Download The Chronology of the Roman Emperors - Q

The Chronology of Europe from the Reign of Septimius Severus to that of Maurice,
according to Sources from the Fourth to the Ninth Centuries
Trevor Palmer
1. The Chronology of the Roman Emperors during this Period
1.1 Introduction
It is generally believed that, during the third century AD, the Roman Empire suffered a
prolonged period of chaos. Emperor after emperor met violent deaths after brief reigns, and
one civil war followed another. Was this just a time of social and historical confusion, or was
it the origin of a major chronological anomaly? One who has argued for the latter scenario is
Gunnar Heinsohn, who maintains that events at this time may have resulted in three phantom
centuries being added to history. He has pointed out that Elagabalus, who died around AD 222,
was the last Roman emperor to have constructed a new building on Palatine Hill. Furthermore,
the last emperor to have been buried in Rome was Caracalla in AD 218, which was supposedly
258 years before the end of the empire in western Europe. Heinsohn noted that remains of the
Theatre of Balbus had been found under a layer of mud around 10 metres thick on the Campus
Martius in Rome, and suggested that this widespread mud layer could be evidence of a tsunami
which wiped out imperial Rome, going on to draw attention to archaeological evidence from
other countries, including Britain, which indicated catastrophic destructions of Roman cities.
He suggested that this major catastrophic event during the 230s was the same as another which
had supposedly occurred 300 years later, during the 530s. He went on to propose that the
emperors who had reigned in Rome from AD 1 to AD 230 were in fact contemporaries of
emperors who had reigned in the east, supposedly from AD 290 to AD 520. So, for example,
Augustus was a contemporary of Diocletian, Tiberius, Caligula and Claudius of Constantine
the Great, Vespasian of Julian, Nerva of Theodosius I, Hadrian of Theodosius II, Marcus
Aurelius of Marcian, Septimius Severus of Zeno and Caracalla, Elagabalus and Alexander
Severus of Anastasius. In this scenario, the years between AD 230 and AD 290 were chaotic
ones, marking the beginning of the Medieval period (http://www.q-mag.org/_media/gunnarcreation-of-the-1st-millennium-new16-11-2013.pdf).
In the conventional view of the third century AD, there is a similar period of social and political
turmoil, although this is believed to have started well before AD 230. It is also considered to
have been a period when the empire was under serious threat from both the north and the east.
The situation was then stabilised in AD 285 by Diocletian, who rose through the ranks of the
army to become a strong emperor. Although hated by Christians because of his religious
persecutions, Diocletian was highly regarded by other Romans, particularly those from the
eastern part of the empire. Diocletian himself was from the eastern side of the Adriatic Sea, the
Dalmatian region of Croatia, and shortly after becoming emperor, he established Milan and
Nicomedia, in Turkey, as the twin capitals of the empire. He based himself in Nicomedia, and
appointed Maximian, from Pannonia (north of Dalmatia) as co-emperor to rule the western half
of the empire from Milan. Later, Diocletian continued the process of devolution, appointing
junior emperors to govern the northwest and northeast regions, from Trier on the Moselle and
Sirmium in Pannonia. During his reign, Diocletian built a magnificent palace in Split, and he
was eventually buried in a tomb within its precincts.
When Diocletian had been on the throne for two decades, in AD 305, he had a serious illness
and decided to abdicate, forcing Maximian to do likewise. Galerius was then appointed eastern
emperor and Constantius I Chlorus emperor in the west, both of these individuals coming from
the Balkans region. Almost immediately, Constantinius led an army to Britain, to deal with
problems being caused by the Picts and, although the campaign was a success, Constantius
died in York. His son, Constantine, an experienced military officer who was with him when he
died, was immediately acclaimed as his successor by the army. However, Galerius appointed
Severus II, yet another army commander from the Balkans region, to succeed Constantius as
western emperor and, to complicate matters further, Maxentius, son of Maximian, set himself
up as emperor in Rome. Galerius ordered Severus to march from Milan and deal with
Maxentius, but Severus was defeated and eventually killed. Licinius, who came from the same
region as Severus, was appointed to succeed him, but Maxentius remained in control of most
of Italy and also north Africa, for several years. Galerius then died in Nicomedia, and his
eastern empire was divided between Licinius and Maximinus Daia, the former taking the
Balkans and neighbouring areas, and the latter the regions south and east of the Bosporus.
Shortly afterwards, Constantine, who had been allowed to govern territories in Britain, Spain
and Gaul from Trier as a junior emperor, led his troops over the Cottian Alps to confront
Maxentius. He was welcomed by the people of Milan, and then continued south. A great battle
took place just outside Rome, with the victory going to Constantine, and as Maxentius and his
defeated troops tried to escape back into the city across the Milvian bridge, its structure
collapsed and Maxentius died in the Tiber. Thus, six years after first being acclaimed by his
troops, Constantine I (the Great) had established himself by force as the western emperor, but
he counted his regnal years from the death of his father Constantius I.
Constantine soon met with Licinius in Milan. While they were there, Licinius married
Constantine’s half-sister, and the two emperors agreed to follow a policy of religious tolerance.
Not long afterwards, Maximinus Daia launched an attack on the territory of Licinius, but he
was heavily defeated, and fled to Tarsus, where he died, leaving Licinius in control of the
eastern empire. He and Constantine made a pact to respect each other’s territories, but war
broke out between them within a few years. Licinius was defeated, and eventually executed,
after which Constantine was undisputed ruler of a united empire. He set about building a new
capital, Constantinople, on the site of the old Greek city of Byzantium, not far from Nicomedia.
Thirty years after being acclaimed emperor in York, Constantine died in Nicomedia and was
buried in Constantinople.
Constantine became a Christian after his victory over Maxentius, although the precise nature
of his beliefs has remained uncertain. His immediate successors were also Christians, but there
was growing hostility at this time between orthodox Christians, particularly in the west, who,
taking their lead from the popes in Rome, maintained a strong belief in the Holy Trinity (Father,
Son and Holy Spirit), and members of the Arian sect, who believed that Jesus, the Son of God,
was separate from, and subordinate to, God the Father. This may have played a part in some
subsequent conflicts.
Constantine left the empire to be shared between his three sons, Constantine II, Constantius II
and Constans I, and some other relatives, who were quickly eliminated. Constantine, the eldest
son, then took Britain, Spain and Gaul as his territories, Constans received Italy, Pannonia,
Dalmatia and north Africa, and Constantius became ruler of the eastern territories. Constantine
soon began to demand some of the regions which had been allocated to Constans, and, after
negotiations had failed to resolve the matter, he invaded Italy, but was defeated and killed near
Aquileia. Constans, now in control of the whole of the western empire, came to various
agreements with his brother in the east about religious matters, but one issue they had to leave
unresolved was that of Arianism, since Constantius was sympathetic towards this doctrine. As
the reign of Constans progressed, he began to lose the support of his subjects and powerful
elements of his army, because of his dissolute lifestyle, financial corruption and homosexuality.
Eventually, when Constans had been on the throne for 13 years, general Magnentius led an
army revolt and declared himself emperor. Constans tried to escape, but was captured in the
region of the Pyrenees and killed. Constantius, who had been occupied fighting the Persians in
the east, refused to accept Magnentius as emperor and directed his troops against him.
Magnentius was soon defeated and killed, leaving Constantius as sole emperor. However, he
soon decided that this situation was impractical, and appointed his cousin Julian to be junior
emperor (Caesar) with responsibility for the west. Julian, born in Constantinople, was a
remarkable character, being both a successful army officer and a highly-cultured man. He
quickly became popular with both the civilian population and the military in the west, and when
Constantius reacted to this by trying to reduce his authority, the army promoted Julian to having
full emperor (Augustus) status for the western region. That resulted in civil war, which ended
when Constantius died in AD 361, leaving Julian as ruler of the whole empire.
Although raised as a Christian, Julian had renounced this faith, believing that the empire would
operate in a better way if it returned to the traditional religion of Rome. Individuals who wished
to practise Christianity should be allowed to do so, but the religion should have no special
status or privileges. When he became emperor, Julian began to take steps to bring this about,
and he also launched philosophical attacks on Christianity. Not surprisingly, he was vilified in
Christian writings of the time, and referred to as Julian the Apostate. However, Julian had little
chance to introduce fundamental religious changes, or the administrative reforms he considered
desirable, because he was killed fighting against the Persians in Mesopotamia after ruling for
just 3 years. All his successors as emperor were to be Christians.
After the death of Julian, the army chose Jovian, one of the senior generals involved in the
campaign against the Persians, as emperor. Jovian made a treaty with the Persians, but then
died on his way back to Constantinople. As Jovian’s successor, the army selected another army
officer, Valentinian I, who was from Pannonia. When Valentinian arrived in Constantinople,
he announced that he would move to Milan and rule the west, with his younger brother, Valens,
becoming the eastern emperor, on a subordinate basis. Valentinian was to prove the last strong
western emperor.
Valenianian died from a stroke in Pannonia in the 11th year of his reign. He may have thought
he had ensured a smooth succession by appointing his son Gratian as co-emperor before he
died, but Gratian, although being full of religious fervour, had proved weak on more practical
attributes, so the army raised his younger brother, Valentinian II, to imperial status when
Valentian I died. In practice, however, that made little difference, because although Gratian’s
formal responsibility was limited to governing the Gallic provinces from Trier, his brother was
only four years old at the time, so Gratian was in effective control of the whole western empire.
When Valens was killed in Thrace in AD 378, the entire empire was in Gratian’s hands, but he
quickly appointed the Spanish-born military leader Theodosius as eastern emperor. Theodosius
I proved to be a powerful and effective ruler, subsequently becoming known as Theodosius the
Great. Gratian was killed trying to suppress a rebellion five years after the accession of
Theodosius, leaving Valentinian II, now aged 17, as sole western emperor, but he operated as
a subordinate to Theodosius. Valentinian was found hanged in uncertain circumstances nine
years later, after which the military commander, Arbogast, appointed Eugenius as western
emperor. That was unacceptable to Theodosius, who sent troops to kill both Arbogast and
Eugenius.
Theodosius died in the following year, AD 395, and, in accordance with his wishes, his eldest
son Arcadius, then aged 17, became eastern emperor, with the western empire being placed in
the hands of his other son, Honorius, who was just 10 years old. Six years after the accession
of Honorius, the Visigoths invaded northern Italy and, although they were driven back, the
capital of the western empire was then moved from Milan to Ravenna, which was considered
easier to defend. Initially, as arranged by Theodosius, the young Honorius received guidance
from Stilicho, a knowledgeable and perceptive military commander of Vandal-Roman descent.
However, when emperor Arcadius died in AD 408, Stilicho travelled to Constantinople to help
make arrangements for the reign of his son and successor, Theodosius II, and, while he was
away, some rivals of Stilicho poisoned the mind of Honorius. On Stilicho’s return to Ravenna,
Honorius had him arrested and executed. After that, Honorius had a succession of advisors,
often giving him conflicting advice, so he became reluctant to make any clear decisions.
By this time, the Roman empire was clearly losing its grip on western Europe. For the
Barbarian, i.e. non-Roman, races in and around the region, that presented a problem for some
and an opportunity for others. A number of Roman allies were left abruptly to fend for
themselves, without imperial support or protection. On the other hand, tribes who had retained
a significant amount of independence now saw a chance to develop their own culture and
extend their sphere of influence.
According to the generally-accepted account told by the 8th-century monk, Bede, in the
Ecclesiastical History of the English People (EHEP), the inhabitants of Britain, at least in the
first instance, fitted into the former category. Bede writes that in AD 407, during the first half
of the reign of Honorius, a cluster of Germanic Barbarian tribes, in particular the Vandals,
Alans and Suevi, crossed the Rhine from the east and invaded Gaul. In the same year, someone
called Gratian was promoted by a Roman faction in Britain as a claimant to the imperial throne
and, although he was quickly killed, an alternative pretender, Constantine, was soon found, and
he crossed to Gaul with some troops to make his bid for power. Not long afterwards, with the
army of Honorius struggling to overcome the threat from the Germanic Barbarians, the Roman
rebels, and also the Goths who had already staged an invasion of Italy, the Britons were
informed that the Roman empire was no longer prepared to defend them against incursions
from the Picts and the Irish. However, collapse was far from immediate. Bede reports that, after
Valentinian III had succeeded Honorius (his uncle) to become emperor in the west, bishop
Germanus of Auxerre was able to visit Britain to counter a flirtation with the Pelagian heresy
(which denied the concept of original sin), and successfully restore the British church to the
Catholic faith. Nevertheless, shortly after Marcian followed Theodosius II to become eastern
emperor in AD 449, with Valentinian still remaining emperor in the west, the Britons felt
obliged to invite Anglo-Saxons into their country, to defend them against the increasing threat
from the Picts and the Irish (a story taken from a history, generally considered unreliable, by
the monk, Gildas). As to matters elsewhere, Bede writes that in the fifth year of Marcian’s
reign, Valentinian was murdered by supporters of the patrician Aëtius, whom he had executed,
and adds that “with him fell the empire in the west”.
Those are the final words in chapter 21 of Bede’s book. Chapter 22 is a very brief one, just a
single paragraph, telling of a descent into civil war and paganism. Chapter 23 begins with the
statement that, in AD 582, Maurice became emperor in the east (there being by this time no
empire in the west) and, in the 10th year of his reign, Gregory became pope in Rome (the first
to be named Gregory). In AD 596, Augustine was sent by pope Gregory as a missionary to the
English nation (no longer the nation of the Britons, as the Anglo-Saxon culture was now
dominant). From that point onwards, Bede gives reign-by-reign accounts of the kings of Kent,
the Northumbrians, the East Angles and the East Saxons, but of their antecedents he provides
merely a few names, lacking precise detail about time, place or status. As to events in Britain
between the times of Marcian and Maurice, Bede says little more than that Ambrosius
Aurelianus, who was of Roman descent, led the Britons to a victory over Anglo-Saxon invaders
at Badon Hill, 44 years after their first arrival in the country (an account again taken from
Gildas); and that Columba came from Ireland and established a monastery on Iona in AD 565.
Written evidence from Britain during this period is almost completely lacking. That is generally
regarded as being due to the chaotic circumstances described by Bede (and Gildas). However,
it has been suggested that it might instead indicate a chronological anomaly between the times
of Marcian and Maurice. Bede accepted that nothing much had been recorded of events in
Britain during a period of about 140 years, but an alternative possibility is that the time-period
has been artificially extended, with the true gap between the reigns of Marcian and Maurice
being much less than generally supposed.
Can either the 300-year contraction, involving two parallel 230-year periods, as proposed by
Heinsohn, or this shorter one, be considered plausible? Let us go on to examine the written
evidence from Europe as a whole.
1.2 The Roman Emperors and Popes, from the Reign of Septimius Severus to that of
Valens
Contemporary accounts of the history of the first two decades of the third century were written
by Herodian and Cassius Dio. The former has survived largely intact, but the latter is known
only through epitomes (i.e. summaries) produced much later. However, from a comparison of
the epitomes relating to earlier periods where the full accounts have survived, there is no reason
to doubt the accuracy of the information provided in them. It is also known that a history from
earliest times to the end of the reign of emperor Claudius II (conventionally dated to AD 270)
was written by the third century Greek historian, Dexippus, although only fragments have
survived. A continuation of this was written, as stated in the introduction, by the early 5th
century Greek sophist and historian, Eunapius of Sardis. Again, only fragments have survived,
but, on the basis of the various surviving fragments, and the abrupt change in style after the
reign of Claudius II, it is well-established that the New History written by Zosimus of
Constantinople around AD 500 copied Dexippus up to the end of the reign of Claudius II and
then Eunapius into the joint-reigns of Arcadius and Honorius. Contemporary information about
the third century is also provided by inscriptions, legal texts and coins.
The Eusebius-Jerome chronicle was written during the fourth century but, from what is known
about Eusebius, he would have been about twenty years of age when Diocletian came to the
throne, so, directly or indirectly, was likely to have had a reasonable personal knowledge of
the events of the second half of the third century. Eusebius and Jerome were Christians, as was
Paulus Orosius, the Spanish scholar whose History against the Pagans was written early in the
5th century. In contrast, the 4th century historians Eutropius, Aurelius Victor, Festus and the
contemporary anonymous authors of the Epitome de Caesaribus and the Historia Augusta
(which admittedly is not an entirely reliable source, since it blends fact with fiction) were all
writing from a pagan perspective. These pagan authors give details not included in the
Eusebius-Jerome chronicle, so it is thought likely that they were using an alternative source,
now lost, from around the time of Eusebius. This is referred to as the Enmannsche
Kaisergeschichte, since the idea was first proposed by the German scholar Alexander Enmann
in the late 19th century.
All of these writers, pagan and Christian (including Zosimus, who seems to have used sources
not available to the others), give generally consistent accounts of the history of the third
century. In the Eusebius-Jerome chronicle, the annual entries are associated with regnal years
of kings and emperors, but each numbered Olympiad is also noted (taking the first to be in the
year corresponding to 776 BC). In addition, each tenth entry is marked with the running total
of years since the supposed birth of Abraham, which according to Eusebius had occurred 3184
years after the creation of the world, enabling the year of Abraham dates to be translated into
ones in the AM system of Eusebius, which is what will be done here, inserting an ‘E’ in brackets
to distinguish this particular AM system from others. Orosius gives the AUC date for the start
of each new reign (AUC being an abbreviation for years ab urbe condita, i.e. years from the
supposed foundation of the city of Rome in 753 BC). whereas others give dates on a more
occasional basis, or in some cases not at all. In general, the reign-lengths of most emperors,
particularly those consisting of more than a year or two, are given, although Zosimus and Festus
are exceptions to this rule. Overall, although the amount of detail provided and the style may
differ, all present essentially the same picture. The most direct of these sources, that of
Herodian, which covers Roman history from just before the beginning of the reign of emperor
Commodus to the “year of the six emperors” (conventionally dated to AD 238), states that it
deals with events starting around 200 years after the time of emperor Augustus, and remarks
on the amazing number of emperors who have held office during that 60-year period.
According to the Eusebius-Jerome chronicle, Commodus came to the throne in AM (E) 5379,
the 3rd year of the 239th Olympiad (AD 179/180), whilst Orosius gives the date as AUC 930
(AD 177/178).
As told in all the accounts, Commodus, son of the previous emperor, the much-respected
Marcus Aurelius, became obsessed with gladiatorial combat and increasingly lost contact with
reality, so his violent end was not unexpected. According to Herodian, Cassius Dio, the
Eusebius-Jerome chronicle, Eutropius, Aurelius Victor, Orosius and the anonymous Epitome
de Caesaribus, Commodus reigned for 13 years (to the nearest year). Pertinax, a distinguished
senator and former military commander, then became emperor, but he was soon killed when
he tried to address indiscipline within the praetorian guards. An opportunist, Didius Julianus,
then became emperor, gaining the support of the praetorian guards in a bidding process before
having his appointment confirmed by the senate. He quickly became unpopular when he
devalued the currency, leading to Septimius Severus, Pescennius Niger and Clodius Albinus
all making claims for the throne, and, with Septimius Severus, the governor of Upper Pannonia,
leading troops towards Rome, the senate appointed him emperor and ordered the execution of
Didius Julianus, less than a year after the death of Commodus.
Septimius Severus, born in Leptis Magna in north Africa, then set about stabilising the
situation. According to the Historia Augusta, he came to the imperial throne in the consular
year of Falco and Clarus (AD 193). The Eusebius-Jerome chronicle indicates the year to be
AM (E) 5493, the 1st year of the 243rd Olympiad (AD 193/194), with Orosius saying AUC 944
(AD 191/192). Septimius Severus had an illustrious career as emperor, with achievements in
all regions of the empire, before his death in York. Herodian, Cassius Dio, the Eusebius-Jerome
chronicle, Eutropius, Aurelius Victor, Orosius, the Epitome de Caesaribus and the Historia
Augusta all give the length of his reign as 18 years, to the nearest year.
Septimius Severus bequeathed the empire to his sons, Antoninus, known as Caracalla, and
Geta, to be shared between them, but the latter was dead within a year. He was murdered by
Caracalla, who claimed he had acted in self-defence. Caracalla achieved victories in Germany,
built impressive public baths in Rome, reformed the currency and brought in administrative
reforms, but he was never secure on the throne, because of the way he had established sole rule.
After a successful campaign against the Parthians, he was murdered near Edessa, in
northwestern Mesopotamia, in a conspiracy organised by his praetorian prefect, Macrinus. The
body of Caracalla was cremated, and his ashes brought back to Rome for burial. Macrinus,
appearing grief-stricken, killed the assassin, whom he maintained had been acting alone, and
was then declared emperor by the military. Although Macrinus was not of senatorial rank,
which had hitherto been regarded as a requirement for becoming emperor, the senate confirmed
the action of the military. Cassius Dio, Eutropius, Aurelius Victor, Orosius, the EusebiusJerome chronicle, the Epitome de Caesaribus and the Historia Augusta all say that Caracalla
had been emperor for 6 or 7 years. Herodian gives him a reign length of 11 years but, on the
basis of the information supplied by the other sources, this must have included a period of corule with his father.
Emperor Macrinus remained out east, fighting against the resurgent Parthians, and his
continuing absence from Rome began to raise concerns. Perhaps more importantly, the troops
were also becoming discontented, particularly when Macrinus paid the Parthians a large sum
of money to maintain peace, and changed the pay structure of the army to help pay for it. The
family of Caracalla, whose mother, Julia Domna, was Syrian and now living in Syria, saw an
opportunity to present to elements of the army the case for replacing Macrinus with Caracalla’s
teenage half-cousin, Avitus, later called Antoninus and subsequently known as Elagabalus,
because as a boy he had served as priest to a Syrian god of that name. Rebel forces supporting
Elagabalus defeated Macrinus near Antioch and, although Macrinus tried to escape, he was
eventually captured and killed. The various sources are in agreement that he had ruled for about
a year.
According to the Eusebius-Jerome chronicle, Elagabalus came to the throne in AM (E) 5418,
the 2nd year of 249th Olympiad (AD 218/219), whereas Orosius gave the date as AUC 970 (AD
217/218). The new emperor soon began to offend the people of Rome. Not only did he try to
replace Jupiter by Elagabalus as the main god in the pantheon, but he became involved in a
serious of sexual scandals with both men and women. Even his family and supporters were
concerned, and he was persuaded to make his cousin, Alexian, later called Alexander, junior
emperor. This appointment proved popular, but that displeased Elagabalus, so he ordered the
praetorian guards to murder Alexander. Instead, they murdered Elagabalus, throwing his body
into the Tiber, and Alexander succeeded him as emperor. According to Eutropius, Aurelius
Victor, the Epitome de Caesaribus and the Historia Augusta, Elagabalus reigned for 3 years;
according to Cassius Dio (in what was to be the final section of his history), Orosius and the
Eusebius-Jerome chronicle, it was 4 years; whereas Herodian gave it as 5 years.
The Eusebius-Jerome chronicle indicated that Alexander Severus became emperor in AM (E)
5422, the 2nd year of the 250th Olympiad (AD 222/223), with Orosius saying AUC 974 (AD
221/222). Alexander was only 14 years of age when he came to the throne, ruling initially with
both his mother and grandmother as regents, but his reign provided a period of relative stability
in turbulent times. As he grew to maturity, he led the army to a qualified success against the
Persians, but then, in a campaign against the Germans, he lost the support of the army in a way
similar to Macrinus, by paying money to the enemy and reducing the pay and bonuses available
to his own troops. They transferred their allegiance to Maximinus Thrax, a Thracian soldier
who had worked his way up through the ranks, and proclaimed him emperor. Alexander tried
to escape, but was killed, together with his mother. According to Herodian, Eutropius, Aurelius
Victor, Orosius, the Epitome de Caesaribus and the Historia Augusta, the reign of Alexander
had lasted 13 or 14 years. The Historia Augusta said that his body was brought home to Rome
for burial, but that is uncertain.
The appointment of Maximinus Thrax as emperor was confirmed by the senate, who, according
to Aurelius Victor, now felt it unsafe to go against the wishes of the army. The Eusebius-Jerome
chronicle indicated this was in AM (E) 5435, the 3rd year of the 253rd Olympiad (AD 235/236);
Orosius said it was in AUC 987 (AD 234/235). Maximinus went on to lead a series of
successful campaigns, but at a huge financial cost. Questions started to be raised as to whether
the situation was sustainable. That led to the year of six emperors, which formed the final
section in the history of Herodian. During that year, Maximinus, who had never set foot in
Rome, died at Aquiliea, attempting to suppress a senatorial revolt. Herodian, Eutropius, the
Eusebius-Jerome chronicle and the Epitome de Caesaribus said he had reigned for 3 years,
Aurelius Victor said it was 2 years, and Orosius 4. During the same year, Gordian I, Gordian
II, Pupienus and Balbinus were proclaimed emperors but, within a very short period of time,
Gordian I hanged himself and the others were all murdered. At the end of the year, the throne
was occupied by 13-year-old Gordian III, whose mother was the daughter of Gordian I and the
sister of Gordian II. However, Gordian’s main support came from Timesitheus, the praetorian
commander. A rebellion against Gordian’s rule, led by Sabinianus, the governor of north
Africa, was quelled, but then the Persians invaded Roman territories in the east. Gordion and
Timesitheus took troops to repel them, and all was going well for the Romans until Timesitheus
became ill and died in northern Mesopotamia. Marcus Philippus, born in Syria (but known as
Philip the Arab, because Syria was in the Roman province of Arabia) replaced Timesitheus as
praetorian commander, and he used his position to conspire against Gordian, who was killed
soon afterwards in uncertain circumstances. According to Eutropius, a monument was erected
on the spot where he died, but his remains were brought back to Rome for burial. Eutropius
gave no reign-length for Gordian, but Aurelius Victor, Orosius, the Eusebius-Jerome chronicle,
the Epitome de Caesaribus and the Historia Augusta all said it was 6 years.
Philip, having been made emperor in succession to Gordian, bought peace with the Persians
and then headed for Rome, to rule in partnership with his young son, who had the same name
as his father. Aurelius Victor and Zosimus noted that Iotapianus soon emerged in the east as a
rival claimant to the throne, and so, according to Zosimus, did Marinus Pacatianus in Pannonia,
but their efforts were unsuccessful.
Philip’s reign coincided with a significant Roman anniversary, the 1000th year since the
supposed foundation of the city. Orosius wrote that Philip came to the throne in AUC 997 (AD
244/245), and the Eusebius-Jerome chronicle similarly said it was in AM (E) 5444, the 4th year
of the 255th Olympiad (AD 244/245). These two sources, together with Eutropius, Aurelius
Victor, the Epitome de Caesaribus and the Historia Augusta, reported that the occasional
ceremonial event known as the Secular Games was held to mark the special anniversary of the
founding of Rome. This event had a long history. Tacitus, in his annals, noted that the Secular
Games had been staged by emperor Claudius to mark the 800th anniversary of the founding of
Rome, 64 years after the previous staging when Augustus was emperor. Consistent with that,
Censorinus, writing in his Birthday Book in AUC 991, the consular year of Pius and Pontianus
(AD 238), said that, according to Livy, the 5th Secular Games were held in AUC 737 by
emperor Augustus during the consulship of Furnius and Silanus (17 BC), after which the 6 th
Secular Games were commissioned in AUC 800 by Claudius, when he (for the 4 th time) and
Vitellius (for the 3rd) were consuls (AD 47). Censorinus continued by saying that the 7th Games
were staged in AUC 841 by emperor Domitian, during the consular year of the emperor (for
the 14th time) and Rufus (AD 88), and the 8th Games were sponsored in AUC 957 by Septimius
Severus, when Cilo and Libo were the consuls (AD 204). The Eusebius-Jerome chronicle
indicates that the event marking AUC 1000 was held by Philip in AM (E) 5446 (AD 246),
whilst the Historia Augusta says that it occurred when Philip and his son were consuls (AD
247 or 248, since the two Philips were consuls in both years). Aurelius Victor makes the
observation that the next anniversary, AUC 1100, occurred, without celebration, during his
own lifetime, when, coincidentally, one of the consuls was named Philip (AD 348), and AUC
900 was celebrated during the reign of Antoninus Pius. The celebration of AUC 1000 during
the reign of Philip is also supported by archaeological evidence, since coins bearing his name
have been found which mark the occasion. Furthermore, archaeologists have found that coins
were also minted by one of Philip’s rivals, Pacatianus, to mark the 1000th anniversary of Rome.
The millennium celebrations organised by Philip did not secure his place on the throne. He sent
a respected senator, Trajan Decius, to be governor of the troublesome provinces of Pannonia
and adjacent Moesia, towards the Balkans, where the Goths were causing problems for the
Romans. However, after taking effective action against the Goths, Decius was persuaded by
his troops to set himself up as emperor. They marched on Rome, killing Philip and his son on
the way. Eutropius, Aurelius Victor and the Epitome de Caesaribus said Philip had ruled for 5
years, whereas Orosius and the Eusebius-Jerome chronicle made it two years more.
According to the Eusebius-Jerome chronicle, Decius became emperor in AM (E) 5451, the 3rd
year of the 257th Olympiad (AD 251/252), whilst Orosius similarly said it was in AUC 1004
(AD 251/252). Decius was the first Roman emperor to have been born in the Balkans region,
but by no means the last. Not long after becoming emperor, Decius led another campaign
against the Goths. He had some successes, but was eventually killed in battle. Eutropius,
Aurelius Victor, Orosius, the Eusebius-Jerome chronicle and the Epitome de Caesaribus
variously attributed him a reign-length ranging from 1 year 3 months to 3 years. At the time,
Trebonianus Gallus, an Italian from Perrugia, was governor of Upper Moesia and, when Decius
was killed, the army proclaimed him emperor. Gallus promptly made a peace treaty with the
Goths, which involved the payment to them of an annual tribute to stay east of the Danube.
That proved unpopular to the Roman people, and Aemilius Aemilianus, his successor as
governor of Upper Moesia, refused to pay the tribute, so the Goths crossed the Danube once
again. Aemilianus raised an army and drove them back, after which he was declared emperor
by his troops. Gallus led his own army north to secure his throne, but when he reached
Interamna (Termi), messengers arrived to say that Aemilianus and a large number of soldiers
had already crossed into Italy. The fearful troops of Gallus then mutinied and murdered him.
According to Eutropius, Aurelius Victor, Orosius, the Eusebius-Jerome chronicle and the
Epitome de Caesaribus, Gallus had been emperor for perhaps slightly more than 2 years.
Aemilianus survived him by only around 3 months.
If the situation had seemed bleak for the Romans at that point, it then got bleaker, although that
was not immediately apparent. The troops of Aemilianus had killed their leader near Spoleto
when they heard that Licinius Valerian, entrusted by Gallus to raise forces for a campaign along
the Upper Danube, had declared himself emperor. Valerian, a former consul, from an old
Roman family, was then enthusiastically welcomed to Rome, to ascend the imperial throne
with his son Gallienus as co-emperor. Leaving Gallienus to attend to matters in the west,
Valerian embarked on a campaign against the Persians, who were led by Shapur I. Valerian
was eventually captured, and he died in humiliating fashion, leaving his son as sole emperor.
Gallienus had achieved early successes against the German tribes, but by this time the tide had
turned, and he seemed unable, as well as unwilling, to do anything about it. An alternative
Roman empire was set up in Gaul, with a line of rulers consisting of Postumus, Marius,
Victorinus and finally Tetricus. Gallienus was eventually killed during a campaign against the
Goths, but his killers were some of his own troops, not the enemy. Aurelius Victor, Orosius,
the Eusebius-Jerome chronicle, the Epitome de Caesaribus and the Historia Augusta allocated
15 years from the accession of Valerian to the death of Gallienus. Eutropius gave no figure for
the reign-length of Valerian, but said that Gallienus had subsequently reigned alone for 9 years,
consistent with the other sources.
Gallienus was succeeded as emperor by Claudius II, from the region of Pannonia. Claudius
drove back an incursion of Germanic tribesmen, and then headed towards the Balkans to finish
off the campaign against the Goths started by Gallienus. He won a significant victory and was
awarded the title “Gothicus Maximus”. The Goths soon began to fight back, but the onset of
plague stopped their advance. However, Claudius then died of the same disease. Eutropius,
Orosius, the Eusebius-Jerome chronicle and the Epitome de Caesaribus all reported that he had
reigned for close to 2 years. He was succeeded by his younger brother Quintillus, who almost
immediately took his own life, leaving Aurelian, a Pannonian, who was one of the most
effective military commanders of the time, the obvious choice to succeed him as the next
emperor. The Eusebius-Jerome chronicle indicated that Aurelian became emperor in AM (E)
5471, the 3rd year of the 262nd Olympiad (AD 271/272), whereas Orosius gave the date as AUC
1027 (AD 274/275). Aurelian soon began to regain territories that had been taken away from
Rome. Firstly, after driving back some incursions of tribesmen from the north, and dealing with
internal challenges from rivals, he marched east and conquered the city of Palmyra, whose
queen, Zenobia, had gained control of much of the region between Egypt and Asia Minor. Next
he headed for western Europe, where he defeated Tetricus, thus bringing to an end the
independent Roman empire in Gaul. According to Eutropius, Postumus, the first of the Gallic
emperors, had reigned for 10 years, restoring Gaul after Valerian and Gallienus had allowed it
to be devastated by invasions of the Alamanni from the east. Marius then had a brief period on
the throne, after which Victorinus reigned for more than a year. According to Aurelius Victor,
Tetricus succeeded Victorinus and ruled for 2 years before being conquered by Aurelian.
Amongst Aurelian’s achievements was the reform of the currency. A decline in the value of
the denarius led to the introduction of a higher value silver coin, the antoninianus, during the
reign of Caracalla. After the year of the six emperors, this became the only coin to be issued
regularly, and it was minted in large amounts at Rome and Milan, but its size and its silver
content were constantly being reduced. Aurelius drew up specifications for its size and
fineness, and fixed its silver content at 5%. Despite the turmoil of the previous 60 years, and
the deterioration in the quality of the coinage over this period, coins have been found bearing
the names of all the official emperors (Geta, Caracalla, Macrinus, Elagabalus, Alexander
Severus, Maximinus Thrax, Gordian I, Gordian II, Pupienus, Balbinus, Gordian III, Philip,
Decius, Gallus, Aemilianus, Valerian, Gallienus, Claudius II and Quintillus) and also many of
their rivals. Amongst the latter were coins of the “Gallic emperors” Postumus, Marius,
Victorinus and Tetricus, and also of others such as Pescennius Niger, Clodius Albinus,
Iotapianus, Pacatianus and Macrianus.
After initiating the construction of a stronger defensive wall for Rome, Aurelian headed back
east, this time to fight the Persians, but was murdered while preparing to cross the Bosporus.
The precise motive for the murder remains unclear. During his time on the throne, Aurelian
had restored the empire to something more like what it had been in former times, but had been
rigorous in enforcing discipline, which gave rise to enmity. He had reigned for just 5 or 6 years,
according to Eutropius, Aurelius Victor, Orosius, the Eusebius-Jerome chronicle, the Epitome
de Caesaribus and the Historia Augusta.
Aurelian was succeeded as emperor by Tacitus, about whom little is known, other than that he
was a former consul. Aurelius Victor says he was appointed by the senate without any
recommendation from the military, but that is uncertain. At the beginning of his reign he faced
a problem in that mercenaries from northern tribes, including the Heruli, who were being
assembled by Aurelian for his campaign against the Persians at the time of his death, had then
gone on the rampage in Asia Minor. Tacitus won a victory over them but, on the way home, he
died (possibly murdered) in Cappadocia. He had been emperor for just six months. His
successor, the praetorian commander Florianus, lasted only half that time. No sooner had he
been appointed than Aurelius Probus, a military man from Pannonia who had served with
Aurelian, and was now governor of Egypt, Syria, Palestine and Phoenicia, was declared
emperor in that region. Florianus hastened to confront him, and had the larger army, but before
a battle could take place he was murdered near Tarsus by some of his own troops.
Probus then headed for Rome, where he was confirmed as emperor. According to the EusebiusJerome chronicle, this was in AM (E) 5478, the 2nd year of the 264th Olympiad (AD 278/279);
Orosius gave the date as AUC 1033 (AD 280/281). By this time, the Alamanni and other
Germanic tribes, including the Franks, Vandals and Burgundians, were once again ravaging
Gaul and the Rhineland, and similar incursions were being made into Pannonia and Moesia.
Probus took action to restore the Roman frontiers in these regions, and planted vineyards in the
areas he had recovered, to encourage re-settlement by citizens of the empire. He also overcame
attempts by Saturninus, Proculus and Bonosus to seize the throne. However, Probus then lost
the support of his own troops, and was murdered by some of them close to his birth-place in
Pannonia. According to Eutropius, Aurelius Victor, Orosius, the Eusebius-Jerome chronicle,
the Epitome de Caesaribus and the Historia Augusta, he had reigned for approximately 6 years.
Aurelius Carus, an experienced and well-respected military commander, who came from
Narbonne on the Mediterranean coast of Gaul, then became emperor. He made his eldest son
Carinus co-emperor and, leaving him to take care of the west, particularly Gaul, which was
under attack once again from across the Rhine, Carus headed east with his youngest son
Numerian on a campaign against the Persians. He won a victory against them in Mesopotamia
and captured the city of Ctesiphon, but was subsequently killed, apparently by a lightning bolt,
on the banks of the Tigris. Numerian then took command but, incapacitated by a serious eye
infection, he decided that the campaign had already served its purpose and ordered that his
troops should now withdraw. However, he was murdered on the return journey, and Diocletian,
commander of the bodyguard was acclaimed emperor by the troops. Back in the west, Carinus
had achieved some significant military successes, but he had become unpopular because of his
cruelty and sexual excesses. Hearing that Diocletian was marching west to establish himself on
the throne, Carinus led his army east to confront him. When they joined battle on the banks of
the Margus river in Moesia, the initial advantage lay with Carinus, but he was then murdered
by some of his own troops because, it was said, he had seduced their wives. Aurelius Victor,
Eutropius, Orosius, the Eusebius-Jerome chronicle and the Epitome de Caesaribus all say that
Carus and his sons reigned for 2 years. Diocletian then became undisputed emperor, bringing
much needed strength and stability to the Roman empire, although it was no longer to be ruled
from Rome. The Eusebius-Jerome chronicle dated the first regnal year of Diocletian to AM (E)
5486, the 2nd year of the 266th Olympiad (AD 286/287), whilst Orosius wrote that Diocletian
came to the throne in AUC 1041 (AD 288).
Three of the 4th or early-5th century historical sources give a complete sequence of reign-lengths
from the accession of Septimius Severus to that of Diocletian: the Epitome de Caesaribus
indicates the duration of that period to have been 91 years, the Eusebius-Jerome chronicle 93
years and the Orosius history 97 years. Another source which should be mentioned is the
Chronographia 354 (known by that name because its contents, including an illustrated
calendar, indicate that it was written in the year corresponding to AD 354). The “Chronicle of
the City of Rome” included in that work is, despite its title, nothing more than a list of rulers
and their reign-lengths, with just one or two comments, or sometimes simply a humorous
anecdote, about each reign. From information given in other sources, it is evident that the reignlengths given in this “chronicle” include periods served as junior emperor during a previous
reign and, after the time of Diocletian, the list includes emperors known from other sources to
have been ruling in different regions, but at the same time, as others in the list. Nevertheless,
the sequence of emperors from Septimius Severus to Diocletian is the same as that given in
other sources, apart from the fact that Geta and Caracalla are listed separately, as are Carus and
Carinus. Adding together the reign-lengths from the accession of Septimius Severus to that of
Diocletian, without compensating for these two duplicated periods (which are both brief), a
total of 98 years is obtained.
Also of relevance is the list of “ordinary consuls” (consules ordinarii), i.e. those whose names
were associated with the year, as given in the Chronographia 354 and also in the Consularia
Constantinopolitana attached to the Hydatius chronicle. As indicated in the Historia Augusta,
Septimius Severus came to the throne in the consular year of Falco and Clarus Vibianus (AD
193). In the following year, he is listed, with his imperial title, as one of the consuls.
Subsequently, it may be seen that Caracalla, Macrinus, Elagabalus, Alexander Severus,
Maximinus, Gordian III, Philip, Decius, Gallus, Valerian, Gallienus, Claudius II, Aurelian,
Tacitus, Probus, Carus, Numerian and Carinus all served as consuls while they were emperors.
Ninety two years after the consulship of Falco and Clarus, which was when Septimius Severus
ascended the throne, Carinus was appointed as one of the consuls, but he was replaced by
Diocletian following his death. There is also the evidence of the coinage, which provides
physical support for the existence of all the official emperors from Septimius Severus to
Diocletian, as well as many of their rivals. Despite the chaos caused by the events taking place,
there seems no reason to suppose that this was a “phantom period” of history.
Another relevant aspect is the progression of Olympiad cycles, which we have already referred
to. Although the actual date of the first numbered Olympiad is far from certain, the system used
in the Eusebius-Jerome chronicle had become accepted by the 2nd century BC, so provides an
unambiguous framework for dating events which took place after that time. Diodorus Siculus
reported that he finished writing his history in the 1st year of the 180th Oympiad, when Herodes
was archon of Athens (60/59 BC), which was the year when Julius Caesar began his campaign
against the Celts. The Eusebius-Jerome chronicle dated the 1st year of the 180th Olympiad to
AM (E) 5141 (60 BC), saying that this was the year when Julius Caesar captured Lusitania
(which was just before he began campaigning against the Celts). Early medieval sources say
that the chronicle of Julius Africanus, now lost, ended in the 3rd year of emperor Elagabalus,
which he dated to the consular year of Seleucis and Gratus (AD 221) and the 1st year of the
250th Olympiad. Censorinus, in his Birthday Book, noted that the year in which he was writing,
that when Pius and Pontianus were consuls (AD 238), was AUC 991 and also the 1014th year
since the first Olympiad, i.e. the 2nd year of the 254th Olympiad. All of this, and much more,
presents an entirely consistent picture of the Olympiad cycle in relation to other dating systems.
The Games were held at Olympia in Greece throughout the period of the early Roman Empire
and, when the cycle was briefly disrupted during the reign of Nero, this fact was well-known.
The tradition of holding numbered Olympic Games, at four-yearly intervals, was still being
maintained throughout the lifetimes of Eusebius and Jerome. There is nothing in the EusebiusJerome chronicle, or anywhere else, to indicate that the Olympic cycle was disrupted after the
reign of Elagabalus, and nothing to suggest that some kind of historical/chronological
dislocation occurred following this reign.
To the Christians of this period, the bishops of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem were
of no lesser importance than the emperors, so, at some point (it is not known when) lists began
to be compiled of sequences in each bishopric. Here we shall just consider the bishops of Rome,
or, as we would now call them, the popes. The earliest surviving list is found in the
Chronographia 354 although, not surprisingly in view of the age of the manuscript, there are
a few brief lacunae, i.e. missing sections. After one such lacuna there is the final part of an
entry referring to a pope who held office from the consulship of Saturninus and Gallus (AD
198) to that of Praesens and Extricatus (AD 217), during the reign of Caracalla. Callistus was
then pope from the year in which Macrinus and Elagabalus were consuls (AD 218) to the
consulship of Elagabalus (for the 3rd time) with Alexander Severus (AD 222). Urban succeeded
Callistus, and held the pontificate during the reign of Alexander Severus, from the consulate
of Maximus and Aelianus (AD 223) to that of Agricola and Clementinus (AD 230). Urban’s
successor was Pontianus, whose papacy also fell during the reign of Alexander Severus,
beginning in the consular year of Pompeianus and Paelignianus (AD 231). He was exiled to
Sardinia during the consulate of Severus and Quintianus (AD 235), and died in the same year.
Anteros was appointed to replace him, but he only lived for another year, dying during the
consulship of Maximinus and Africanus (AD 236). Fabian then became pope, serving through
the reigns of Maximinus, Gordian and Philip, before his martyrdom in the consular year of
Decius (for the 2nd time) and Gratus (AD 250).
The list of popes given in the Chronographia 354 then continues with Cornelius, who held the
See briefly until his death during the consulate of Gallus and Volusianus (AD 252). His
successor, Lucius, had a similarly short term as pope, from the end of the reign of Gallus to the
beginning of that of Valerian with Gallienus. Stephen then held the pontificate until the
consulship of Valerian (for the 3rd time) and Gallienus (for the 2nd) (AD 255). He was
succeeded by Xystus (II), who was pope from the consular year of Maximus and Glabrio (AD
256) to that of Tuscus and Bassus (AD 258). Dionysius was then elected to the papacy, the
sixth pope to have held office in a period of about 8 years, but he served until the consulship
of Claudius and Paternus (AD 269). His successor was Felix, who held the See from the reign
of Claudius to that of Aurelian, dying in the consulate of Aurelian (for the 2nd time) and
Capitolinus (AD 274). Eutychian then took over, until the consular year of Carus (for the 2nd
time) with Carinus (AD 283). He was succeeded by Gaius, who served as pope for 12 years,
dying during the consulate of Diocletian (for the 6th time) with Constantius (for the 2nd) (AD
296).
Near the beginning of the 6th century, or so it now believed, the first edition of the Liber
Pontificalis (LP), or “Book of the Pontiffs”, a series of papal biographies, was published. The
anonymous author (or authors) clearly had access to some of the files in the Lateran Palace
(donated by emperor Constantine to be the papal residence and administration centre). He (or
they) must also have been familiar with the Chronographia 354, since details from it
(summarised above) were reproduced in the LP in almost exact fashion. From this, the missing
name of the pope who preceded Callistus can be identified as Zephyrinus, and his accession
date as the consulship of Saturninus and Gallus (AD 198). Information which must have come
from other sources reveals that all the popes from Zephyrinus to Gaius were born in Rome,
apart from Anteros and Xystus, who were Greeks, Gaius, who was a Dalmatian, and Eutychian,
who was born in Tuscia. The ancestry of Dionysius, who had been a monk, could not be traced.
According to the LP, Callistus, Pontian, Anteros, Fabian, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephen, Xystus,
Felix, Eutychian, Gaius and perhaps Urban were all martyred.
The Eusebius-Jerome chronicle had Zephyrinus becoming pope in the 9th year of Septimius
Severus, AM (E) 5401 (AD 201); Callistis in the 2nd year of Elagabalus, AM (E) 5420 (AD
220); Urban in the 2nd year of Alexander Severus, AM (E) 5425 (AD 225); Pontianus in the
12th year of Alexander Severus, AM (E) 5434 (AD 234); Anteros followed by Fabian in the 1st
year of Gordian (III), AM (E) 5439 (AD 239); Cornelius in the 1st year of Decius, AM (E) 5452
(AD 252); Lucius and then Stephen in the 2nd year of Gallus, AM(E) 5454 (AD 254); Xystus
in the 2nd year of Valerian and Gallienus, AM (E) 5456 (AD 256); Dionysius in the 12th year
of Valerian and Gallienus, AM (E) 5466 (AD 266); Felix in the 1st year of Probus, AM (E)
5478 (AD 278); and Eutychian followed by Gaius in the 5th year of Probus, AM (E) 5482 (AD
282), with Gaius going on to hold the See until the 12th year of Diocletian, AM (E) 5497 (AD
297).
Therefore, although there are variations in the terms served by individual popes, the overall
sequence and timescale given by the Chronographia 354 and the Eusebius-Jerome chronicle
for the popes from Zephyrinus to Gaius are almost identical. As with the emperors, there is
nothing in what the sources say about the succession of popes to indicate a
historical/chronological dislocation following the reign of Elagabalus.
Moving on, a summary of the conventional history of the Roman empire in the period from
Diocletian to Valens has been given previously. The contemporary accounts given in the
Eusebius-Jerome chronicle and the Epitome de Caesaribus, and by the historians Aurelius
Victor, Eutropius and Festus are all generally consistent with this, as is the history written by
Orosius early in the 5th century, and that written almost a century later by Zosimus, using as
his main source for this period a work by Eunapius, who was a contemporary of Orosius. Also
generally consistent with the same picture is the chronicle written by Prosper of Aquitaine in
the middle of the 5th century. Hence there is no need to repeat details already given, except
those which are of relevance to chronology.
As previously noted, the Eusebius-Jerome chronicle dated the first regnal year of Diocletian to
that corresponding to AD 286/287. Prosper of Aquitaine, writing a century later, dated the
accession of Diocletian to the consular year of Carus (for the second time) and Numerian (AD
284), which was year 257 in his own anno passionis (AP) system, numbering years from the
one he associated with the crucifixion of Jesus Christ (AP 1 corresponding to AD 28). His first
regnal year was regarded as the subsequent one. Aurelius Victor, Orosius, Prosper and the
Eusebius-Jerome chronicle all say that Diocletian reigned for 20 years. The Epitome de
Caesaribus gives the figure as 25 years but, from what the other sources say, that must have
been the period up to his death rather than to his abdication. There is then general agreement
that the next major emperor was Constantine I. According to the Eusebius-Jerome chronicle,
the first regnal year of Constantine was AM (E) 6507, the 3rd year of the 271st Olympiad (AD
307/308), whereas Orosius gave it as AUC 1061 (AD 308/309).
Counting the years of his reign from the death of his father Constantius I, not long after the end
of the reign of Diocletian, Aurelius Victor, Eutropius, Orosius, Prosper, the Epitome de
Caesaribus and the Eusebius-Jerome chronicle give the length of Constantine’s reign as 30 to
31 years. The last-mentioned source notes the transfer of the authorship from Eusebius to
Jerome in the 20th year of Constantine. It also notes that, in the 15th year of Constantine,
Alexander was appointed bishop of Alexandria and, soon afterwards, he excommunicated the
priest Arius for preaching the doctrine known as Arianism. This doctrine was subsequently
refuted by bishops at the Council of Nicaea. However, a later entry records that emperor
Constantine, in the 31st and final year of his reign, fell into the dogma of Arianism and was
baptised by Eusebius, the Arian bishop of Nicomedia.
Although the empire was no longer governed from Rome, the city continued to function
(contrary to what was suggested by Heinsohn), and the popes, the bishops of Rome, still lived
there. Indeed, emperor Constantine, although not giving them a higher status than other
bishops, provided them with palatial accommodation within the city, as mentioned earlier.
According to the Chronographia 354, Gaius had been succeeded as pope by Marcellinus, who
held the See until the consulate of Diocletian (for the 9th time) and Maximian (for the 8th) (AD
304). At around there was a persecution of Christians, and the episcopate ceased to operate for
a period of 7½ years. Then, during the time of Maxentius, Marcellus was pope for 1 year 6
months, Eusebius for 4 months and Miltiades for 3 years 6 months, up to the consulship of
Volusianus and Annianus (AD 314), when Constantine was now in control of Rome. Silvester
succeeded Miltiades as pope, and held the See for over twenty years, into the consular year of
Constantius and Albinus (AD 335). Mark was then pontiff for 8 months, before being
succeeded by Julius in the consulate of Felicianus and Titianus (AD 337). The LP adds the
details that Eusebius was born in Greece and Miltiades in Africa, with all the others being born
in Rome, and that Marcellinus and Marcellus were martyred.
The Eusebius-Jerome chronicle agrees with the Chronographia 354 in saying that Marcellinus
succeeded Gaius as pope, and that around the time of the end of his papacy there was a
sustained campaign of persecution against the Christians, dating the start of this to the 19th year
of Diocletian, AM (E) 5504 (AD 304), Era of Antioch year 350 (AD 301/2). Omitting any
mention of Marcellus, this chronicle states that Eusebius and then Miltiades became pope in
the 20th year of Diocletian, with Silvester succeeding Miltiades in the 4th year of Constantine,
AM (E) 5510 (AD 310). The persecutions against the Christians were brought to an end by
Constantine in AM (E) 5514 (AD 314). Mark, followed by Julius, became pope in the 25th year
of Constantine, AM (E) 5531 (AD 331).
Emperor Constantine was succeeded by his sons, Constantius II, Constans I and Constantine
II, who divided the empire between them. This transition was dated by the Eusebius-Jerome
chronicle to AM (E) 5538 (AD 338) and by Orosius to AUC 1092 (AD 339/40). Prosper, who,
as mentioned above, dated entries in his chronicle by naming the consuls for the year and also
according to his own anno passionis (AP) system, said that Constantius and his brothers had
come to power in AP 310 (AD 337), during the consulship of Felicianus and Titianus (AD
337).
Constantius outlived his brothers and became sole emperor. As well as the sources already
mentioned, the final part of his reign is covered in contemporary fashion in the history written
by Ammianus Marcellus, the earlier books of which have not survived. According to Orosius,
Prosper, the Eusebius-Jerome chronicle and the Epitome de Caesaribus, the overall reign of
Constantinius lasted for 24 years, or a few months more. Eutropius and Ammianus Marcellinus
state that he died in the 38th year of his reign in the 45th year of his life but, since the Epitome
de Caesaribus notes that he was junior emperor for 15 years before becoming sole emperor for
a further 24 years, the figures given by Eutropius and Ammianus must include the period during
which Constantius was junior emperor during the reign of his father. The history by Aurelius
Victor came to an end during the 23rd year of the reign of Constantius, when Julian was his
junior emperor.
The Chronographia 354 states that Liberius succeeded Julius as pope in the consulate of
Constantius II (for the 5th time) with Constantius Gallus (AD 352). That was the final entry in
this particular list of popes and, since it ended with pope Liberius, it is sometimes referred to
as the “Liberian catalogue”. The LP says that Liberius, who was born in Rome, was sent into
exile by emperor Constantius for refusing to accept the Arian doctrine. Before leaving, Liberius
ordained a priest name Felix to replace him as bishop. Later, Felix identified two priests as
having Arian sympathies and excommunicated them. They complained to emperor
Constantius, asking him to recall Liberius from exile, so he could share in a single communion,
apart from rebaptism. Liberius agreed to the terms and, after 3 years in exile, returned to Rome.
However, his concession to Constantius was unpopular and, for a time, he was not able to enter
the city. Eventually, Constantius re-instated him as pope, and he went on to serve for another
6 years, whilst Felix retired to his small estate. Felix is given a separate entry in the LP, as
Felix II, but this appears to have been because the compilers confused him with someone else
called Felix, who was martyred. Liberius was succeeded as pope by Damasus who, according
to the LP, was a Spaniard, who went on to serve for over 18 years. The Eusebius-Jerome
chronicle says that Liberius was pope from the 12th year of Constantius, AM (E) 5549 (AD
349), to the 2nd year of Valentinian and Valens, AM (E) 5566 (AD 366), when he was
succeeded by Damasus.
According to Orosius, Prosper and the Eusebius-Jerome chronicle, Julian was emperor for
around 2 years following the death of Constantius. Eutropius gives him a reign-length of 7
years but, again, that presumably includes his time as junior emperor. After Julian, Jovian
reigned for about 8 months. The Eusebius-Jerome chronicle dated the short reign of Jovian to
AM 2380 (AD 364). Orosius dated in to AUC 1117 (AD 364/5), and Prosper to AP 336 (AD
363) and the consular year of Julian (for the 4th time) with Sallustius (AD 363). Festus ended
his chronicle at this point, stating similarly (in his introduction) that the date was AUC 1117,
and adding that it was 407 years since the beginning of the reign of emperor Augustus. The
final entry of the history by Eutropius also ended with the reign of Jovian, which he dated to
AUC 1119 (AD 366/7).
Valentinian I and his brother Valens then became co-emperors, Valentinian in the west and
Valens in the east. When Valentinian died 10 or 11 years later, he was succeeded in the west
by his sons Gratian and Valentinian II. A few years later, Valens was killed in a battle against
the Goths. Acording to Orosius, Prosper, Ammianus, the Eusebius-Jerome chronicle and the
Epitome de Caesaribus, he had reigned for approximately 14 years. The history by Ammianus
and the Eusebius-Jerome chronicle both ended at this point. According to the latter, the year in
which Valens died was AM (E) 5579 (AD 379), the 2nd year of the 289th Olympiad, AUC 1131
(AD 378/9) and the consular year of Valens (for the 6th time) with Valentinian II (for the 2nd
time) (AD 378). Prosper gave this same consular year for the death of Valens, dating it to AP
351 (AD 378), and Orosius said that Theodosius I succeeded Valens as emperor in the east in
AUC 1132 (AD 379/80). Generally consistent with this, the conventional view is that Valens
was killed in August AD 378, after which Gratian nominated Theodosius I to be the new eastern
emperor in January AD 379.
1.3 The Timescale of the Roman Emperors, from Septimius Severus Onwards
If the currently accepted view of the timescale of the Roman emperors had come from a single
source, or at least a limited number of sources, or if it had been deduced retrospectively at a
particular moment in time, there could be serious ground for considering the possibility of a
mistake, or even of deliberate deceit. However, as we have seen, the conventional timescale
from the beginning of the Roman empire developed in incremental fashion. A number of
contemporary accounts, consistent with each other to within a year or so, were produced during
the first century AD. These were then used as the starting-point for accounts produced during
the next period, which were continued on the basis of information relating to (or close to) the
period when the compilers were writing. This process continued on a regular basis, up to and
beyond the time of Bede. Results were generally consistent, with variations of no more than
two or three years. This is apparent from the information given below.
As is well-established, the Roman empire was split into two by Diocletian, after which there
were often two separate emperors, one ruling the west from Milan (until the western capital
moved to Ravenna during the 5th century) and the other ruling the eastern half, initially from
Nicomedia, and subsequently from Constantinople. The emperors in the east were generally
more powerful than the ones in the west, although there were occasional exceptions, and the
western empire collapsed and fell to the Barbarians in the second half of the 5th century. The
eastern empire became known as the Byzantine empire to later historians, and its rulers were
often referred to as Greeks by their contemporaries living in the west. Nevertheless, the eastern
emperors unequivocally considered themselves to be Romans. The table given in the next
paragraph follows the eastern line of Roman emperors after the partition of the empire.
It seems clear from this table (see below) that there were no significant differences of
opinion amongst scholars living during the first millennium AD about the timescale of the
reigns of Roman emperors from Augustus (counting from the first year of his shared reign,
following the death of Julius Caesar) and throughout the period under consideration here,
which begins with the reign of Septimius Severus. The table includes data from: the 1st/2nd
century historian Suetonius (S), the 2nd/3rd century historian Cassius Dio (CD), the 4th century
historian Eutropius (E), the anonymous 4th century Epitome de Caesaribus (EC), the 4th
century Eusebius-Jerome chronicle (E-J), the 4th century Chronographia 354 (CG) (which
incorporates some small duplications, as discussed previously), the 4th/5th century historian
Orosius (O), the 5th century historian Hydatius (H), the 5th century historian Sozomen (SZ), the
5th century historian Prosper of Aquitaine (P), the 5th/6th century linked Prosper/Marius of
Avenche chronicles (P-M), the 5th century Gallic chronicle (G), the 6th century
historian Victor of Tunnuna (V), the linked Victor of Tunnuna/John of Biclar chronicles (V-J),
the 6th century historian Marcellinus Comes (MC), the 6th century historian Cassiodorus (C),
the 6th century historian Evagrius Scholasticus (ES), the chronicle of the 6th century writer
John of Malalas (JM) (note that details from this before the reign of Marcian have been omitted,
because of what are well-established chronological errors arising from regarding parallel reigns
as sequential), the 7th century historian Isidore of Seville (IS), the 7th century Chronicon
Paschale (CP), the 8th century Mozarabic chronicle (M), Bede’s 8th century chronicle from
The Reckoning of Time (B), and finally the chronicles of the 8th/9th century historians George
Synkellos (GC) and Theophanes (T). The periods in the table were selected on the basis of
when individual histories/chronicles began or ended, thus allowing the most complete use of
the data available. All time-intervals in the table are from regnal year 1 to regnal year 1, and
given to the nearest year.
Augustus to Nerva: S 138; CD 139; EC 138; E 139; E-J 139; O 136; C 139; IS 138; B 139.
Nerva to S. Severus: CD 97; EC 99; E 96; E-J 96; O 98; C 97; IS 96; B 97; P 99; GS 99.
S. Severus to Diocletian: EC 91; E-J 93; CG 98; O 97; C 94; P 93; IS 93; B 92; GS 91.
Diocletian to Valens: E-J 79; O 77; C 77; P 79; IS 81; CP 79; B 79; T 80.
Valens to Arcadius: O 31; SZ 32; C 31; P 31; IS 32; CP 30; B 32; T 30.
Arcadius to Marcian: C 55; H 57, P 55; IS 55; MC 55; G 59; CP 56; B 54; T 56.
Marcian to Justinian I: IS 76; MC 77; V 77; P-M 77; JM 76; CP 77; B 77; T 77.
Justinian I to Maurice: IS 57; V-J 55; ES 59; CP 55; B 56; T 55.
It will be apparent that, despite the disparate nature of the sources, the figures in the table show
a high degree of consistency. Some discrepancies between the figures in the various sources
would be expected, for a number of reasons. Communications between different regions would
not of course be instantaneous, so when a traveller arrived from a far-away place, saying that
a king had died, there could well be uncertainty about precisely when the death had occurred.
Also, the production of an overall timescale from a series of reign-lengths could only be
achieved with complete accuracy if it was known precisely on what date within a particular
year each king had died, together with the exact date on which the reign of each successor had
begun. Confusion could also occur because many different dating systems were in use during
the first millennium AD, and conversion of the date of an event from one system to another
could lead to errors. As mentioned earlier, the main dating system in the Roman empire during
the first half of the first millennium was the consular one, an event being associated with the
names of the consuls who had been appointed for that year (starting on 1st January). The last
non-royal consul to be appointed was Flavius Basilius, during the reign of Justinian I, after
which the role of consul was subsumed into that of the emperor. However, for the remainder
of the reign of Justinian, events were generally dated according to the number of years after
the consulship of Basilius. From the beginning of the reign of Justinian’s successor, Justin II,
it became the custom for the emperor to have a formal consular year, starting on the 1st of
January following his accession to the throne, which could of course have been at any time.
Events from later in the reign were often dated by reference to this consular year. During the
reign of Justinian I, it also became a requirement that the indiction year (the position in a 15year taxation cycle) should be included when dating an event. The indiction system used
throughout the period in which we are interested was that introduced by emperor Constantine
I in his 7th regnal year, the 1st year of the 1st indiction cycle beginning on 1st September during
the second consulship of Constantine and Licinius (corresponding to AD 312).
Another system still used occasionally during the early medieval period was the AUC one,
mentioned previously. In Armenia, AUC 201 was made year 1 of a new dating system, the Era
of the Romans (sometimes called the Era of the Greeks) and, later still, the Armenian Era dating
system began in year 304 of the Era of the Romans. The system of dating events by relation to
the 4-year cycle of Olympic games also continued to be used on occasions, long after the
practice of actually holding games had stopped. Neither the AUC nor the Olympiad system had
a year which ran from January to December.
The Christian church in Alexandria used a system (still used by a Coptic church in Egypt today)
of numbering years from the accession of emperor Diocletian, later re-named the Era of the
Martyrs, each year beginning on 29th August. The first entry in the Easter Tables of Dionysius
Exiguus, dated AD 532, was linked to year 248 in the Diocletian system. In the Iberian
peninsula, dating by the Spanish Era system (year 1 in the Spanish Era corresponding to 38
BC, and hence year 39 to AD 1) was widely used from the third century onwards. In the Greek
cities of Syria and Asia Minor, the Seleucid Era (also known as the Era of Alexander or, except
in Armenia, the Era of the Greeks) began on 1st October 312 BC, whereas the Seleucid Era
system used elsewhere, e.g. Babylonia, had its starting point a few months later. Also in the
east, the Era of Antioch began in the autumn of the year corresponding to 49 BC, so year 50 in
this system corresponds to AD 1/2.
Three other systems used in the east, the Alexandrian Era, Byzantine Era and Chronicon
Paschale ones, were anno mundi (AM) schemes, dating events from the supposed creation of
the world, so, to avoid confusion, we shall insert the letters AE, BE or CP, in brackets, into
AM dates in these systems. The Alexandrian Era scheme was introduced in the fifth century
AD by Annianos of Alexandria. Initially, year 1 in the Alexandrian Era system began on the
date corresponding to 1st March 5492 BC (the day Annianos believed the world to have been
created), but by the 9th century, when this system was used by Syncellus and Theophanes in
their chronicles, this had been adjusted to 1st September 5493. In either case, the year
overlapped with the consular year and that in the current AD system so, for example, year 5494
in the Alexandrian Era, i.e. AM (AE) 5493, corresponds to AD 1/2. Despite the use of the
Alexandrian Era system by Syncellus and Theophanes, the dating system which was on the
way to becoming the method of choice in Constantinople was the Byzantine Era one, in which
the date of creation was supposedly the equivalent of 21st March 5508 BC (subsequently
adjusted to 1st September 5509 BC). A slightly different earlier version of the Byzantine system
was used in the 7th century in the Chronicon Paschale to date the ends of imperial reigns. In
this precursor of the Byzantine system, the date of creation was 21st March 5509, so its year
5510, i.e. AM (CP) 5510, would correspond to AD 1/2.
Yet another AM scheme to be developed was the Hebrew system (still being used today),
whose starting point was the equivalent of 7th October 3761 BC in the Julian calendar. In
western Europe, the most popular AM system by far was that devised by Eusebius, which has
been mentioned previously. This was used (indirectly, via years since Abraham) in the
Eusebius-Jerome chronicle. Although, according to the Eusebius-Jerome chronicle, Jesus
Christ was born in AM (E) 5199, the year AM (E) 5201 in this scheme is actually the one which
corresponds to AD 1 in our current system. That relationship will be the one used below, but it
should be appreciated that there was also an alternative tradition in which AD 1, or its
equivalent, corresponded to AM 5202. This alternative tradition was used by Isidore of Seville
in the 7th century to date his chronicle, since he wrote that the year in which he finished writing
it, AM 5827, was also Spanish Era 664 (AD 626). In the 8th century, Bede used an AM system
of his own devising in the chronicle included in his The Reckoning of Time. Since, for example,
he dated the accession of emperor Maurice to AM 4536 in this chronicle and the same event to
AD 582 in his EHEP, it may be deduced that AM 3955 in Bede’s system corresponds to AD
1.
The Christian church in Alexandria dated events from accession of emperor Diocletian. This
system, which became known as the Era of the Martyrs (and is still used by the Coptic church
in Egypt today) has its starting point on 29th August in the year corresponding to AD 284.
Another dating system, mentioned previously, was made popular in western Europe by the
works of Prosper of Aquitaine (mentioned above) and Victorius of Aquitaine in the 5th century.
This was the anno passionis (AP) system, dating events from the crucifixion of Christ, with
AP 1 in the schemes of both Prosper and Victorius corresponding to AD 28. Then, of course,
there was the anno domini (AD) system, introduced by Dionysius Exiguus in the 6th century
(his Easter tables linking AD 532 and Diocletian year 248). The Dionysian AD system was
first used for historical purposes by Bede (in his EHEP) in the 8th century, after which it became
the dating system for the chronicles of the Franks, who ruled most of western Europe. However,
even then, things were not entirely straightforward. Although, in the period when Dionysius
introduced the AD system, the civil year began on 1st January, following the Roman tradition,
by the time the Franks began using it for general dating purposes two centuries later, they and
people in some other parts of Europe (including Britain) regarded the start of the new year as
25th December rather than 1st January. This provided a potential source of confusion for the
allocation to a specific year of events which took place in the week beginning on Christmas
day. Furthermore, towards the end of the millennium, there emerged the beginnings of a
movement which eventually saw widespread acceptance in western Europe, for several
centuries, of the new year starting on the feast of the Annunciation, on 25th March.
It seems clear that scholars during the early medieval period were aware of a range of dating
systems, and how these related to each other. The theoretical basis of each system was
immaterial, once its use had become established. So, for example, there was no necessity to
agree with Eusebius that Julius Caesar had been assassinated 5157 years after the creation of
the world, to be able to relate his AM dates for subsequent events to other dating systems.
Similarly, one did not have to accept that the event labelled the 195th Olympiad was held 776
years after the 1st Olympiad, to know that the event labelled the 196th Olympiad would have
taken place four years later. Also, although the consular dating system was not a numerical
one, lists of consuls were preserved. So, for example, the Chronographia of 354, the so-called
Consularia Constantinopolitana found associated with the chronicle of Hydatius, the
chronicles of Cassiodorus, Prosper of Aquitaine, Marcellinus Comes, Marius of Avenches and
the Chronicon Paschale between them provide a year-by-year record of the consuls from the
death of Julius Caesar to the merging of the office with that of the emperor in the reign of
Justinian I. Nevertheless, because of the complexities mentioned above, compilers of histories
and chronicles have undoubtedly made occasional mistakes. In that context, discrepancies of
two years or so in the figures in the table given above cannot be of any significance.
Four of the chronicles covered the important period from Marcian to Maurice. For the 1st year
of Marcian to the 1st year of Maurice (which, according to conventional chronology, lasted 132
years), the chronicle of Isidore of Seville gave 133 years, the Chronicon Paschale 132 years,
the Chronica Maiora of Bede 133 years and the chronicle of Theophanes 130 years, all of these
time-intervals being obtained from the dates in the AM systems used by the various authors.
In addition, the linked chronicles of Victor of Tunnuna and John of Biclar gave 132 years for
the same period. Moreover, these are not just sequences of names and dates, because detailed
information has been passed down to us about the lives and times of the various emperors.
Nevertheless, had the chronology of Europe over the period of the Roman empire and the early
medieval period depended solely on the timescale of the reigns of the Roman emperors, doubts
about its validity could not have been entirely dispelled. If the recorded history of Europe, as a
whole, was as unsubstantial as that for Britain between the reigns of Marcian and Maurice, then
legitimate doubts could indeed be raised about a viable historical scenario. Let us therefore
investigate the details known about the history of Europe for the period before and after the
collapse of the Roman empire.