscipline, although these areas of beliefproved much more resistant to Imperial

command than the secular fields in whichthey usually operated. Within months of hisvictory at the Milvian Bridge, Constantinewas invited to adjudicate in the Donatistdispute - which originated in challenges tothe legitimacy of North African clergy whohad not stood up to persecution in the thirdcentury - and a year after defeating Liciniusand acquiring the eastern Empire he presidedat the universal council of Nicaea, whichattempted to resolve the Arian dispute aboutthe relationship of God the Father andChrist the Son. In each case the dispute wasstill unresolved a century later.

Emperors used their full military mightand political power to uphold their authorityover the Church, but it was difficult toachieve the intended results. Justinian hadPope Vigilius brought to Constantinople andthen forcibly wrenched from the altar wherehe had taken refuge to attend a churchcouncil in 553, but the Emperor's doctrinalstatement which resulted was not widelyaccepted in the west for over 50 years. InConstantinople occasional tensions betweenemperor and bishop exacerbated theperennial problems of maintaining order in


major conurbations: when Arcadius hadBishop John Chrysostom arrested in 404,the attendant rioting resulted in the burningof S. Sophia and the Senate; BishopChrysostom died in exile in 407, but ageneration later he was accepted as one ofthe pillars of the Greek Church.

Alexandria was even more out of control,since the city's bishops financed anenormous clerical establishment, includinghundreds of monks in the nearby desert whocould be brought into the city and mobilisedas needed. Emperors did not regularly keepenough troops in Egypt to confront thispotent combination of force, bribery andpatronage, and it was easier to come to anaccommodation with the preferred leader ofthe Egyptian Church. Even when emperorsresolved to intervene, the authority of theirecclesiastical nominees rarely extendedbeyond the city of Alexandria, and theiropponents were always awaiting theopportunity to strike back: Proterius wassustained as bishop with Emperor Marcian'sbacking, but on Marcian's death he wasdragged from the baptistery of his churchand publicly dismembered by supporters ofhis rival, Timothy the Cat.

Although Christianity often confirmedimperial prestige, the Church could not failto be involved also in the fragmentation ofauthority in the Empire. This was partlybecause of the power of the bishop in localsociety. The bishop of Alexandria wasexceptional in absolute terms, but in mostof the Empire's cities the local bishop was aleading property owner and patron, as wellas a person of education. As such they wereoften trusted to represent their cities: in 481the bishop of Heraclea in Macedonia savedhis people by providing food for Theoderic'sGoths; during Khusro I's invasion of Syria in540 bishops attempted to negotiate limits toPersian depredations; and requests to anemperor for tax remission after a naturaldisaster might well be articulated by thebishop. This authority, however, could alsothreaten imperial interests: at Thessalonicain 481, the inhabitants rioted at a rumourthat Emperor Zeno intended to allow Goths

to settle in the city and removed the keysfrom the imperial prefect to entrust them tothe bishop; in 594 the bishop of Asemusnear the Danube prevented the localmilitia from being conscripted into themobile army commanded by EmperorMaurice's brother.

Communities might come to look toliving saints or relics as well as bishops toprotect them in the absence of imperialhelp. In the fragmenting western Empire ofthe fifth century, St Genevieve was creditedwith saving Paris from Attila, while atClermont Ferrand in the 470s BishopSidonius introduced new devotions tosustain local morale during a protractedblockade. The development of the story ofChrist's protection for Edessa inMesopotamia has already been noted (seepage 56). Thessalonica is another placewhere one can see the local churchdeveloping its supernatural assistants whenimperial protection was lacking. In the earlyseventh century the city's bishop produced acollection of miracles performed by thecity's patron saint Demetrius, whichparticularly stressed his ability to save hiscity from capture by Avars and Slavs; thecollection was designed for public recitationduring a renewed bout of Avar pressure.Later in the century, when the city wasvirtually cut off from Constantinople andimperial support, the collection wasexpanded with further examples ofDemetrius' miraculous intervention in siegesand blockades. Demetrius was capable ofhumbling imperial prefects who did notrecognise his superior authority or attend tothe interests of his city, and of challengingthe emperor by redirecting food suppliesbound for Constantinople.

As long as the Empire flourished the closeconnection of Christianity and warstrengthened imperial authority, and eventhe occasions of tension when secular powerwas fragmenting reflected rather thancaused imperial decline. There are, however,ways in which the Church has beencriticised for contributing to the Empire'scollapse, through the appropriation of


The walls of Nicaea, (modern Iznik,Turkey); thecolumn bases and other reused material at the basesof the towers reflects their rapid construction.(Author's collection)

precious resources and the inculcation of anunwarlike or defeatist spirit.

The Church did require the service ofnumerous clergy, and the growing monastic


movement in the fifth century removedmany more from secular activities. As amassive property owner, the Church reducedthe area liable to taxation and, more

The importance of the secular role ofbishops is illustrated in the explanation forthe choice of a new bishop at Antioch in527, shortly after the city had been struckby a massive earthquake (Evagrius,Ecclesiastical History 4.6).

'At the very moment of despair Godraised up Ephrem, the Count of the east,to assume every care that the city ofAntioch should not lack any necessities.As a consequence the Antiochenes, inadmiration, elected him as their priestand he obtained the apostolic see as areward for his especial support.'

importantly, as a recipient of benefactionsindividual churches accumulated massivewealth in precious metal. How far thesedevelopments drained secular resourcesdepends in part on the costs of religiousactivities in the period before the triumph ofChristianity, but there is likely to have beenan increase. In a crisis monks and clergymight be made liable to conscription, andecclesiastical treasures were often deployedto ransom captives or save cities from beingsacked; in the 620s Heraclius financed hiscampaigns through a compulsory loan of thewealth of the church at Constantinople. Thismight suggest that these resources were notcompletely alienated from secular use, butthe question must remain as to whether theymight have been employed more effectivelyif they had been available to finance regularmilitary expenditure.

With regard to attitudes towards war it isessential not to impose modern views: forus Christianity might be a religion of peace,but Constantine had chosen the Christians'deity as an Old Testament God of Battles.There was, however, a negative side toChristianity's ability to sustain Romanmorale, since the belief that God rewardedhis virtuous servants with victory alsoprovided an explanation for defeat in termsof sin or incorrect worship. In the easternempire during the sixth century along-running dispute about the composition


of Christ, how the divine and humanelements were fused within his single beingwithout undermining the integrity of eitherelement, resulted in the alienation fromConstantinople of many of the inhabitantsof the eastern provinces. Emperors wereregarded as heretical, and attempts to coerceunity as persecution. As a result imperialmisfortune came to be expected, or atleast accepted by the populations of Syria,Egypt and Armenia who did not share theemperor's views. The situation became even

Walls of Thessalonica, the fourth-century defences ofGalenus' capital. (Author's collection)

more complex in the 630s when Heracliusattempted to impose a doctrinal compromisewhich most Christians found unacceptable:the emperor's descent into heresy providedthe perfect explanation for the contemporarysuccesses of the Arabs. Nothing was likely tobe achieved until the emperor turned back toGod and worshipped correctly, so nothingshould be done.

Portraits of civilians

Notable individuals

Ambrose, Bishop of Milan

Ambrose (bishop 374-97), son of a praetorianprefect, pursued an official career and becamegovernor of the province of Aemilia in 372/3,with his seat at Milan, the western imperialcapital. The Church at Milan was dominatedby Arians with imperial support whenAmbrose got involved, somewhat improperly,in the election of a new bishop for thesupporters of the Council of Nicaea. Ambrosewas chosen, though he was not yet baptised,so that he progressed to the bishopric oneweek after formally joining the Church.

Ambrose energetically promoted his brandof Christianity, building churches anddiscovering relics to underpin their sanctity,promoting female piety, encouraging hymnsinging and patronising scholarship. He wasan accomplished orator, whose intellectual

sermons gained a following among educatedimperial officials, people of similar backgroundto him. His secular career gave him the skillsto manipulate councils into supporting hisviews, and the experience to stand up toemperors, first Valentinian II, who demandeda church for Arian worship, then, twice,Theodosius over his attempt to punish zealousChristians in Syria who had destroyed asynagogue and his massacre of civilians inThessalonica; on the last occasion the emperorperformed public penance. Ambrose, however,also used Christianity to uphold imperialpower, being responsible for linking the legendof the discovery of the True Cross toConstantine's mother, Helena: Ambrose

Stylised woodcut showing a scene from the life ofAmbrose, Bishop of Milan. (Ancient Art andArchitecture)


proposed that the incorporation of nails fromthe Cross into the imperial helmet and bridlesymbolised Christianity's support for enduringsecular military authority. After his death in397, Ambrose's reputation was rapidlyconsolidated through a biography by hissecretary, but the bishopric of Milan lost itsspecial importance when the court moved tothe greater safety of Ravenna.

Symeon, ascetic and saint

Symeon Stylites (390-459) was one of the mostinfluential of eastern holy men. After a decadein various Syrian monasteries where his fierceasceticism provoked unease, Symeon moved toa hillside near Telneshin where he lived in asmall hut; fame brought pilgrims whoseattentions prompted Symeon to transfer first toone column, and then to a taller one of about60 feet (20.4m) where he remained for the last30 years of his life. The power of his prayersand curses was famous and attracted visitorsfrom the west and beyond the Empire'sborders. Symeon berated EmperorTheodosius II for legislating to protect law-abiding pagans and Jews, and Emperor Leoconsulted him in 457 about sensitiveecclesiastical issues.

Symeon's death on 2 September 459provoked competition for his body and relics:his companions feared that local villagers ornomadic Arabs might steal his corpse for theirown benefit. Martyrius, patriarch of Antioch,and Ardabur, the senior general in the east,came to the column with Gothic soldiers whoescorted the corpse to Antioch, where theinhabitants wanted it as a talisman againstearthquakes; Symeon, too, looked after himselfby freezing Martyrius' hand when the latterattempted to remove a hair from his beard.Symeon's dirty leather loincloth was offered toEmperor Leo, but ended up in the possessionof Symeon's spiritual son, the stylite Daniel,who took up his station on the Bosporus.During the 480s a massive monastic complexwas constructed at Qalat Seman aroundSymeon's empty column, the main churchbeing 328 feet (100m) from east to west and

The historian Evagrius records an occasionin the 580s when the senior general in theeast asked to use Symeon's relics (1.13).

'I saw his holy head when Philippicusrequested that precious relics be sent forthe protection of the eastern armies.And the extraordinary thing was thatthe hairs which lay upon his head hadnot been corrupted, but are preserved asif he were alive again. And the skin onhis forehead was wrinkled and withered,but still it is intact, as are the majorityof his teeth, except for those forciblyremoved by the hands of devout men.'

295 feet (90m) from north to south, and thesite remained a popular focus for pilgrimage.

John the Lydian, easterncivil servant

John was born in 490 at Philadelphia inAsia Minor, from where he moved toConstantinople to find a post in the palacesecretariat. While awaiting an opening hestudied philosophy, but then jumped at theopportunity provided by the elevation of afellow-townsman to the praetorian prefecturein 511. He was allocated a senior position witha substantial income from semi-official fees,and rewarded for a panegyric of his patron withone gold coin per line. John had an excellentknowledge of Latin, which was being used lesscommonly in the eastern Empire, even thoughit was the language of law, and for a time hewas very busy preparing legal materials in theprefecture while also maintaining an alternativecareer path by working in the palace. After hispatron left office, John's career reverted to amore normal trajectory whereby length ofservice determined promotion.

John's literary talents continued to attractattention, and he was asked by Justinian topresent a panegyric in front of aristocrats fromRome and then to compose a history of thePersian campaigns including the Roman victoryat Dara in 530. He secured one of the public

Portraits of civilians 79

professorships in Constantinople, probably inthe 540s, and combined this with work in theprefecture until his retirement after 40 yearsand four months of service in 551/2. He is bestknown for his work 'On Magistracies', whichincluded a study of the praetorian prefecturethat aired his own jaundiced views onadministrative innovations and the decliningimportance of traditional qualities, such asliterary ability and skill at Latin.

Cassiodorus, Roman inOstrogothic service

Three generations of Cassiodori had beenimportant public officials in Italy for Romanand tribal rulers when the young FlaviusMagnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator wasselected by his father, the praetorian prefect, asadvisor in 503-07. Thereafter he regularlyserved the Ostrogoths at Ravenna as legalexpert and composer of official correspondencein elegant Latin, along the way securing thehonours of a consulship in 514 and the

Folio from the Notitia Dignitatum showing the office ofthe praetorian prefect with ceremonial four-horse carriage,ink stand, candlesticks, and imperial letter of appointment.(MS Canon Misc. 378, f. 90, Bodleian Library)

patriciate in the 530s; even after the start ofthe Justinianic reconquest he continued toserve as praetorian prefect, organising suppliesfor Ostrogothic forces. With the collapse of theOstrogothic regime he embraced the religiouslife, and was in Constantinople in 550,probably as a refugee from the war-torn chaosof Italy. In the mid-550s he returned to founda monastery at Squillace in his native Calabria,where he lived until his death in about 580.

He was a prolific writer. Apart from the12 volumes of letters which underpin ourknowledge of the Ostrogothic kingdom, hecomposed panegyrics on King Theoderic andhis son-in-law, accepted a royal request to writea history of the Goths which proclaimed theantiquity of the Gothic race and the rulingAmal family, and produced severalphilosophical and religious works. At hismonastery he hoped that secular learningcould be sustained as an aid to religiousunderstanding; to this end he compiled twobooks of 'Divine and Human Institutes', workson grammar, etymology and figures of speech,which were intended to assist his monks intheir role as scribes, and commentaries on thePsalms and other books of the Bible. Inaddition he commissioned other works, suchas a Latin translation of the main Greek churchhistorians of the fourth and fifth centuries. Hismonastery scarcely survived his death, but hiswritings had a profound influence on thedirection of western monasticism and its rolein the preservation of classical learning.

Antonina, wife of generalBelisarius

Antonina was born probably about 484, intoa family of entertainers, her father being acharioteer in Constantinople and her motheran actress. She had at least one husbandbefore marrying Belisarius, sometime in theearly 520s when he was bodyguard for thefuture Emperor Justinian; if one believes thehistorian Procopius (who disliked Antonina)she had previously had several lovers andbetrayed Belisarius by pursuing an affairwith his godson.


Promotion for Belisarius and friendshipwith Justinian's wife, Empress Theodora -another product of the entertainment world -brought Antonina considerable influence; atsome point she was granted the exaltedpatrician rank. She accompanied Belisarius onhis western campaigns, helping to improve theexpedition's water supply on the voyage toAfrica in 533, organising a fleet and suppliesfor Belisarius during the siege of Rome in 537,and allegedly dominating her husband. Onbehalf of Theodora she helped to oust PopeSilverius in 537, secure the downfall ofJustinian's former financial officer John theCappadocian in 541, and persuade PopeVigilius to espouse Theodora's theological

preferences. When Belisarius was disgraced in542/3 Antonina worked to recover imperialfavour, and then accompanied him on hisreappointment to Italy in 544. She returned toConstantinople to plead for reinforcements,but the death of Theodora in 548 persuadedher to press instead for Belisarius' recall; shealso terminated the marriage of her daughterto Theodora's grandson to prevent theimperial house from acquiring the family'swealth. She may have outlived Belisarius, whodied in 565.

Ravenna mosaic of Theodora, wife of Justinian I, with herentourage. Mosaic from the Basilica of S.Vitale. Ravenna.(Ancient Art and Architecture)

How the war ended

Making new boundaries

Disintegration of the Empire

A period of war lasting four centuries andinvolving several different regional conflictsis unlikely to have a clear end, but threemajor developments can legitimately beconsidered to signal the conclusion of thecampaigns of the late Roman period: in theeastern empire and North Africa thesweeping victories of Islamic Arabs; in theBalkans the progressive occupation ofterritory by Slav tribes, who eventuallygenerated identifiable governing elites; andin the west the consolidation of tribalkingdoms in spite of Justinian's massiveeffort at reconquest.

In the east while Heraclius had beenlocked in his desperate struggle with thePersians, events of enormous importancewere unfolding in the Arabian peninsula. AtMecca a 40-year-old trader received a divinemessage from the angel Gabriel. For the nextdozen years or so Muhammad stayed inMecca, receiving more messages, andgradually built up a following, although thissuccess increased tensions with thepolytheists who remained the majoritycommunity. In 622 Muhammad and hisfollowers moved north to Yathrib (Medina),an event (the hijra) which marked the startof the Islamic era.

By Muhammad's death in 632 he hadasserted his control over Mecca as well asmuch of the northern part of the Arabianpeninsula, and under his successors theArabs pushed into Palestine and Syria. In 633and 634 there was a series of limitedvictories, which permitted the Arabs toenter Damascus. In 636 a major Romancounter-offensive, commanded by theEmperor Heraclius' brother Theodore whohad assembled most of the military resourcesof the eastern provinces, ended in disaster at

the River Yarmuk. Roman resistance wasbroken and over the next few years themajor cities of Palestine and Syriasurrendered, while in 640 the Arabs tookover Roman Mesopotamia and campaignedinto Armenia, Cilicia and Anatolia. In 639attacks on Egypt began and by 642 thisprovince too was captured; in less than adecade all the richest areas of the RomanEmpire had fallen under Arab control.

What is most striking about thisachievement - apart from its speed andcomplete surprise - is that at the same timeArab armies were dismantling the PersianEmpire. Admittedly the Sassanid dynasty hadbeen in turmoil since Khusro II's overthrowin 628, but the accession of Khusro'sgrandson Yazdgard III in 632 had broughtsome stability; however, Persian armies wereunable to withstand this new challenge. Bythe early 640s Yazdgard had been forced toabandon all the royal cities in lowerMesopotamia and seek refuge in north-eastern Iran; in 651 Yazdgard was underpressure even there when his assassinationterminated the Sassanid dynasty andconfirmed Muslim rule over the whole ofthe Middle East.

By 700 the Arabs had wrested all NorthAfrica from Roman control, and had startedto conquer the Visigoths in Spain. The onedirection in which they failed to makelasting progress was in Anatolia, whereRoman resistance gradually hardened. Aftercapturing Alexandria the Arabs developed apowerful navy, which brought control ofCyprus and endangered the southerncoastline of Asia Minor and the Aegeanislands. On land, repeated raidingimpoverished vast tracts of inland AsiaMinor, and resulted in the destruction ordesertion of many of the major cities:refugees streamed away from the invaders in


search of safety in the mountains, whilerepeated disaster challenged the stability ofreligious convictions. At Constantinople,however, in the 670s, the Arabs eventuallystumbled decisively: the capital's substantialwalls and the Roman navy (with its secretweapon of Greek fire) were underpinned bythe city's divine defenders, among whom theVirgin was prominent through the relics ofher robe and girdle, and the Arabs werecompelled to retreat.

Over the next generation a new order wascreated in Roman territory: the old socialsystem based on the grand provincial citieshad been swept away so that villages andrural markets came to the fore, whileadministrative organisation was directedtowards sustaining the military unitsresponsible for frontier defence. OnlyConstantinople survived as a recognisablecity, and even its population had probablyshrunk to a tenth of what it had once been.Continued failure to reverse Arab successescontributed to religious upheaval: for muchof the eighth century the rump of theeastern Empire was riven by disputes aboutthe validity of images in Christian worship,with iconoclast emperors supporting theMuslim view that images were idolatrous.

In the Balkans the Romans experiencedlosses which, if less spectacular in terms ofmilitary action, were almost as complete as

At Pergamum in 716 the defenders resortedto desperate measures, intended to avert anapocalyptic scourge (Theophanes,Chronographica p.390).

'Maslamah ben Abd al-Malik came toPergamum, which he besieged andcaptured by God's dispensation, throughthe Devil's machinations. For at amagician's instigation the city'sinhabitants procured a pregnant womanand cut her up; after removing the infantand cooking it in a pot, all those about tofight dipped the sleeves of their right armin the loathsome sacrifice. Accordinglythey were delivered to the enemy.'

in the east. We have no detailed knowledgeof the sequence of events after Maurice'sdeath in 602, when Roman authority hadbeen superficially restored over much of thepeninsula. Phocas and Heraclius both gaveprecedence to eastern campaigns; troopswere progressively removed from theBalkans, which permitted Slav groups tomove unhindered across the countryside.The Avars occasionally invaded to extendtheir authority over the Slavs and survivingRomans, but even their humiliation outsideConstantinople in 626 brought no lastingrespite. As the Avar federation disintegrated,smaller tribal groups emerged to dominateparticular areas, the Bulgars in thenorth-east, and Croats and Serbs in thenorth-west. By the latter part of the seventhcentury only the hinterland ofConstantinople and isolated enclaves atThessalonica, Athens, Corinth and otherplaces accessible by sea remained underRoman authority.

In the western state, the deposition of thelast Roman emperor in 476 had brought onesort of end, with Vandals in control ofAfrica, Visigoths in Spain and southern Gaul,Merovingian Franks in northern Gaul andthe Ostrogoths soon to arrive in Italy.Justinian's reconquest threatened to turnback the clock, but in the later sixth centuryit was the Romans who were being squeezedby the arrival of the Lombards in Italy andthe reassertion of Visigothic power in Spain.The west was even lower down the list ofimperial priorities than the Balkans, andlittle could be done to influence events: in578 Emperor Tiberius had recognised thiswhen he returned the gold which the Romansenate had sent as a gift for his accessionwith the advice that they should use this topurchase allies among the newly arrivedLombards. By the 590s Roman rule in Italywas confined to Ravenna in the north,which was precariously joined to anotherarea around Rome, and from there to largerenclaves of the extreme south and Sicily. Inthe seventh century even the visit to Romeof Emperor Constans II did not conclusivelyre-establish Roman authority. Eventually a

How the war ended 85

Dome of the Rock, Jerusalem a symbol of Islamicpower at the centre of Christian and Jewish faiths.(Ancient Art and Architecture)

from the south. These victories wereaccompanied by the conversion of their KingClovis, significantly to Catholic Christianityrather than the Arian beliefs which otherGermanic tribes espoused; but partitiveinheritance between competing branches ofthe family then disrupted the kingdom'sunity. During the sixth century Clovis'successors had on various occasionsintervened in Italy, on both sides ofthe Roman reconquest, contemplated agrand alliance of tribes to challengeConstantinople, resisted Avar encroachmentsin southern Germany, and weatheredattempts from Constantinople to destabilisethe dynastic balance between different partsof the kingdom.

A graffito scratched by one of the defendersof Sirmium during its three-year siege by theAvars in 579-82.

'Lord Christ, help the city and smitethe Avars and watch over Romania andthe writer. Amen.'

combination of religious hostility toiconoclast developments in the east, lack ofrespect for the absent and unsuccessfulemperors, and resistance to tax demandsterminated east Roman control over Romeand Ravenna; the Roman Empire survived inSicily and parts of the south, but had ceasedto be a significant element in Italian affairs.

The most important events for the futureof the west occurred in France. By the earlysixth century this had been largely unitedunder the Merovingian Frankish dynastywhich had first suppressed Roman warlordsin the north and then driven the Visigoths

After the 630s Merovingian rulers wieldedlittle real power, which increasingly slippedinto the hands of the royal stewards, themost powerful being the family of Pippin. Bythe late seventh century the Pippinids hadeffectively displaced the Merovingians and itwas the Pippinid Charles Martel who rolledback the Islamic invaders at I'oitiers in 732.Thereafter his grandson Charles 'the Great' -Charlemagne - reunited Frankish Gaul andconquered the Lombards in Italy.Charlemagne's visit to Rome in 800 and hiscoronation in St Peter's sealed the creationof the Holy Roman Empire.


Roman legacies

The four centuries of war during which theRoman Empire was torn apart provided thebasis for a new political map of Europe, theMiddle East and North Africa. Instead of acollection of provinces whose differentpeoples, cultures and traditions weregradually transformed through contact withRoman power so that acceptance of a centralauthority was accompanied by a display ofsome common features, a fragmented worldemerged; in different areas diverse elitescame to the fore, a process whose results stilldominate the modern map.

The Roman Empire did not end, since therump of the eastern provinces continued tobe ruled from Constantinople by emperorswho regarded themselves and their people as

The walls of Ankara showing the pentagonal tower.(Ancient Art and Architecture)

Rhomaioi. This beleaguered state, which sawitself as the guardian of the Roman political,religious and cultural inheritance, found theresources to survive the intense Arab pressureof the late seventh and early eighth centuriesand then to embark on substantialreconquests in the Balkans and Asia Minor inthe tenth. Although the arrival of the SeljukTurks in the eleventh century curtailed itsresources and power again, the fabled wealthof the east attracted Viking mercenaries totravel south through Russia, and then thetreacherous Fourth Crusade sackedConstantinople in 1204. But a Roman statesurvived on the Bosporus until Ottomanartillery blasted its way through the Romanwalls of Constantinople in 1453.

In the Middle East, however, amillennium of control by Greeks andRomans terminated and the region changed

Conclusions and consequences 87

to leadership by a Semitic race. A visible signwas the reversion of many cities to their pre-Hellenistic local names - Urfa for Edessa,Membij for Hierapolis, Baalbek forHeliopolis, Amman for Philadelphia - thesurvival of Alexandria and Antioch (Antakya)were exceptional. The centre of gravity of thenew power was also significant. For centuriesthe Romans had faced an eastern rival whosecapitals lay in lower Mesopotamia and theIranian plateau, whereas the new ArabEmpire was usually based much closer to theMediterranean world: in Syria under theUmmayads and Egypt under the Fatimids.Rome's Parthian and Sassanid enemies hadrarely had access to the Mediterranean,whereas the Arabs occupied a number ofmajor ports and rapidly developed apowerful navy. The Mediterranean ceased tobe our sea, mare nostrum, and became an areaof conflict and threat.

Arab control of North Africa extendedthis threat west, and initiated a structuraldivide between the northern and southernshores of the Mediterranean: whereasRoman Egypt and Africa had been tiedclosely into the Empire - socially, as thelocation of lucrative estates for thesenatorial elite, and economically, as themajor food providers for Rome andConstantinople - the Barbary Coast was apiratical scourge for Christian Europe. InSpain the Arabs remained the most powerfulpolitical force for 500 years, an object forcrusade by the northern Christian enclavesbut also a stimulus for intellectual andcultural fertilisation.

Trapian silver in unreconstructed state.(National Museum of Scotland)

In north-western Europe Roman controlebbed most quickly and decisively. In theBritish Isles the Saxons gradually pushed theRomano-British into the far west andestablished their own competing kingdomsin much of England; the process contributedto the creation of popular stories of Arthurand strengthened ties between Cornwall andBrittany, but otherwise helped to confirmthat Britain would develop separately fromthe continent. In France the consolidation ofPippinid or Carolingian control created thefirst post-Roman supranational politicalentity, the Holy Roman Empire, aninstitution which could challenge easternRome in terms of religious authority bymanipulating the papacy and as true heirs toimperial Rome by the use of Latin andcultivation of Roman practices.

One area for competition between HolyRome and eastern Rome was the Balkans,which long remained the most chaotic partof former Roman territory. Much had beenoverrun by groups of Slavs, but these hadbeen slow to generate their own ruling elites.As Constantinople's power gradually revivedin the eighth century, it proved possible toexpand its authority in peninsular Greeceand the south-eastern Balkans from theislands and coastal enclaves still in itspossession, but large parts of the northernand north-western interior were ruled bywhatever tribal group had managed todominate the local Slavs and any survivors


of the Roman population. The mostimportant units to emerge were the Bulgarkingdom in the north-east, and the Serb andCroat kingdoms in the north-west. In eachcase the ruling elite developed a complexrelationship with Constantinople, eager forthe benefits (cultural as well as economic) ofRoman recognition, but also wary of tooclose a dependence upon a potentialimperial master. Constantinople's authoritywaxed and waned, and the bestcharacterisation of the region is as acommonwealth: its members acknowledgedstrong ties, but there were also rivalriesbetween potential rulers and the ruled, whilethe existence of alternative sources ofsupport such as Holy Rome ensured thattensions thrived.

Slavs attempt to encourage the Avars toassist in an assault on Thessalonka(Miracles of St Demetrius §197).

'They said that all the cities andregions in its vicinity had beendepopulated by them, and that it aloneheld out in their midst, while it hadreceived all the refugees from theDanubian regions, and Pannonia, Dacia,Dardania and the remaining provincesand cities.'

Religious divisions

Competition for religious allegiance was oneof the disrupting factors in the Balkans asRome and Constantinople vied to convertdifferent groups, and systems of belief areone of our major inheritances from theperiod of late-Roman warfare. The emergenceof Christianity as a world faith was the firstand most obvious, since it was throughwarfare that Christianity triumphed withinthe Empire. But the Roman Empire alsoshaped the nature of Christianity'sdevelopment and helped to ensure that thisuniversal religion existed in a variety ofcompeting guises.

The struggle to define orthodoxy generatedimportant excluded groups. In the fourthcentury Christians loosely associated with theviews of Arius (that the Son was subordinateto the Father) had converted Germanic tribesnorth of the Danube. These tribes hadremained unaffected by the final triumphwithin the Empire of Nicene over ArianChristianity in the 380s; as a result thesuccessor kingdoms of Visigoths, Vandals andOstrogoths all subscribed to Arian views andwere regarded as heretical by Catholics.

In the east the identification in the 420s ofthe Nestorian heresy, over the status of theVirgin Mary and the place of the divine inChrist, had led to a rift: expulsion of Nestoriansfrom the Empire had helped them toconsolidate their domination in SassanidPersia, where they became accepted as thenational Church with their own spiritualleader, catholicus, whose appointment usuallyrequired royal sanction. Nestorian missionariesexploited Sassanid diplomatic and tradingnetworks to make converts in India, centralAsia and China. An inter-related dispute aboutChrist's nature generated the Monophysiteschism in the eastern Empire from the mid-fifth century. Attempts at reconciliation failed,partly because doctrinal concessions to easternMonophysites provoked disagreements withRome and the western Church, partly becauseintermittent coercion served to hardenattitudes; the textual bases for the argumentsbecame swamped by propaganda, and theirprecise distinctions vanished because of thedifficulty of translating complex argumentsaccurately between the languages involved -Latin, Greek, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian. In themid-sixth century a separate Monophysitehierarchy of bishops emerged to control muchof Egypt, Syria and Armenia. After the Arabconquests a new division of Christianity crys-talised, with the orthodox or Chalcedoniansdominant within the Roman Empire, whileNestorians and Monophysites were the maingroups in areas ruled by Arabs, where thelimited numbers of Chalcedonians came to beknown as Melkites, or emperors' men.

Inside the Empire Rome and Constantinopleemerged as the two centres of religious power.


Doctrinal dissension almost generated civil warin the 340s, over the exile of Bishop Athanasiusof Alexandria, and eastern attempts to resolvethe Monophysite issue produced schisms in thelate fifth, the mid-sixth, and for much of theseventh century. Successive emperors believedthat they had the right to determine what wascorrect doctrine, and then the duty to see thisaccepted throughout their realm. Popes, whoseindependence was encouraged by Rome'sdecline as an imperial capital, saw themselvesas the true guardians of Christian belief andrelished occasions when eastern bishopsappealed to the west for decisions. Emperorswere prepared to use force to secure papalobedience, but this could only work if Romeitself was safely under eastern control. Thebasis for a split between Greek and LatinChristianity was established in late antiquity.

The church historian Evagrius laments thenarrow disagreement betweenChalcedonians ('in two natures') andMonopyhsites ('from two') which bitterlydivided the Church (2.5).

'The envious and God-hating Devilthus wickedly devised and misinterpreteda change of a single letter, so that, whereasthe utterance of one of these absolutelythereby introduces the other, by mostpeople the difference is considered to begreat and their meanings to be in outrightantithetical opposition and to be exclusiveof each other. For he who confesses Christin two natures openly declares Him to befrom two, in that by confessing Christjointly in Divinity and humanity hedeclares in confessing that He is composedfrom Divinity and humanity.'

Christianity's triumph eliminated paganbeliefs at a formal level, but numerouspre-Christian practices were subsumed intothe new religion in the process in spite of somecondemnation. Christianity's secular poweralso caused contamination as episcopal officein the right city became a desirable route topower and wealth. The consequent dilution of

the Christian message stimulated purists toseek a more authentic response to the Gospel:in different parts of the Empire individualsattempted to pursue a more rigorous regime,and some of these ascetics, or 'trainees', came tobe organised into groups of monks. During thefourth century rules of conduct were developedin Egypt, Syria and Asia Minor and these soonspread west, so that by the time the Empire inthe west was faltering in the mid-fifth centurymonasteries were sufficiently established totransmit Roman religious and cultural traditions.

Jews, however, were a victim of Christianzeal. In the pre-Christian Empire, Jews hadusually been tolerated as an eccentric butacceptable group whose religious commitmentwas hallowed by antiquity, whereas forChristians they were the murderers of Christ.In the third-century persecutions, emperorshad respected Jewish beliefs and not requiredsacrifice. In theory Jews continued to beprotected by imperial legislation, but inpractice this could not be upheld againstenthusiastic Christian mobs: synagogues weredestroyed, graveyards ransacked andcongregations even forcibly converted. Suchpressures produced a backlash and on occasionsJews sided with the Empire's enemies, mostnotoriously after the Persian siege of Jerusalemin 614. Suspicions against Jews increased andpopular anti-Semitism came to be reinforcedby official tolerance and legislation.

The other great religious change, generatedby the wars of late antiquity, was Islam, whichspread over the Near East and North Africathrough armed conquest. Holy war, jihad,spurred expansion, while the privileged positionof warriors in the early conquest communitiesin Iraq, Syria and Egypt, coupled with extra taxburdens on unbelievers, encouraged conversion.The Arab capture of Jerusalem and the Holy-Land placed the sacred places of both Christiansand Jews under alien authority and created adesire for retaliation. The east-west politicalrivalry of Sassanids and Romans had now beencomplicated by a potent religious factor.

Such far-reaching political and religiousdevelopments were accompanied bysignificant social and cultural changes. Thecorner-stone of the Roman Empire had been


S. Sophia (Hagia Sophia), Istanbul, Turkey. (Ancient Artand Architecture)

the city, which functioned as the centre fordiffusing government, the religious focus foran area, and the social magnet for the localelite. In the same way as the growth ofimperial prosperity was followed by thespread of urban institutions, so the retreat ofEmpire was accompanied by their shrinkageor disappearance. During the fourth and fifthcenturies rural wealth and urban vitality hadcontracted away from the northern andwestern provinces, so that by the sixthcentury the most thriving cities were locatedin Asia Minor and Syria. The Arab conquestsundermined urban institutions in those areaswhich remained under Roman control.

Paradoxically perhaps, cities continued toflourish under Arab authority as diverse,commercial social, and intellectualcommunities. By contrast, in the survivingEmpire and the post-Roman west there hadbeen a substantial fall in population levels,due to a combination of warfare, generalinsecurity, and disease. Bubonic plague hadstruck the Mediterranean in the 540s, andthen returned with regularity for two

centuries. Population centres naturally sufferedseverely, since plague-bearing fleas needed areasonable density of hosts in order toflourish; cities were particularly hard hit, butso were armies, and even rural areas such asPalestine (which supported a dense network ofvillages). For the rich, also, the obligations ofurban life had already begun to outweigh thebenefits. As a result cities became depopulated.In some areas, such as the north Balkans, therewas a vertical move away from exposedlowland sites to the fortified hill-tops used bythe pre-Roman inhabitants. Elsewhere theremnants of urban populations clusteredaround a place of refuge, perhaps a church ormonastery, or a fortification built out ofone of the massive remains of a Roman citysuch as a theatre or amphitheatre.

Cultural changes

These shrunken settlements were nowdominated by their clergy, and perhaps a fewpowerful local families, but it was the Church,above all, which gave stability to thesesocieties and determined their priorities. Thisis particularly evident in the case of education,

Conclusions and consequences 91

which had been an important unifying badgefor the elite of the Roman world. In the westmonasteries became the guardians of knowledgeas other sources of learning faded away, whilein the east the clerical establishment inConstantinople provided the best opportunitiesfor advanced study within the Empire.

As a result the balance of what was knowninevitably shifted, with the priorities of theChurch dominating: some aspects of thestandard classical education in grammar andrhetoric survived, since clerics still had toparticipate in debates on doctrine anddiscipline, but the broad knowledge of theclassical literary tradition possessed by leadingwriters in the fourth century had slipped, andthe intellectual speculation encouraged byphilosophical study also ceased. Of practicalimport was the decline in knowledge oflanguages, which meant that very few in thewest outside Byzantine Italy could understandGreek and there were shortages of Latinspeakers in the east. The intellectual centre ofthe Mediterranean world transferred to thelands conquered by Arabs: they ruledAlexandria, the most important universitycity of the Roman world, there was sufficientwealth in other cities to encourage families tofinance the expense of higher education, andthere was a curiosity to unlock the secrets ofHellenistic learning. Greek texts, especially ofmedicine, logic and philosophy, were translatedinto Arabic and studied, and in some cases itwas the Islamic schools in Spain which actedas the conduit for the western rediscovery ofthis knowledge - Latin translations were madeof Arabic versions of the Greek originals.

One aspect of ancient learning thatcontinued to develop was law. In the 430sTheodosius II had presided over a majorcompilation of imperial law, and a centurylater Justinian had overhauled the law codeand texts for legal education. Organised lawscould contribute to the more effective exerciseof power, and even the publication of a codebolstered authority. It is noticeable that rulersof post-Roman states in the West saw theadvantages in publishing their own codeswhich combined Roman and Germanic law indiffering proportions; this ensured that

important principles of Roman law were trans-mitted to medieval western kingdoms, and henceto serve as the base for much European law.

Diplomacy was another area of continuingdevelopment, driven by practical concerns. Inthe early Roman Empire there had been notradition of systematic acquisition andcompilation of information about neighboursand possible threats, but this had begun tochange as the Empire came under increasingpressure. In the fifth century, when Attila'sHuns were threatening the eastern Empire,Constantinople developed a system forregulating relations with Sassanid Persia in aneffort to ensure stability, and also appreciated theadvantages of detailed knowledge about otherneighbours. In the sixth century these practicescontinued, so that eastern rulers were presentedwith information about the rulers of Axum inEthiopia and the Turks in central Asia, all as partof Roman competition with Persia. The abilityto play off possible enemies against each otherbecame a hallmark of 'Byzantine' diplomacy, asthe progressively weaker Empire relied more onnon-military means to secure its survival.

Emperor Theodosius as a lawgiver. Frontispiece fromVisigoth recension of the Codex of Theodosianus.(Ancient Art and Architecture)

Further readin*

Bachrach, B.S., Merovingian MilitaryOrganization 481-751, Minneapolis (1972)

Barnwell, P.S., Emperor, Prefects & Kings, theRoman West, 395-565, London (1992)

Barnwell, P.S., Kings, Courtiers and Imperium. TheBarbarian West, AD 565-725, London (1992)

Blockley, R.C., The Fragmentary ClassicisingHistorians of the Later Roman Empire II,Cambridge (1985)

Blockley, R.C., The History of Menander theGuardsman, Cambridge (1985)

Blockley, R.C., East Roman Foreign Policy,Formation and Conduct from Diocletian toAnastasius, Cambridge (1992)

Bowersock, G.W., Brown, P., Grabar O., (eds.)Late Antiquity; A Guide to the PostclassicalWorld, Cambridge, MA (1999)

Brown, P.R.L., The World of Late Antiquity: FromMarcus Amelius to Muhammad, London(1971)

Browning, R., The Emperor Julian, London(1975)

Burns, T.S., ,4 Histoir of the Ostrogoths,Bloomington (1984)

Bury, J.B., Histoir of the Later Roman Empire,from the death of Theodosius I to the death ofJustinian (1923)

Cameron, A., Circus Factions, Blues and Greensat Rome and Byzantium, Oxford (1976)

Cameron, A., & Long, J., Barbarians and Politicsat the Court of Arcadius, Berkeley (1993)

Cameron, A.M., Procopius and the Sixth Century,London (1985)

Cameron, A.M., The Later Roman Empire, NewYork (1993)

Cameron, A.M., The Mediterranean World inLate Antiquity, London (1993)

Cameron, A.M., (ed.) The Byzantine and EarlyIslamic Near East III, States, Resources, Annies,Princeton (1995)

Cameron, A.M., & P. Garnsey (eds.) TheCambridge Ancient History XIII AD 337-425,Cambridge (1997)

Cameron, A.M., Ward-Perkins, B, & Whitby,L.M., (edd.) The Cambridge Ancient HistoryXIV AD 425-600, Cambridge (2000)

Campbell, J.B., The Emperor and the RomanArmy 31 BC-AD 235, Oxford (1984)

Collins, R., Early Medieval Spain, Unity inDiversity 400-1000, New York (1983)

Collins, R., Early Medieval Europe, 300-1000,London (1991)

Corcoran, S., The Empire of the Tetrarchs,Imperial Pronouncements and GovernmentAD 284-324, Oxford (1996)

Cormack, R., Writing in Gold: Byzantine Societyand its Icons, London (1985)

Crump, G., Ammianus Marcellinus as a MilitaryHistorian, Wiesbaden (1975)

Dodgeon, M.H., & Lieu, S.N.C., The RomanEastern Frontier and the Persian Wars, AD226-363, London (1991)

Donner, F., Early Islamic Conquests, Princeton(1981)

Drinkwater, J., & Elton H., (edd.) Fifth-centuryGaul: a Crisis of Identity?, Cambridge (1992)

Evans, J.A.S., The Age of Justinian, theCircumstances of Imperial Power, London(1996)

Ferrill, A., The Fall of the Roman Empire, theMilitary Explanation, London (1986)

Fowden, G., Empire to Commonwealth,Consequences of Monotheism in LateAntiquity, Princeton (1993)

Frank, R.I., Scholae Palatinae: the Palace Guardsof the Later Roman Empire, Rome (1969)

Garnsey, P., & Humfress, C, The Evolution ofthe Late Antique World, Cambridge (2001)

Goffart, W., Barbarians and RomansAD 418-584: The Techniques ofAccommodation, Princeton (1980)

Greatrex, G., Rome and Persia at War, 502-532,Leeds (1998)

Greatrex, G., & S.N.C. Lieu, The RomanEastern Frontier and the Persian Wars II,AD 363-630, London (2002)

Further reading 93

Haldon, J.F., Recruitment and Conscriptionin the Byzantine Army c.550-950,

Vienna (1979)Haldon, J.F., Byzantium in the Seventh Century,

the Transformation of a Culture, Cambridge(1990)

Harries, J., Sidonius Apollinaris and the Fall ofRome, Oxford (1994)

Heather, P.J., Goths and Romans 332-489,Oxford (1991)

Heather, P.J., The Goths, Oxford (1996)Holum, K., Theodosian Empresses: Women and

Imperial Dominion in Late Antiquity,Berkeley (1982)

Isaac, B., The Limits of Empire, The RomanArmy in the East, Oxford (1990)

James, E., The Origins of France: from Clovis tothe Capetians 500-1000, London (1983)

James, E., The Franks, Oxford (1988)Jones, A.H.M., The Later Roman Empire

284-602, A Social, Economic and

Administrative Survey, Oxford (1964)Jones, A.H.M., Martindale, J.R., & Morris, J.,

(eds.) The Prosopography of the Later RomanEmpire 1, Oxford (1971)

Kaegi, W.E., Byzantine Military Unrest, 471-843:An Interpretation, Amsterdam (1981)

Kaegi, W.E., Byzantium and the Early IslamicConquests, Cambridge (1992)

Lee, A.D., Information and Frontiers, Romanforeign relations in late antiquity, Cambridge(1993)

Liebeschuetz, J.H.W.G., Barbarians and Bishops,Army, Church and State in the Age of Arcadiusand John Chrysostom, Oxford (1990)

Luttwak, E.N., The Grand Strategy of the RomanEmpire from the First Century AD to theThird, Baltimore (1976)

MacMullen, R., Soldier and Civilian in the LaterRoman Empire, Cambridge, MA (1963)

MacMullen, R., Corruption and the Decline ofRome, New Haven (1988)

McCormick, M., Eternal Victory, TriumphalRulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium andthe Early Medieval West, Cambridge (1986)

Mango, C.A., Byzantium: The Empire of NewRome, London (1980)

Martindale, J.R.(ed.), The Prosopography of theLater Roman Empire II—III, Cambridge(1980, 1992)

Matthews, J.F., Western Aristocracies andImperial Court AD 364-125, Oxford (1975)

Millar, F., The Roman Near East, 31 BC -AD 337, Cambridge, MA (1993)Moorhead, J., Theoderic in Italy, Oxford (1992)Nicasie, M.J., Twilight of Empire: the Roman

Army from the Reign of Diocletian until theBattle of Adrianople, Amsterdam (1998)

Nixon, C.E.V., & Rodgers, B.S., In Praise ofLater Roman Emperors, The PanegyriciLatini, Berkeley (1994)

Obolensky, D., The Byzantine Commonwealth,London (1971)

O'Flynn, J.M., Generalissimos of the WesternRoman Empire, Edmonton (1983)

Rich, J., and Shipley, G., War and Society in theRoman World, London (1993)

Southern,P., & Dixon, K.R., The Late RomanArmy, London (1996)

Thompson, E.A., Romans and Barbarians, thedecline of the Western Empire, Madison(1982)

Thompson, E.A., The Huns, Oxford (1995)Treadgold, W., The Byzantine Army, Stanford

(1995)Treadgold, W., A History of the Byzantine State

and Society, Stanford (1997)Van Dam, R., Leadership and Community in

Late Antique Gaul, Berkeley (1985)Watson, A., Aurelian and the Third Century,

London (1999)Whitby, L.M., The Emperor Maurice and His

Historian, Theophylact Simocatta on Persianand Balkan Warfare, Oxford (1988)

Whittaker, C.R., Frontiers of the Roman Empire,a Social and Economic Study, Baltimore(1994)

Whittow, M., The Making of OrthodoxByzantium, 600-1025, London (1996)

Wickham, C, Early Medieval Italy, Central Powerand Local Society 400-1000, London (1981)

Williams, S., Diocletian and the Roman Recovery,London (1985)

Williams, S., & Friell, G., The Rome That DidNot Fall: the survival of the East in the FifthCentury, London (1999)

Wolfram, H., History of the Goths, Berkeley(1988)

Wood, I.N., The Merovingian Kingdoms,450-751, Harlow (1994)


Index

Figures in bold refer to illustrations

Abbinaeus, Flavius 62Administration 67-69Adrianople, battle of 42, 43, 44. 72Aegean Sea 28Aemilia 77Aethius 49, 51Africa 49Alamannis 28, 41, 58, 70Alaric 48, 62-63Alexander Severus, Emperor 12, 27, 29Alexandria 64, 73, 91Amalasuintha 54, 55Amal and Amals 25, \ 79Ambrose. Bishop of Milan 77-78, 77Amida 37, 39, 52Ammianus 41, 44Anastasius, Emperor 52, 53, 64Anatolia 81Ankara 86Ankara citadel 72Antioch 27, 56, 60, 75Antonina 79-80Arabs 66, 76, 84, 87, 89, 90, 91Arcadius. Emperor 40, 44, 47, 48, 73Ardashir Sassanid 27, 66Argentoratum, battle of 13, 42Armenia 22, 24, 39, 52, 53, 60, 61, 76Arsacids 24Asemus, Bishop 73Asia Minor 22, 28, 52, 90Athalaric 54, 55Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria 89Athaulf 63Athens 60Attalus 62, 63Attila 25, 45, 47, 49, 51Augustine 8Augustus, Emperor 13Aurelian's wall 30Aurelian, Emperor 30, 31, 32, 33, 33, 34Avar and Avars 25, 26, 59, 60, 61, 66, 84, 85, 88

Bacaudae 70Bagratuni, Smbat 24Balkans 21, 28, 47, 52, 59, 62, 63, 66, 84, 87, 88, 90Balkans invasions 59Barberini ivory 65Belisarius General 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 65, 66, 79, 80Bezabde 37Black Sea 28, 42, 47Bleda 45Boniface, Governor 49Bosporus 26, 36, 61, 66Britain 29, 29, 69-70, 87Bubonic plague 57, 58, 90Bucellarii 21, 55, 70Burgundians 55Byzantines 91

Caesarea 60Callinicum 53Carausius 70Carcacalla, Emperor 18Carpi 25Carrhae 13Carthage 49, 54Carus, Emperor 30Cassiodorus 71, 79Caucasus 59. 61Chagan, Avar 61Chalcedon 66Charietto 70Charlemagne 85Christianity 71-76. 88, 89Chrysostom, Bishop John 73City of God 8Clibanarii 21Clovis, King 85

Code of Euric 71Cologne 21Colonia Agrippina 12Comitatus 21, 25, 36Concordia Augustorum 31Constans 1, Emperor 37, 41Constans II, Emperor 84Constantina 35Constantine I, Emperor 8, 8, 16, 22, 33, 35, 36, 37, 71, 72, 75Constantine II, Emperor 37. 44Constantinople 21, 25, 26, 36, 45, 47, 52, 54, 55, 56, 60, 61, 64,

65, 71, 72, 75, 76, 78, 79, 84, 86, 87, 88, 91Constantinople, Long Walls of 60Constantius 1, Emperor 34, 35, 49, 62, 71Constantius II, Emperor 37, 41, 67Corinth 60Count of the Sacred Largesses 69Ctesiphon 27, 60

Daniel the Stylite 71Danube river l3, 25, 28, 44. 47, 60Dara 52, 52, 53, 54, 58, 59, 60, 78Decius, Emperor 28, 32, 33Denarius 18. 31Dio, Cassius 18Diocletia 34, 35Diocletian, Emperor 22, 33, 34, 35, 67, 68Diocletianoplis 45Dome of the Rock 85Domitian, Emperor 12Dura 27, 28

Eastern campaigns 54Eastern frontier 39Edessa 28, 56, 73Edict on Maximum Prices 34, 35Egypt 18, 52, 60, 62, 66, 70, 73, 76Endless Peace 54Eugenius. Emperor 62, 72Euphrates river 27, 28, 56Evagrius 78

Farrukhan 66Franks 29, 47, 58Frigidus river 44, 62

Galerius, arch of 38Galerius, Emperor 34Gallienus, Salonim 31, 31, 32Gallus 37Gaul 21, 30, 48, 49, 51, 52, 69, 70Gelimer, King of Vandals 54Gibbon, Edward 8Golden Horn 61Gordian 27Goths 26, 28, 42, 44, 47, 49, 55, 57, 58, 62, 73, 79

see also Ostrogoths, VisigothsGovernment 68Gratian 42, 44

Hadrian's Wall 15, 16Hannibal 67Helena 78Hephthalites 52Heraclea, Bishop of 73Heraclius, Emperor 54, 60, 61, 66, 71, 75, 76, 84Herodian 27Heruls 65, 66Hippodrome at Constaninople 7Honoria 45Honorius, Emperor 44, 47, 48, 49, 62, 63Hormizd 60Huns 25, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 52Hydatius 49

lllyria 41Isaurians 70Islamic Arabs 81Islamic conquests 82Istria 28

Index 95

Italy 21, 28, 55, 62, 66

Jerusalem 60, 66, 71, 89Jews 89John the Cappadocian 80John the Lydian 78-79Jovian 39, 41Julian, Emperor 8, 25, 37, 38, 41, 70Julian the apostate 72Justin II, Emperor 59, 60, 66Justin I, Emperor 53Justinian, Emperor 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 64, 65, 65, 66, 71,

72, 79, 80, 81, 84

Kavadh, King 52Khusro I, King 41, 53, 54, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 73Khusro II, King 24, 60, 61, 66, 81

Lactantius 36Language 91Lazica 56, 57Leo, Emperor 70, 78Leo, Pope 51Licinius 36Limitanei 21Lombards 25, 59, 60, 66, 84Lucius Verus, Emperor 15, 34

Macedonia 73Magister equitum 36Magister peditum 36Magnentius 41, 70Majorian 51Mandylion of Edessa 56Marcellinus, Ammianus 37Marcian, Emperor 73Marcomanni 28Marcus Aurelius, Emperor 12Marmara, Sea of 47, 61Martyrius 78Martyropolis 55Master of Offices 23Maurice, Emperor 41, 60, 73, 84Maxentius 35Maximian, Bishop 34, 57Maximinus the Thracia 29Mecca 81Mediterranean Sea 87Menander 57Merovingian Franks 84, 85Mesopotamia 24, 30, 36, 53, 56Milan 55, 62, 65, 77, 78Milvian Bridge 35, 71, 72Moguntiacum 12Monophysites 88, 89Muhammad 81Mursa 71

Naples 57, 66Narses 55, 58, 64-66Nestorians 88Nicaea 74Nicetas 66Nineveh 61Nisibis 37, 39, 40, 52North Sea 29, 29Notitia Dignitatum 23, 69, 79

Odaenathus of Palmyra 28, 30, 70Odoacer 52, 64On Magistracies 79Ostrogoths 25, 54, 70, 79 see also Goths, VisigothsOttomans 86

Palestine 81, 90Palmyra 17, 17, 33Pannonians 32Parade helmet 22Pax romana 16Pergamum 84Peroz, King 24Persia and Persians 28, 47, 52, 54, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 66Persian armies 24-25, 26Petra 17Philip the Arab 27Phocas, Emperor 60, 84Pippinids 85, 87Placidia 49Po valley 59, 66Porchester Castle 29Post Roman West 83Postumus 30

Priscus 45Probus, Emperor 30Procopius 21, 41, S3, 79Proterius, Bishop 73

Quadi 28, 41, 42

Ravenna 48, 49, 52, 55, 57, 62, 63, 63, 64, 66, 78, 79, 84Rhine river 12, 13, 28, 48, 70Rhomaioi 86Ricimer 51Roman Provinces 14Rome 60, 61, 64Romulus 52Rua 45

Sarmatians 41Sassanids 24, 81, 88Saxons 29, 29, 87Septimus Severus, Emperor 15, 18Shahvaraz 66Shapur I 27Shapur II 37, 38Silvanus, General 41Silverius, Pope 80Singara 37, 39Slav raiders 25Slavs 60, 61, 84, 87, 88Sol Invictus 33Solidi 37Spain 17, 18, 48, 49, 51, 52, 69, 70, 87Squillace 79S. Sophia 71, 90Stilicho, General 47, 48, 62Strasburg 25Syagrius 70Symeon Stylites 78Syria 76, 78, 81, 90

Taxation 16-7, 18, 31, 68, 69Telneshin 78Tervingi 41, 44Theodahad 55Theoderic Strabo 47, 64Theoderic the Amal (also Ostrogoth) 9, 47, 48, 49, 51, 51, 52, 54,

63-64, 63, 73, 79Theodora, Empress 64, 80, 80Theodore 81Theodosian code 68Theodosius, Bishop 64Theodosius I, Emperor 7, 8, 44, 47, 48, 62, 72, 77Theodosius II, Emperor 78, 91, 91Theophylact 24Thessalonica 60, 61, 73, 76, 88Third-century Crisis 27Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle 30Thomas, Bishop of Amida 52Thos 66Thrace 44Tiberius, Emperor 60, 84Timothy the Cat 73Totila 57, 58, 66Trade 17Trajan, Emperor 13Trapian silver 87

Uldin 44Umar, caliph 66

Vahram, General 60Valens, Emperor 8, 41, 44, 72Valentinian I, Emperor 41, 42, 67, 71Valentinian II, Emperor 42, 77Valentinian III, Emperor 49, 51Valerian Wall at Athens 28Valerian, Emperor 28, 33Vandals 28, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 54, 55, 71Verus. Lucius 18Vigilius, Pope 72, 80Vindolanda writing tablets 17Visigoths 48, 49, 51, 69, 70 see also Goths, OstrogothsVitigis 55, 56

Warlord 69-71West's disintegration 50

Yarmuk, River 81Yazdgard 40Yazdgard III, King 81

Zeno, Emperor 47, 63, 64, 70, 71, 73Zenobia 30

In the early third century AD

the Roman Empire was a

force to be reckoned with,

controlling vast territories and

wielding enormous political

Essential HistoriesA multi-volume history of war seen from political,strategic, tactical, cultural and individual perspectives

'Read them and gain a deeper understanding of warand a stronger basis for thinking about peace.'Professor Robert O'Neill, Series Editor

News & Politics

rome at war ad 293-696