Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Promagistrate wikipedia , lookup
Culture of ancient Rome wikipedia , lookup
Roman economy wikipedia , lookup
The Last Legion wikipedia , lookup
Constitution of the Roman Empire wikipedia , lookup
History of the Roman Empire wikipedia , lookup
History of the Constitution of the Roman Empire wikipedia , lookup
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.