Crisis of the 3rd Century

Iulius Caesar’ın evlatlığı olan Octavianus tarafından kurulmuş olan Roma İmparatorluğu, geniş bir bürokrasi ağı, döneminin en iyi ordusu ve imparatorlarının karizmatik liderliği sayesinde Pax Romana’yı uzun yıllar sağlayabilmiştir. Her ne kadar imparatorluk yönetiminin genel olarak Marcus Aurelius’un yönetiminin sonuna kadar Roma Barışı’nı sağladığı kabul edilirse de bu süre zarfında geçen yaklaşık iki yüzyılda Varus’un Teoutoborg Ormanlarında bozguna uğraması, Filistin’de ortaya çıkan Yahudi ayaklanmaları, Marcus Aurelius döneminde oldukça artan barbar saldırganlığı gibi birtakım huzursuzluklar imparatorluğu oldukça meşgul etmiştir. Ancak yine de imparatorluğun içinden ya da dışından gelen birçok sıkıntı bir yana Antikçağ’da Roma İmparatorluğu’nun temin edebildiği barış düzenini bu kadar uzun süre sağlayabilen başka bir devlet olmamıştır.  Marcus Aurelius’un öldüğü yıl, Pax Romana’nın da bittiği yıl olarak kabul edilir. Aurelius kendi döneminde yaşanan Marcomanni istilalarına başarılı bir şekilde karşı koymuştur, ancak ölümünden sonra tahta geçen imparatorlar onun başarılarından oldukça uzak kalmıştır. Bilhassa bu savaşlar zamanında şekillenmeye başladığı kabul edilen Askeri Monarşi yönetimi, sonraki süreçte imparatorluğu adeta bir yamalı bohça haline getirmiştir. Bu çalışmada genel hatlarıyla Roma İmparatorluğu’ndaki 3. Yüzyıl krizi anlatılmaya ve bu kriz esnasında Hıristiyanlığın durumuna değinilmeye çalışılacaktır.

Villa und burgus von Obermendig »Im Winkel« (Lkr. Mayen-Koblenz) im Kontext der römischen Besiedlung des Segbachtals
Im Bereich des Hauptgebäudes der villa »Im Winkel« konnten mehrere Besiedlungsphasen von der Mittellatènezeit bis hin zur Spätantike unterschieden werden. Sehr auffällig ist eine Brandschicht der Zeit um 260-270 im Hauptgebäude. Auf eine Mühlsteinproduktion vor Ort verweisen verworfene Halbfabrikate von Mühlsteinen im Keller des Hauptgebäudes und die Verbreitung von Steinbearbeitungsabfall bis dicht an den Siedlungsplatz. In der Spätantike wurde »Im Winkel« ein burgus als Getreidespeicher errichtet und sein Vorfeld für eine Nutzung als Umschlagplatz mit Drainagen trockengelegt.

Villa et burgus d’Obermendig »Im Winkel« (Lkr. Mayen-Koblenz) dans le contexte de la colonisation de la vallée de Segbach à l’époque romaine
La partie centrale de la villa »Im Winkel« a révélé plusieurs phases d’occupation depuis La Tène moyenne jusqu’à l’Antiquité tardive. Elle présente également une couche d’incendie très marquée, datée de 260/270. Des demi-produits de meules abandonnés dans la cave du bâtiment principal ainsi que des déchets de taille éparpillés jusqu’au bord de l’habitat signalent une production de meules sur place. Dans l’Antiquité tardive, un burgus fut construit à cet endroit en guise de grenier et son glacis fut asséché pour y établir un point d’échanges. (Traduction: Y. Gautier).

Das Trierer Land erlitt im Verlauf zahlreicher Germaneneinfälle des späteren 3. Jh.
n. Chr. einen tiefen Einschnitt, der sich auf die agrarwirtschaftlichen Verhältnisse
niederschlug. Dennoch muss von einer fl ächendeckenden Verwüstung abgesehen
werden. Befunde an Villen, die nur partielle, zeitlich schwer einzuordnende und
komplett fehlende Zerstörungen aufweisen, deuten darauf hin, dass die frühere
Forschungsmeinung relativiert werden muss.

The Epitome de Caesaribus is a short, summarizing Latin historical work known as a breviarium or epitomé. This brief summary was written in the late 4th or early 5th century and summarizes the history of the Roman Empire from the time of Augustus to the time of Theodosius the Great in 48 chapters. Between chapters 32 and 35 the Epitome tells the story of the Empire under Gallienus, Claudius Gothicus, Quintillus and Aurelian. This was the most anarchic time of the soldier emperor era; the imperatores had to face not only the German and Sassanid attacks, but also the economic crisis, the plague and the counter-emperors, as well. The Scriptores Historiae Augustae calls these counter-emperors the “thirty tyrants” and lists 32 usurpers, although there are some fictive imperatores in that list too. The Epitome knows only 9 tyrants, mostly the Gallic and Western usurpers. The goal of my paper is to analyze the Epitome’s chapters about Gallienus’, Claudius Gothicus’ and Aurelian’s counter-emperors with the help of the ancient sources and modern works.

ÖZET: Herodianos’un “Marcus Aurelius Devri’nden Sonra İmparatorluk Tarihi” adlı yapıtı, Roma İmparatoru Marcus Aurelius’un ölümünden (MS 180) III. Gordianus’un tahta geçtiği (MS 238) zaman aralığındaki gelişmeleri kapsamakta olup sadece olayların kronolojik bir anlatısı olmasının ötesinde, bir tarihsel ve siyasal düşünceyi de içermektedir. Bu yapıtın eleştirel bir değerlendirmesi, büyük bir tarihsel krizin yaşandığı ve bize görece daha az antik metnin ulaşabildiği MS 3. yy’ın siyasal düşüncesinin de bir kesitini sunmaktadır.
Herodianos’un düşüncesi, tarihsel krizin iki dinamiğinin “meşrûtî monarşi” ve “tiranlık” arasındaki karşıtlıkta yatmaktadır; zira, Herodianos’un “tiranlık” olarak adlandırdığı yönetim tarzı, MS 3. yy bağlamında Rostovtzeff’in tanımladığı şekliyle “askerî monarşi” anlayışına tekabül etmektedir. Herodianos’ta tarihsel olgular, bu karşıtlık temelinde açıklanmaktadır. Herodianos’un düşüncesinde, bir kurum olarak Senatus’un merkezî bir yeri bulunmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, Herodianos’un yapıtında Senatus’un tarihsel rolü ele alındığı gibi, bu kurumun Herodianos’un siyasal düşüncesindeki merkezî konumu, metnin içindeki söylevlerin de analiziyle birlikte, Antikçağ siyasal düşüncesi bağlamında ele alınmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Herodianos, Tarihyazımı, Principatus, Askerî Monarşi, Senatus.

ABSTRACT: Herodian’s work that is titled as “History of the Empire from the Death of Marcus” covers the period from Marcus Aurelius’ death (180 AD) to the Gordian III’s accession to the throne (238 AD), and beyond being a chronological narrative of the events, this work also includes a certain historical and political thought. A critical enquiry of this work may present a component of the political thought of 3rd century AD, which was an age of historical crisis. In Herodian’s thought, the dynamics of the historical crisis lies on the contrast between senatorial monarchy and tyranny. The historical facts are explained on the basis of this contrast. Likewise, the regime that was defined as tyranny by Herodian, in the context of the 3rd century AD, corresponds to Mommsen’s and Rostovtzeff ’s conception of “the military monarchy”. Senatus has also a central position as an institution in this narrative. In this study, Senatus’ historical role within the work of Herodian, as well as its central position, will be discussed by an analysis of the speeches that are contained in this work, on the context of ancient political thought.

Keywords: Herodian, Historiography, Principate, Military Monarchy, Senate.

ABSZTRAKT: Heródián "A birodalom története Marcus halálától" című műve a Marcus Aurelius halálától (i.sz. 180) III. Gordianus trónra lépése (i.sz. 238) közötti időszakot öleli fel, és az események kronológiai elbeszélésén túlmenően ez a mű bizonyos történelmi és politikai gondolatokat is tartalmaz. A mű kritikai vizsgálata a Kr. u. 3. század politikai gondolkodásának egy összetevőjét mutathatja be, amely a történelmi válság kora volt. Heródián gondolkodásában a történelmi válság dinamikája a szenátori monarchia és a zsarnokság közötti ellentétben rejlik. A történelmi tényeket ennek az ellentétnek az alapján magyarázza. Hasonlóképpen, a Heródián által zsarnokságként meghatározott rendszer a Kr. u. 3. század kontextusában megfelel Mommsen és Rostovtzeff "katonai monarchia" felfogásának. A senatus mint intézmény szintén központi helyet foglal el ebben a narratívában. Ebben a tanulmányban a Senatusnak a Heródiás művében betöltött történeti szerepét, valamint központi pozícióját a műben szereplő beszédek elemzésével tárgyaljuk az ókori politikai gondolkodás kontextusában.

Kulcsszavak: Heródián, történetírás, principátus, katonai monarchia, szenátus.

АБСТРАКТ: Труд Геродиана "История империи со смерти Марка" охватывает период от смерти Марка Аврелия (180 г. н.э.) до восшествия на престол Гордиана III (238 г. н.э.) и, помимо хронологического изложения событий, содержит определенную историко-политическую мысль. Критическое исследование этого произведения может представить компонент политической мысли III века н. э., который был эпохой исторического кризиса. По мысли Иродиана, динамика исторического кризиса заключается в противопоставлении сенаторской монархии и тирании. На основе этого противопоставления объясняются исторические факты. Подобным образом, режим, который Геродиан определял как тиранию, в контексте III века н. э. соответствует концепции "военной монархии" Моммзена и Ростовцева. Сенат также занимает центральное место как институт в этом повествовании. В данном исследовании историческая роль сената в произведении Геродиана, а также его центральное положение будут рассмотрены на основе анализа речей, которые содержатся в этом произведении, в контексте античной политической мысли.

Ключевые слова: Геродиан, историография, принципат, военная монархия, сенат.

Für ein Dutzend Jahre, von der Niederlage Valerians bei Karrhai (260 n. Chr.) bis zur Einnahme der Stadt durch Kaiser Aurelian (272 n. Chr.) war Palmyra ein Brennpunkt römischer Reichspolitik. Als Roms Herrschaft über seine orientalischen Provinzen unter dem kombinierten Druck sasanidischer Offensiven und der Einbrüche wandernder Stämme an den nördlichen Reichsgrenzen zusammenzubrechen drohte und selbst Großstädte wie Antiocheia dem Feind ihre Tore öffneten, schlug die Stunde des Septimius Odaenathus, des Exarchen von Palmyra, den das zeitgenössische 13. Sibyllinische Orakel zum „sonnengesandten Löwen“, zur quasi-messianischen Rettergestalt verklärte. Unter Führung des Palmyreners gingen die Reste der geschlagenen Legionen, verstärkt um das Aufgebot der Oasenstadt, in die Offensive und standen wenig später vor den Toren der persischen Hauptstadt Ktesiphon. Odaenathus starb 167 oder 168 n. Chr. unter ungeklärten Umständen; die Nachfolge traten seine Witwe Zenobia und der gemeinsame, noch unmündige Sohn Vaballathus an. Während beide sich als legitime Erben des mit weitreichenden Sondervollmachten ausgestatteten Odaenathus betrachteten, konnten Roms Kaiser den einzigartigen Autonomiestatus Palmyras nicht länger akzeptieren. Ein Krieg war unvermeidlich; ihn konnte Palmyra gegen das wieder erstarkte Rom nur verlieren.
Wie ist der kometenhafte Aufstieg des Septimius Odaenathus zu erklären? Was waren die Voraussetzungen dafür, daß Palmyra – im römischen Reichsverband – zu einer autonom agierenden politischen Größe heranreifte? Und wo lagen die Gründe für das Zerwürfnis zwischen Odaenaths Erben und den Kaisern in Rom? Der Beitrag versucht sich in der Beantwortung dieser gerade auch für das Verständnis der römischen Herrschaft insgesamt elementaren Fragen.

The aureus of Postumus (RIC 260) kept in the Ossolineum is an extremely valuable piece. It was acquired to the Ossoliński National Institute collection between c. 1846 and 1902, most probably from a local find from the territory of the eastern part of the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria, at that time part of Austrian Empire (today's western Ukraine). The piercing of the coin is a clear indication that it was reused in the Barbaricum as a pendant. There are two jugate busts of Hercules and Postumus on the obverse side and of Sol and Luna on the reverse side of the coin. Those doubled elements, along with radiate crown and crescent encourage us to see the type as double denomination. What makes the coin most unique is the graffito carved into the surface of the reverse side. It reads ΓΟYΝΘΙΟΥ and there are two more letters resembling Greek iōta and phi characters. First word is an eastern Germanic masculine personal name *Gunþijaz (reconstucted by Professor Robert Nedoma) written down in Greek alphabet and in genetive singular form. Two other characters can indicate legionary context of the graffito. All in all, the coin is connected with eastern Germanic military context. Its owner could be a certain *Gunþijaz, the chieftain of the ingentia auxilia formations allied to
the Legio X Fretensis and the most probable dating of the graffito is the reign of Victorinus (268-270).

Three inscriptions recently discovered at Augusta Emerita (Mérida) throw new light on important changes in the processes of Roman administration of the province of Lusitania between c. 250 AD and the administrative reforms of Diocletian, especially on the use of members of the equestrian order as provincial governors (praesides). At the same time, they allow us to catch glimpses of a possible revolt of the province, when it became affiliated briefly to the so-called Imperium Galliarum, and of the emperor Gallienus’ attempts to regain control of the province located at the westernmost edge of the Roman Empire.

In 563 Bosporan era (266/267 AD) some changes in the monetary policy of Rescuporid IV (V) were continued. Simultaneously, for an incomplete year, Tejran became king of the Bosporus along with Reskuporid. This event correlates with the large-scale invasion of the northern Black Sea tribes into the Roman Empire that took place in 267 AD. The route of the campaign passed through the territory of the kingdom and further along the Crimean coast to the west. Perhaps it was Tejran who in one or another way ensured the peaceful passage of the barbarians through Bosporus.

During 261/262 - 264/265 AD on the reverse of the staters of the Bosporan king Reskuporid IV were minted two busts of Roman rulers. The publication puts forward the idea that these busts belonged to the Emperor Gallienus and of the ruler of Palmyra Odenatus.

"Kontinuität und Wandel des Senatorenstandes im Zeitalter der Soldatenkaiser" observes the composition, function and general importance of the ordo senatorius during 235-284 C.E. when the Roman Empire was affected by a series of radical changes. The study is grounded on a prosopographical analysis, presenting a reconstruction of senatorial cursus honorum based on the currently known source material. Although the most important functions within the Roman army were gradually filled by members of the ordo equester instead of viri clarissimi and the senatorial order thereby suffered a loss of importance during the 3rd century, it remained of utmost significance for the stability of the Imperium Romanum in times of crisis.

Our knowledge about the destruction of the Library of Alexandria is
incomplete. It often gets attributed to the reign of Aurelian and conflicts
that took place in Egypt at the time. It is a fact that the centre
of Alexandria had been moved west from its eastern seaside districts.
However, the testimony of Ammianus Marcellinus – on which the entire current hypothesis is based - seem to be rather questionable as
this author’s knowledge about topography and history of Alexandria
leaves much to be desired. There is no way to specify during exactly
which of the internal struggles in the 3rd and 4th century was the Library
of Alexandria destroyed, and whether the forces behind it were
of human or natural origin

Written and numismatic sources provide records of the two groups of barbarous people in the Northern Black Sea coast who embarked on campaigns in various regions of the Roman Empire. Extraordinary steps taken by Reskuporid IV during 265 – 266 AD (issue of gold and silver coins, currency reform), and Teiran’s rise to power indicate a tense situation in the Bosporus in 266 AD. These facts indirectly confirm the opinion that the barbarian campaign of 266 AD was carried out by representatives of the eastern group of the barbarians from the area of Meotida. The aim of the campaign was Heraclea and its surroundings which was untouched until then. The naval campaign of barbarians proved successful. However, on the way back they suffered a significant defeat from the Roman fleet. One of the consequence of this campaign was the death of Odaenathus, a powerful ruler of Palmyra, as a result of a conspiracy.

Pierre-Olivier HOCHARD, Maître de conférences à l’Université François Rabelais de Tours, interviendra dans mon séminaire le jeudi 15 décembre 2015.
Thème de la conférence :
« Les monnayages provinciaux de Lydie au IIIe siècle : des marqueurs de la romanisation ? »

Vous êtes les bienvenu.e.s

Informations : antony.hostein @ ephe.sorbonne.fr & https://romanum.hypotheses.org/

ACCESS USING THE SCRIBD.COM URL ABOVE....
By the third century AD, the balance of military power in Europe, the Mediterranean basin, and Asia Minor, which had favored Rome, had shifted. Rome was “on the ropes”, suffering from civil wars, barbarian sack, and the rule of over twenty emperors, but the borders held for another century. By the end of the fourth century, Rome was at a distinct disadvantage. Her invasion of Persia ended in defeat, and fifteen years later, in 378, her defeat at Adrianople proved Rome could no longer protect her extended borders. After this defeat, Rome proved unable to repel the “barbarians” crossing her frontiers. Eventually, the western empire was taken away and divided amongst petty kings—and Rome fell.

Im Jahre 1967  wurde in Köngen am Neckar (Landkreis Esslingen) ein Münzschatz entdeckt: Beim Ausheben einer Baugrube kam ein irdenes Gefäß ans Tageslicht, in dem sich 615 römische Silbermünzen befanden. Die Publiaktion informiert über das römische Köngen, über das historische Umfeld, in dem die Münzen verborgen wurden, und über die Fundumstände. Weitere Essays erläutern die Geschichte und die Funktion der römischen Münzen; schließlich werden ausgewählte Prägungenaus dem Fund und weitere Münzen, die in Köngen gefunden wurden, vorgestellt.

This book  based on my PhD can be read now on open edition at the following adress: https://books.openedition.org/psorbonne/9128?lang=fr
Ce livre tiré de mon doctorat peut désormais être lu à l'adresse suivante: https://books.openedition.org/psorbonne/9128?lang=fr

Η ενοθεϊστική ηλιολατρία κατέχει κεντρική θέση στην αρχαία ρωμαϊκή θρησκεία κατά τον 3ο και τον 4ο αι. μ.Χ. Το απώγειό της αποτελεί η βασιλεία του Αυρηλιανού (270-275), όταν η ηλιολατρία υποκαθίσταται στην θέση της κρατικής ρωμαϊκής θρησκείας. Τότε ο θεός Ήλιος (Deus Sol) γίνεται ο κύριος θεός του ρωμαϊκού πανθέου, ούτως ώστε όλοι οι υπήκοοι του κράτους να εστιάζουν την πίστη και την λατρεία τους σε αυτόν. Πέραν της επιθυμίας για ιδεολογική και θρησκευτική συνοχή, η λατρεία ενός θεού ενισχύει και την πίστη σε έναν μόνον αυτοκράτορα, επίγειο σύντροφο του θεού Ηλίου, και η υποστήριξη σφετεριστών εξομοιώνεται με πράξη αποστασίας. Τέλος, αυτός ο καινοφανής θρησκευτικός συγκεντρωτισμός ερμηνεύεται και ως μία απόπειρα αλλαγής της νομιμοποιήσεως της αυτοκρατορικής εξουσίας κατά τα ταραγμένα χρόνια της στρατιωτικής αναρχίας του 3ου αι.: ο αυτοκράτωρ δεν εκλέγεται πλέον από την Σύγκλητο, αλλά φαίνεται να επιλέγεται και επιβάλλεται από τον προστάτη του θεό.

During the 3rd century AD Chersonesos stopped coinage, but the exact time of this event is still unknown. The range of the proposed options varies within the 30's – 60's 3rd century AD. During this period, the mints of almost all Greek cities of the Roman Empire ceased to function. The main reason for this were the invasions of the barbarians. Throughout the 3rd century AD Chersonesos at least twice experienced massive shocks: in the 220's – 230's and in the 250's – 260's, each of which could lead to a significant deterioration of the economy and, as a consequence, to the termination of coinage. Since the 290's there is an influx of Bosporan and Roman coins into the city. Coins of the Bosporan king of the Rescuporid IV (242–276) despite abundant emissions were almost not present in Chersonesos. This indicates that there was enough local coin for Chersonesos in the 260–280's. The absence of the coins of the Rescuporid IV and the state of the city coins of the latest issues is an indirect argument in favor of the fact that the city ceased its coinage in the 260s.