The Historians of Late Antiquity (36 page)

17
BARBARIANS

To modern observers, one of the most striking features of late antiquity was the prevalence and power of barbarians both inside and outside the Roman empire. The term “barbarian,” which had originally been a Greek term to denote non-Greeks, in late antiquity embraced all those who were not citizens of the Roman state (Dauge 1981; Balsdon 1979; Cizek 1989). Because many barbarian nations were either nonliterate or have handed down little of their writings to posterity, we are often dependent on Roman sources if we are to reconstruct the culture and history of their societies. The Roman sources, unfortunately, frequently provide derivative or inaccurate portrayals of non-Romans. The exploration of treatment of barbarians by historians is therefore as much an investigation of the views and biases of the Roman writers as an attempt to understand the actions and opinions of the barbarians themselves (Heather 1999b; Chauvot 1998; Luiselli 1984/5; Ladner 1976).

The Roman empire was ringed by neighbors who were important players in the history and historiography of the fourth and fifth centuries. Always of great importance was the vast Persian empire to the east, Rome’s only rival in size, power, and administrative complexity. Late antiquity was the setting for the considerable involvement of Germanic peoples in Roman political and military affairs, in particular the Goths. Behind the eruption of the Goths into the empire was the movement of a barbarian people hitherto unknown in the west, the Huns.

Persia

The Persian empire was the one state of comparable antiquity and sophistication to the Roman empire (Blockley 1992; Chauvot 1992; Rubin 1986). A revolution beginning in the third century in the far
east of the then-Parthian empire replaced the Parthians with the more aggressive Sasanian Persian dynasty. The half century of war which followed threatened the continuing existence of the Roman state. In 260, the Persian king, Shapur I, captured the emperor Valerian in battle, but by 283 the emperor Carus had recaptured Mesopotamia. Nerseh, the son of Shapur, successfully invaded Armenia and Mesopotamia in 296 and defeated Galerius in 297. Later in the same year, Galerius returned with a new army, captured the family and harem of Nerseh, and took the Persian capital of Ctesiphon. The peace which the Romans imposed in 299 granted them land east of the Tigris and represented the greatest extension of Roman sovereignty over eastern territory in history. The Romans also were granted control of Armenia as a client state. The status of Armenia would remain a constant source of tension throughout the next century.

The Roman victory was destabilizing and led to a constant state of tension on the border throughout the first half of the fourth century. Frequent battles culminated in the invasion by Shapur II in 359 during which he captured Amida and other Roman cities in Mesopotamia. The failure of Julian’s invasion of Persia led to the peace treaty signed under duress by Jovian, which resulted in the cession of the territory over the Tigris to Persia, as well as several forts and cities. The public was particularly dismayed by the loss of Nisibis and the expulsion of its civilian population to the west (Turcan 1966). Despite fears that the adjustment of the borders threatened the safety of the Roman east, the settlement proved remarkably durable. Outside of minor skirmishes and continued struggle over the control of Armenia, the two powers did not fight a major war again for more than a century.

In several set pieces Ammianus reveals his vision of Persian culture and of the aims of contemporary Persian leaders. A lengthy digression (23.6), the longest in the work, is devoted largely to the geography of the empire. The digression emphasizes the magnitude of the task his hero Julian faces in invading Persia (den Boeft
et al
. 1998: 129–233; Teitler 1999). Ammianus’ treatment of Persian history is sketchy and omits the rise of the Sasanians altogether (23.6.2–9; Drijvers 1999). Although the historian elsewhere demonstrates his knowledge of the difference between Persian and Parthian, here it seems that he wishes to emphasize the great antiquity of the state which Julian will invade. Ammianus has a positive view of the Magi or Zoroastrian priests, and distinguishes them from practitioners of corrupt or dangerous forms of magic. His
description of their activities does not appear to be contaminated by any actual knowledge of their religion. Rather, Ammianus has created magi who practice his ideal form of religion, a ritualized and virtuous system of worshipping the divine (23.6.32–6; den Boeft 1999).

Ammianus’ comments on the customs and habits of the Persians conform to the stereotyped picture of the easterner in several regards (23.6.75–84). They are sex-crazed, and multiple wives and concubines do not suffice to fill their appetites. They talk loudly and often, and are boastful and threatening. They appear sloppy and effeminate because of their lack of discipline. Not all of Ammianus’ comments are negative. His description of Persian military skills and discipline helps to explain the danger that Julian’s army will face. With other comments, Ammianus follows in a long tradition of classical ethnographers by using virtues attributed to other nations to critique their own society. He claims, for example, that Persians do not eat luxuriously, but only as much as necessary. They are modest, and so one hardly ever sees a Persian standing and urinating. The Persians also select men of great experience and honesty as judges, and they laugh at Roman failings in this regard.

Ammianus provides a pair of letters which purport to roughly reproduce an exchange between Shapur and Constantius in 358 (17.5). The letters reveal what Ammianus thought Persian attitudes and objectives might be. Shapur describes himself as “partner of the sun and moon,” while Constantius is content to style himself more modestly as “victor on land and sea.” Shapur first claims the right to occupy all of the territory which was once ruled by the Achaemenid dynasty at the time of Alexander the Great. He then narrows his present claim to the land lost by his grandfather in the treaty of 299. Ammianus makes reference both to Shapur’s “native arrogance” and to his “unbridled greed.” Although Ammianus may have believed that the Persians hoped to restore their long-lost empire, history has shown that the more limited objective of the overturning of the treaty of 299 sufficed to end Persian territorial claims.

It was not only the Persians who expressed their territorial desires hyperbolically, as Ammianus’ portrayal of Julian’s speech to his troops before the invasion reveals (23.5.16–23). The emperor gives a summary history of the Romans who have previously invaded Persia, and at first expresses the reasonable hope that this invasion will be revenge for Roman losses in the past and will strengthen the eastern part of the empire. He moves from there,
however, to the more extravagant hope that Persia will be utterly annihilated, as Romans had wiped Carthage, Numantia, and other cities completely off the map.

With the establishment of peace after the death of Julian, Ammianus carefully emphasizes that, despite appearances, the Romans were relatively strong and the Persians were under pressure (25.7.2). Nevertheless, the “timid” Jovian surrendered territory for which “it would have been better to fight ten times” than to lose. He emphasizes the terrible hunger of the army in retreat (25.8.15), and with considerable pathos describes the anger and despair at the loss of Nisibis and the train of refugees forced from the city (25.9.5–6). Ammianus concludes with the suggestion that the peace treaty should be disregarded, pointing out when territory had been lost under duress in Roman history before, Romans had felt free to ignore their oaths and retake the territory (25.9.11). In general, Ammianus seems to reject any possibility of Roman inferiority to Persia or of excessiveness in Roman demands.

Eunapius, who like Ammianus was a partisan of Julian, also attempted to pin the blame for Julian’s failed invasion on the emperors who reigned before and after him. He seems to have downplayed Constantius’ role in the Persian wars of the 340s, attributing their successful outcomes to subordinates and suggesting that Constantius’ eastern victory was possible only because of Julian’s successful campaigning in the west (Zos. 3.8). Eunapius was likewise blindly laudatory of Julian’s invasion of Persia, and critical of Jovian’s settlement (
fr
. 29.1).

Aurelius Victor was a decidedly civilian historian, critical of the military and more likely to emphasize an emperor’s cultural achievements and building projects than his successful campaigns. Although he mentions the successes of early emperors in Parthia, he devotes more attention to military failure in the east, such as the death of Valerian, cruelly mutilated by the Persian king (32.5) and the death of Carus, who captured Ctesiphon but then, spurred on by an excessive desire for glory, continued forward and was killed by a bolt of lightning (38.3). While Victor praises Galerius’ great success in Persia, he recognizes it as the cause for the “very serious war” which is going on “now” in 359 (39.35–7). Victor concludes his work with extended praise of Constantius, the emperor under whom he wrote, but only spares a part of a sentence to describe his Persian wars: “he repelled an attack by the Persians” (42.21). Overall, Persia and the Persians are not of great importance to Victor’s understanding of Roman imperial history.

Eutropius and Festus, who write to prepare their readers for a coming Persian war, made quite different use of the
KG
than had Victor. A primary focus of Eutropius’ work is the glory an emperor wins in war, particularly war against the Persians. Shapur had ejected the Roman-backed Arsaces from Armenia in 368, and perhaps Eutropius’ praise of the emperor Augustus for recapturing Armenia in 20 BC is meant to remind the reader of these contemporary events (Bird 1992: xx–xxi). Eutropius’ comments about the emperor Hadrian may likewise carry a contemporary lesson (8.6.2). Hadrian, who abandoned Trajan’s conquests in the east out of envy of his predecessor, reminds the reader of Jovian’s recent ignominious treaty. Eutropius claims that Jovian’s loss of land fifteen years earlier was “necessary, but ignoble” and feels that he should have quickly repudiated the treaty as soon as he was able (10.17). It seems likely that Ammianus later took the examples Eutropius provides of Roman treaty abrogation for his own work (25.9.11). Festus follows the belligerent attitude of Eutropius. The second half of his work is almost entirely devoted to Roman wars against Persia. Festus’ work is structured to emphasize the importance of conquest and to suggest that all previous Roman conquests have led naturally to the coming invasion of Persia by Valens.

Orosius places less emphasis upon Persia than one might expect, perhaps because the early fifth century was marked by conflict with Germans and peace with the Persians. Orosius does not include the Persian empire in his list of the biblical “four kingdoms” which are central to world history. Persia is, instead, merely the force that caused the transfer of world power from the major kingdom of Babylon to that of Rome (2.2). In Orosius’ account of Romano-Persian relations, Roman persecution of Christians or apostasy explains Roman imperial failure. For example, Valerian ordered Christians to worship idols, and shortly thereafter was captured by Shapur. He then spent the rest of his life getting on his knees, to be used as a footstool whenever the Persian king needed to mount his horse (7.22.3–4). Julian’s defeat by the Persians is naturally attributed to his rejection of Christianity and his threats of persecution upon his return (7.30.4–6). On the other hand, Orosius suggests that Severus Alexander successfully overcame the Persian king, because his mother was supposedly a Christian taught by Origen (7.18.6–8).

When Constantine I was preparing the invasion of Persia which was aborted because of his death, he planned to bring along a bishop (Barnes 1985; Brock 1982; Asmussen 1983). He had earlier
written a letter to Shapur II, in which he explained that his Roman predecessors had been defeated in battle because of their persecution of Christianity, and he encouraged the Persian king to tolerate the Christians in his own empire, lest he suffer a similar fate (Eus.
Life of Constantine
4.11). According to the Book of Acts (2: 9), Parthian Jews were present for the miracle of Pentecost, and by the early second century there is firm evidence for the existence of Parthian Christian communities. The Sasanian state, officially Zoroastrian, alternated between tolerance and persecution of its Christian minority. As Rome became Christian, Christianity represented potential political as well as religious subversion, and the practice of Christianity became increasingly suspect in Persia. Shapur II (309–79) persecuted Christians and suppressed the church. A successor, Yezdegerd I (399–421), however, was tolerant at first toward Christians, whom he used as a counterweight to the power of the Zoroastrian nobles, and he allowed the first synod in Sasanian Persia to take place in 410. Persecution of Christians returned, however, at the end of Yezdegerd’s reign and into the reign of his son Vahram V (421–39). This wave of persecution coincided with the ascendancy of the extremely pious Pulcheria over her brother, the emperor Theodosius II, and led to conflict between the two powers (Holum 1982: 102–11).

Sozomen provides numerous anecdotes drawn from martyr stories of the persecution of Christians during Shapur’s reign. Sozomen blames the Zoroastrian Magi and the Jews for inciting the trouble, claiming that they accused Persian bishop Symeon of complicity with the Romans (2.9). He portrays Shapur attempting to reason with Christians rounded up in the persecution, but after they refused to worship the sun, he ordered them to be decapitated. Sozomen’s account suggests that Christians were to be found even among the highest ranks of the Persian courtiers. For example, the execution of the eunuch Azades, a favorite of the king, is said to have led Shapur to limit his persecution only to Christians who proselytize (2.11). After a horrifying account of the tortures which various Persian Christians suffered, Sozomen presents an excerpt from the letter of Constantine to Shapur derived from Eusebius calling for toleration (2.15.2–4). Sozomen misdates the letter to place it during the persecution, not before, so he can claim that “the emperor exercised the greatest protectiveness over Christians everywhere, Roman as well as foreign” (2.15.1).