The third century AD C. is marked by the multiple crises that put in check the model established in the Roman Empire. It is true that none of these questioned the existing political model. On the contrary, the real problem is that the most powerful members of the elite disputed the empire among themselves. This century is marked by changes. As in the successive crises of the Republic, when the Empire emerges from these situations, it will have changed forever. In fact, in many Roman History textbooks reaching college students, the Empire ends here. This article deals with the military reform carried out by Gallienus in the 3rd century AD. C. We have already spoken extensively of this century in another article on Aureliano.
The number of emperors and usurpers can be counted by tens. However, there was a series of leaders, commonly called “good emperors” that they were able to redirect the situation. After them Diocletian would arrive, who laid the foundations of the new Empire, which would transform Constantine again.
We still have a lot to know about this time. What we do know is that, by mid-century, the senators began to cede their positions of power in the army to the detriment of the equestrian order. There are different ideas as to why it could have happened, but one of the most popular is that Gallienus Augustus promulgated an edict that prohibited them access to these positions. It has been a point of contention for a long time, but at the moment it seems that this could have happened at least while the Emperor was alive.
This article tries to review the issue and see what is known about the subject, as well as try to clear up a few doubts about it. To do this, this brief investigation will follow a very clear scheme.
First, it is necessary to understand what position Gallienus Augustus was in when he came to power. Where he came from and the historical, social and economic context in which both he and his father were immersed. In that period civil wars were constant, and at the same time the limits of the Empire were repeatedly transgressed by what is known as “Barbarian Invasions”. As if this were not enough, two regions of the Empire turned against Roman authority and began to function de facto as other independent states of the city of Lazio.
Once we have delved into these questions, we will enter fully into the question at hand: the transfer of power to the equestrian order. For this we will have epigraphic, classic and historiographical sources trying to clear up all the questions that are in our hands. However, to do all this, it is first necessary to make a brief state of the question to know what sources we are using and how much rigor can be offered to each of them.
state of affairs
We know little of the third century. Compared with the fourth, and especially with the second, our knowledge of this century is very limited. Unfortunately, many studies of this period focus on briefly reviewing it as a link that marks the transformations towards the Low Empire. In the first place, we will review the type of sources that have been studied the most: written sources. Then we will move on to epigraphy, another of the sources consulted for the creation of this article.
One of the best-known written sources is the Historia Augusta. It is not for that reason the most reliable, since at times it becomes literature. At some points it is apparently reliable, but you always have to be careful because of how fanciful the narration is. It is believed to date from the fourth century, as does that of Aurelius Victor, the only one to mention Gallienus’s edict (Victor, 37, 10). As we will see below, this edict has been questioned on several occasions, which is one of the most controversial points that will be discussed in the article. However, Victor’s work is infinitely more reliable than the Historia Augusta. A problem that both share is that they are senatorial sources, so they were written by the Latin aristocracy, which Gallienus faced. In this way, the figure of him is going to be reviled from both points, something that has made the vision of this emperor has always been very negative from historiography. We also count to contextualize -since the work ends in 238- with Herodian, which unfortunately falls too short for us, but helps to make a general approach when reading it.
Nevertheless, the best article to meet Gallienus – and practically the entire third century – it will be that of Zósimo with his New History. Halfway between the 5th and 6th centuries, this author shows us the most solid vision of all to study this character. He also suffers from the bias of him being a pagan character in a world that is starting to look Christian. Other sources written in Greek such as those of Juan Zonaras, which is a source of real utility, but does not allow an in-depth study of the matter since it really focuses on the religious sphere and the persecutions of both.
The only contemporary source that we conserve is that of Dexippus of Athens. However, only fragments have been recovered and all we know is thanks to Photius, a 9th-century patriarch who equates him with Thucydides (Britton, 1989, p. 13). Faced with such statements, it is difficult to believe what the orthodox saint of Dexippus tells us. During the barbarian invasions of the third century, Dexippus is believed to have defended Athens as archon of the city (Millar, 1969, p. 22). However, we know very little about him to go into depth. Some authors like Millar have dared, but the vision of his character is too ambiguous, marked by the enormous lack of knowledge that we have about him and about the Athens of the time.
Malalas is possibly one of the authors who speaks less about the figure of Gallienus, although he differs with respect to how the others approach him.. To begin with, for him Valerian did not die in the East, but he died in Milan (Malalas, 12, 27), where Gallienus really died, who says that he died in Rome of an illness (Malalas, 12, 28). There seems to be some confusion of fact in the work of the Antiochian author.
After these classic works, we also find some authors of our time who have decided to embark on the study of this century. Perhaps the most daring work is the doctoral thesis of P. D. Britton. In it there is an exhaustive work of the epigraphic sources that we have and also an extensive knowledge of the ancient authors. However, it is from the 1980s, despite what remains, personally, the most complete work on the Gallian reforms in existence. In this line we have the studies of Lukas de Blois, possibly the greatest eminence in the studies on the third century, although it is much more difficult to access his works.
There are a series of works that treat this century halfway between the informative and the scientific. In this, the author who stands out the most is Pat Southern, with a work on the Roman army of the Lower Empire and another that covers from the Severans to Constantine. He also has a work on Zenobia of Palmyra, very interesting since it updates the state of the question on how they came to power in the period of rupture of Gallienus.
The Sanchez Sanz brothers Specialized in Roman-Persian relations, they also published a work that talks about the historical clashes between the two ancient powers. As Gallienus was the son of Valerian, the book is great to understand some issues related to the death of the latter. In addition, the authors have also used Sassanid sources, so they help to create a very interesting framework. However, neither the work of Southern nor that of the Sánchez Sanz brothers is strong enough to rival Britton’s thesis.
Another fundamental source would be the volume of the CAH about this century. However, what he says about Gallienus is minimal and on some occasions quite nuanced, as we will see in the following sections. The most recent thing we have about Gallienus has come to light this year in Spanish, with theKyle Harper’s play “The Fatal Fate of Rome.” However, it does not add new perspectives to the panorama, but merely repeats what already exists.. Being also quite mediocre in its approach.
Finally, Omar Coloru has been the last to update the state of the matter about Valeriano, Galieno’s father. It is very interesting to understand how the relationships between the different opposing elites are intertwined. In this way we can understand, not only the way in which both came to power, but also access the patronage networks that fought against them in a framework of constant external aggression. In addition, it allows us to understand what was the fate of Valeriano and his army.
As to epigraphic sources, they help us in an important way to complement what we know thanks to what the written sources bequeathed to us. In fact, Britton’s work draws heavily on epigraphic sources.
As can be seen, the sources are few and the topic is still open to debate, which helps a lot to deepen the investigation of the issue and above all to ask many questions. Although his answer is difficult.
x-ray of the crisis
A crisis? Several?
At this point it is contingent to ask if we are talking about a single crisis or several. Some authors have even questioned whether it was real. In the beginning, when our only source of knowledge was the classical sources, it was very difficult to grasp the reality of the third century. As we have reviewed, they were sources very distant in time, some even pure fantasy.
However, to really understand what was happening we must try to understand how the Romans should have seen it. If they thought it was a period of crisis or if they really were not aware of the situation they were experiencing. It is also necessary to take into account if it was a localized crisis in certain territories of the Empire, or if, on the contrary, it was generalized.
Everything points to thinking that this period of crisis did occur and that many Romans were aware of this. For this reason, inscriptions have been found that pray for the health and perpetuity of the Roman Empire (Bravo Castañeda 2012, p. 119). Something that has not been found in other times and if that perception of crisis did not exist in society, nobody would take care of doing this type of work. After all, when things are going well, you don’t want them to survive, you want things to take their course.. There are those who argue that the term crisis will not be found in the texts of the time, so it should be commented on as something purely historiographical. Given this, there is generally a euphemistic way of referring to this as “the evils of the Empire”, something that appears recurrently from the authors of the fourth century, especially for those who embrace Christianity.
Another point of debate in historiography is its length. Many of the inconveniences that the…