Peter's Ancient History and Religion Pages

Peter's Index Peter's Index  Philo Philo Ancient History Home Ancient History Home  Bardaisan, Marcion & Mani Bardaisan 



Ancient History and Religion with Peter Eyland


Shapur

The reliability of the literary and epigraphical sources for the Roman wars of Shapur I

16th May 2003

by Peter Eyland

 

The Roman Eastern Frontier [1] (D&L) gives a convenient collection of literary and epigraphical excerpts  The authors give 107 excerpts, with 29 known authors [2] , 8 unknown [3] authors, and 11 inscriptions [4] .

Historical “reliability” is an opinion about a text or author on the consistency of the account, and the confidence that can be placed in it.  The opinion determines the weight placed on the events reported.  This essay will survey the internal evidence of the sources and form an opinion on each author or inscription.

The sources will be discussed in rough chronological order with the important inscription of Shapur treated first.  Two exceptions to the method will be excerpts on the death of Gordian III, and the capture of Valerian, because there are 24 excerpts given for each of these topics and they are conveniently taken together to clarify the traditions.

A general conclusion will then be drawn on the reliability of the sources for this period.

As a postscript, a semi-empirical reliability score for evaluating literary sources is proposed and sampled.  This retains personal judgements while systematising an approach to weighing literary criteria.  It produces a number (r-score) that purports to represent the comparative reliability of a source.

___________________________________

 

Shapur Ka`ba-i Zardusht 244 – 260 CE

Shapur’s trilingual inscription is on the tower called the Ka`ba-i Zardusht (cube of Zoroaster) which is at Naqsh-i Rustam.  The inscription was clearly contemporary with Shapur I, giving a dating from 244 to 260 CE. 

The inscription is a breviarium, or summary, which gave a political, military, and religious justification for the war against Rome.  It demonstrated Shapur’s superiority [5] .

The Arsacid Pehlevi text was directed towards those who remembered the Parthians.  The Sassanian Middle Persian text was directed towards the current Iranian ruling class.  The Greek text was directed towards the large number of Greek speakers in Greek cities inherited from Alexander the “Great” (or the “Vandal”, in some traditions).  The Greek text was also direted externally to Greek speaking Romans.

2.1.3      SKZ l 1-6  Description of Shapur’s Empire

This has Shapur’s titles and origins to enhance his influence and reputation.  The text seems to chronologically map the advances of Shapur’s territories (producing a rough “figure 8”).  The number and extent of his military successes must have produced the desired political impact.  He includes Rome, not specifically but inclusively, i.e. where the text reads that he has made subject “rulers from every nation”.  This pointedly downgrades the importance of Rome.

 

2.1.5 SKZ l 6 –9  Death of Gordian 244 (a) Persian view

Shapur’s text indicates that Gordian was killed in battle at Meshike and the Roman army annihilated.  D&L [6] examine the unusual Greek form a0nh/rh (άνἠρη) , which was applied to Gordian, and indicate that it probably comes from a0naire/w (άναιρἐω ) : “to take away, end, or destroy”.  This is illustrated by Shapur’s triumphal relief at Bishapur which showed Gordian’s body trampled under Shapur's horse [7] .  It is unlikely that Shapur killed Gordian in battle like that, because if he did Shapur would have claimed Gordian’s body.  In that case, it is then likely that the skin would have been flayed and then hung at the gates of the capitol city or it its temple, as reportedly happened with Mani and Valerian.  It is then probable that the body remained in Roman hands.  His death would have occurred within a Roman zone of control and Shapur’s text and relief are overstated for political purposes.

 

2.2.3 SKZ l 9-10 Philip's treaty with Shapur I

Millar raises the possibility that Philip may not have paid any money. [8] D&L seem to accept the inscription as factual and suggest there were additional regular payments [9] .

 

3.1.4 SKZ l 10 – 19  Shapur's 2nd campaign against Rome (252)

 “In the [one] campaign” probably means “in the one year”.  Now there are two dates for the campaign, [10] CE and 256 CE, so the first may have been a Northern preliminary excursion to secure the North (e.g. Nisibis in al Tabari’s account), before for the main advance through the South [11] .  This advance up the Euphrates seems to have by passed some cities (e.g. Dura Europos), leaving the Mesopotamian army reasonably intact.

Shapur’s victory at Barbalissus is not mentioned in any Roman text [12] and this may be due to Philip’s control of “the press”.  More likely it was that no Roman Emperor was in control at Barbalissus and it was the Syrian standing army that was defeated.  The number (60,000 men) was probably exaggerated as this represents a minimum of 12 legions.  Shapur may have advanced to Hierapolis and made it a base for operations [13] .

From the grouping of cities next in the text, Shapur seems to have divided his army.  He seems to have sent one part North (Zeugma and Urima) to secure rear positions against Roman Mesopotamian forces, and another part South West (Beroea and Chalcis) and then South (Apamea and especially the important Legion base of Raphanaea).

Shapur was then able to head for Antioch itself (the various “Seleucias” are difficult to pin point).  His son, Hormizd, probably captured the Cappadocian cities mentioned.  The last ten cities (Sinzara to Chanar) have caused problems but were likely to have been captured on the way back, as suggested by the dating of coins found on Roman soldiers’ bodies in Dura-Europos [14] .  The inscription then gives good data on this campaign.

3.2.6 SKZ l 19 – 37 Shapur's 3rd campaign against Rome (260?) (a) The Persian side

The third campaign included the battle of Edessa and the capture of Valerian.  The long list of Roman regions emphasized that people from the whole extent of the Roman Empire were involved.  It may have been designed to give the average Persian citizen the impression that all these areas were actually conquered.

There were 28 areas listed, in no obvious geographical order.  The list may have started with the legions and where they came from.  Thus Germania, Rhaetia, Noricum, Dacia, Pannonia, and Moesia reflect the Rhine/Danube legions.

The names of other regions may then have come from the titles of their cohorts and alae.  Shapur also gave a list of captured cities that are all in Asia Minor (except Alexandria and Nicopolis) but they were not occupied as Shapur withdrew.  

Although it is unlikely Shapur personally captured Valerian, the inscription gives reliable information on the victory, and insight into the composition of the Roman army.

___________________________________

Oracula Sibylline XIII (Xrhsmoi\ Sibulliakoi (Χρησμοἱ Σιβυλλιακοι ) <267/8 CE

According &L these Oracles were Judaeo-Christian forgeries [15] . They were written in epic Greek hexameters with the thirteenth book (no Jewish and little Christian content) composed before Odaenathus death in 267/8 CE.  The author was then contemporary with, and particularly interested in events in Syria.

 

2.2.1 Death of Gordian (b) Roman view

This will be discussed separately below.

 

2.2.4 Accession of Philip - Eastern instability

The Oracle wrote that Philip “the Arab” came from Syria, which may imply the Syrian/Arabian border had moved North [16] to encompass Philip’s presumed birthplace at Shahba (renamed Philipoppolis about 80 km SSE of Damascus).,  D&L [17] note that lines 21 – 34 refer to events before the millenial games in the mid-summer of 247 CE.  Pacatianus rebelled in 247 and was presumably the “German Ares” mentioned.

 

2.3.1  Julius Priscus IC of East.

The Oracle described Antioch as “wretched” which may be local information about the harsh rule of Philip's brother, Julius Priscus [18] .

 

3.1.4Shapur's 2nd campaign against Rome (252)

The Oracle described the destruction of Syria by bowmen (characteristic of Persian warfare).  They were led by the “fugitive of Rome” (presumably Shapur).  Antioch, Hierapolis, Beroea and Chalcis were named as despoiled.  This agrees with Shapur.

 

3.1.5  Antioch betrayed by Mariades to Shapur I (253?)

The Oracle described Mariades as a “wily”, “stealthy”, “undistinguished Roman” who was a “bandit from Syria”.  This was to portray him as an aberrant, a Roman who reached above his station.  Tyana and Mazaka were Cappadocian cities, so this gave a historical context.  The “Selenian goddess” may have referred to Seleucia on the Tigris, which was noted for the worship of the Moon.  The “leader of the Italians” probably incorrectly referred to Decius Trajan, (lines 107-112, “Dacian”, “300”, “4”), who was killed by a shower of darts when fighting the Goths.

 

3.2.2  Persian column defeated at Emesa (?)

The Oracle apparently referred to a victory by the Emesenes over the Persians (in contrast to the Romans). A priest, who would be Sampsigeramus, used treachery to defeat the Persians.  The details are not clear but it seems to relate to the time of the Persian withdrawal.

Behind the deliberate obscurity, the Oracle has good information about events in the Roman East during this period.

___________________________________

 

Porphyry 233 - c.305 CE

Porphyry was Plotinus’ student and wrote vita Plotini in Greek.

 

2.2.2  Plotinus with Gordian

There is no reason to doubt that Plotinus went with Gordian and returned with difficulty.  The information probably came directly to Porphyry from Plotinus.

___________________________________

 

Philostratus    Mid 3rd Century

Philostratus taught Philosophy at Athens and Rome until the 3 rdcentury CE [19] .

 

3.1.4 Shapur's 2nd campaign against Rome (252)

Malalas wrote, Philostratus said Shapur took Syria and he listed the cities that fell.  This agrees with Shapur’s inscription.  However also Malalas wrote, Philostratus claimed that Odaenathus killed Shapur as he was returning to Persia.  Philostratus may have been wrong or simply misreported by Malalas, but it means that he has to be read with care.

___________________________________

 

Alexander Lycopolitanus   Early 4th Century CE

Alexander Lycopolitanus was a Neo-Platonist who wrote in Latin and published in the early 4th Century CE [20] .  He wrote against Mani in contra Manichaei opiniones disputatio

 

3.3.2      The prophet Mani in Shapur I's campaigns

This excerpt said that Mani was patronised by Shapur I.  It accords with other evidence.

___________________________________

Libanius (314 CE - c. 393 CE) [21]

Libanius was a Greek rhetorician from Antioch in Syria.

 

3.2.1  Fall of Antioch (253? or 260?)

There are four brief extracts from Libanius, who was careful to protect the reputation of Antioch.  The fall of Antioch is blamed on treason not the citizens.  There is mention of archers who fired on Antiochenes in the theatre from the top of the mountain, but it is not clear if this was inside or outside the city walls.  Laying aside the Antiochene defence the startling archers can be taken as a reliable tradition.

___________________________________

Scriptores Historiae Augustae   > 360 CE

The Scriptores Historiae Augustae is a collection of light-hearted biographies aimed at amusement.  The history claimed to be written in the time of Diocletian [22] (284 - 305 CE), but more probably was written post 360 CE [23] .  It mixed fact and fantasy [24] .  The 100 years from Hadrian (117 CE) to Macrianus (217 CE) were based on reliable data, but after this the data becomes problematical [25] .  There is no consensus on what were the author's sources, and when they were reliable [26] .

 

2.1.1Renewal of hostility between Rome & Persia (241)

SHA Gordiani Tres

The last sentence [27] seems a parody of the situation and of Timesitheus’ abilities.  In this case it was designed to reflect badly on current prefects and their qualifications.  The only real information in the excerpt is the year 241 CE.  This would probably be correct, as parody needs some measure of exactness.  This applies even though in another place Alexander Severus’ accession is mistakenly given as March 6, 222 instead of March 11.

 

3.1.5  Antioch betrayed by Mariades to Shapur I (253?)

SHA Triginta Tyranni

This has an underlying warning to the wealthy about how “excesses and profligate ways” can cause the downfall of their children.  Mariades was singled out as a prime example of ingratitude to, and betrayal of, his father.  It also had a pot shot at pseudo-Caesars and pseudo-Augusti.  They made everyone “tremble in terror” because of their “strength” and “daring” when really they were just thieves and traitors.  This is social comment attached to Mariades, though it does give an interesting detail about how he went through Hormizd to Shapur.

 

2.2.1  Death of Gordian (b) Roman view

Three extracts are given under this heading and they will be discussed below. 

This author wrote humorous social comments based on, but not tied to, historical events.

___________________________________

 

Eunapius (continuer of Dexippus history 270 – 404 CE) [28]

3.2.1  Fall of Antioch (253? or 260?)

Eunapius has the tradition about the Antiochenes in theatre when the Persian archers struck (as Libanius) and likens their appearance to enchantment.  He seems reliable from this one statement.

___________________________________

 

Zosimus c. 345 CE [29]

Zosimus wrote his Historia Nova (180 – 410 CE)Pearse writes that Zosimus was a pagan anti-Christian who "slavishly" copied Eunapius [30] and others.  His description of the death of Gordian will be treated separately below.

 

2.2.3  Philip's treaty with Shapur I

It is unclear what was dishonourable about the peace treaty that Philip agreed with the Persians.  Perhaps any peace was dishonourable as “Rome always wins”.  D&L suggest it means that Zosimus asserted that no Roman territory was conceded [31] .

 

2.3.1  Julius Priscus IC of East   Inscriptions on statues.

Zosimus wrote that Philip kept the reins of authority within the family.  Zosimus is accurate here, as (firmly attested by inscriptions) his brother Julius Priscus was placed in charge of the East.  Julius Priscus would have been Prefect of Mesopotamia (and not also “of Osrhoene”) during the time 240 –242 CE [32] .

 

3.1.4 Shapur's 2nd campaign against Rome (252)

Zosimus incorrectly puts the fall of Antioch in 253 CE during the reign of Gallus [33] .  His next extract (III, 32, 5) recorded that the Persians took “all the East”, including Antioch and Cilicia.

Zosimus seems a little erratic and embellishes events.

___________________________________

 

Ammianus Marcellinus Res Gestae 353 – 378 CE

3.2.1  Fall of Antioch (253? or 260?)

Ammianus described the siege of Bezabde [34] and mentioned, in passing, a battering ram that was used at Antioch.  This seems a reliable comment as he was a useful historian and interested in military matters.  He elaborates on the theatre incident and emphasised the Antiochenes’ complete surprise.  He clearly, but probably mistakenly, put the fall of Antioch in the year 260 CE (the time of Gallienus).

Ammianus seems reasonably reliable.

___________________________________

 

Agathangelos >450 CE

“Agathangelos” wrote a History of the Armenians in Armenian.  The author claimed that he was an eyewitness to the events recorded.  In his prologue, he claimed that Drtad/Trdat, “ordered me to narrate not a false account of his brave deeds, but what really happened”.  This claim would be more custom than fact.

The author of the Armenian Church’s official site argues that some parts of the text “are taken directly from the life of Mesrob Mashdotz[35]” (d. 440 CE) which was written by Koriun.  This indicates that the earliest date for Agathangelos would be around 450 CE not 244 CE.

 

3.1.1 Khosrov II of Armenia murdered at the instigation of the Sassanians (>244 CE)

Agathangelos recorded the murder of Khosrov through the deception of Anak and his brother (D&L 3.1.1 = pp 312,3).  Agathangelos’ general purpose is to promote Gregory’s importance and authority.  In this excerpt, his particular purpose is to attribute Khosrov’s death to foreign Persian intrigue instead of local Armenian politics.  Toumanoff (1969:153-265) [36] suggests that an inscription at Paikuli refers to another Trdat who murdered Khosrov for the throne.  The motivations and identities of the alleged murderers should then be discounted.

3.1.3 The flight of Trdat (Tiridates) to the Roman Court (?)

Trdat’s relocation to Rome (D&L 3.1.3 = pp 313,4) seems a reliable tradition.

Agathangelos has only the historical kernel that Khosrov was murdered in Armenia and his son relocated to Rome.  There seems to be elaborate stories to cover up what actually took place.

___________________________________

 

Petrus Patricius c. 527-565 CE, Historia

3.4.1Shapur bribed Roman soldiers in Edessa on return journey

Petrus Patricius said Shapur used the Syrian money that he captured, to bribe the Edessenes to let him pass.  This cannot be assessed without further data.

___________________________________

 

Anonymous continuer of Dio Cassius (often taken to be Petrus Patricius)

3.1.5 Antioch betrayed by Mariades to Shapur I (253?)

This excerpt is a social comment that blamed the Antiochene lower classes for the fall of Antioch.

 

3.3.4 Fulvius Macrianus refused to send help to Valerian

There may be the implication here that Macrianus knew Valerian willingly surrendered, and because of that Valerian was no longer entitled to be Emperor.

This author adds social comment but no significant data.

 

___________________________________

 

Agathias 536 - >558 CE

Agathias [37] was born c.536 CE in Asia Minor.  He wrote a history in Greek for the years 552-558 CE. He was a continuer of Procopius and imitated him in form.

 

3.3.1 Agathias IV, 23, 7

Agathias portrayed the Persians in the blackest possible light and so here Shapur was “wicked and bloodthirsty”.  He reported a terrible punishment against Valerian (that D&L omit in their extract!).  Cilicia, Syria and parts of Cappadocia were “ravaged”.  Then he gave a story of Shapur filling valleys with corpses to make a level path.  Shapur did have a reputation for cruelty [38] and some such event on a minor scale may have happened.

 

2.1.2 Agathias IV, 24, 2

Again he referred to “the wicked Shapur”.  He gave Shapur’s reign to be 31 years long, which agrees reasonably with al Tabari (30y 15d or 31y 6m 19d) [39] and Elias of Nisibis (30y) [40] .

Agathias is here clearly not impartial.  He may be reliable when reporting from eyewitnesses but rhetoric may have overcome reality with earlier sources.

___________________________________

 

Ioannes Malalas   < 574 CE

John Malalas, "the rhetor", was a Byzantine chronicler who wrote a Chronographía (from creation to 563 CE).  It was a “pop-history”, written from a Syrian Monophysite perspective [41] to titillate his audience.  His work is repetitious, uncritical of myths and legends (such as Mercurius killing Julian [42] ) and puts things in the wrong time periods [43] .  He cites many sources but, apart from eyewitness reports, they are probably not reliable.  His account of the death of Gordian will be treated separately below.

3.1.5  Antioch betrayed by Mariades to Shapur I (253?)

Malalas purportedly gave the scandalous “inside story” on Mariades.  He described his fall from grace through devious deals and villainy.  Malalas ends his morality lesson with the decapitation of the villain.  He added what may be the only useful detail, that Shapur captured Antioch “in the evening”.  This may imply that it was done suddenly and without warning.  Emending the date from tid / (τιδ ) to dti / (δτί) [44] does not fix the dating problem and detracts further from reliability.

 

3.2.2  Persian column defeated at Emesa (?)

Malalas sensationalised the Emesa story by having Shapur killed outside Emesa by a “rustic” slinger while he was having a conference.  This account should be dismissed.

Malalas reports that, Domninus said that, Odaenathus had “destroyed all of the entire Persian army”.  This account should also be dismissed. 

Malalas reports that Philostratus said that Odaenathus had killed Shapur. This also should be dismissed.

Malalas is out to tell a good story - loosely based on history

___________________________________

 

Evagrius Scholasticus 532/7 - >594 CE [45]

Evagrius wrote a Historia ecclesiastica (428 - 594 CE).  He had reliable sources and access to official archives [46] .  He used Procopius extensively, at times he cited him word for word. He also used Malalas, Eustathius, Zachariah Scholasticus and John of Epiphania [47] . Even though the title is about the Church, he included many secular affairs.

 

2.2.3  Philip's treaty with Shapur I

The excerpt asserted that Philip conceded part of Armenia to the Persians (contra Zosimus).  This probably meant that Rome would not intervene when Persia advanced into Armenia.

 

3.3.1  Shapur's 3rd campaign and Valerian's capture (b) The Roman and Byzantine view

Evagrius noted that Nikostratus called Valerian’s expedition “ignominious”.

Evagrius has all the hallmarks of reliability.

 

___________________________________

 

Moses Khorenats’i (or Moses of Chorene)        7th or 8th Century

Moses Khorenats’i allegedly wrote his "History of Armenia" in the middle of the fifth  Gabriel Oussani in the On-line Catholic Encyclopaedia [48] denies authorship to Moses Khorenats’i because of his use of sources written in the sixth and seventh century. Oussani therefore places authorship in the eighth century. However Oussani argues that Moses is generally “trustworthy” despite his sources being ancient legends and folk-song. 

D&L [49] note that Moses claimed to use Agathangelos and Faustus as sources, but the differences are considerable.  Given that Moses was free with his sources, and no other sources are known to agree him, then it must be doubted that Moses is “trustworthy”.

 

3.1.1  Khosrov II of Armenia murdered at instigation of Sassanians (> 244 CE)

Moses Khorenats’i wrote of Khosrov’s murder (D&L 3.1.1 = p 316).  Unfortunately D&L omits Moses Khorenats’i’s section on Khosrov’s murder.  Section 76 (p.316) goes on to say “after the murder”.

 

3.1.3 The flight of Trdat (Tiridates) to the Roman court(?)

Trdat’s flight to Rome (D&L 3.1.3 = p 316) seems reasonable.  The detail about Artavazd Mandakuni’s involvement, and the subsequent murders of the Mandakuni family by Artashir, are probably unreliable embellishments.

It appears that Moses Khorenats’i does not have reliable sources and follows a biased “Armenian-friendly” account of the events.

___________________________________

 

Georgius Syncellus    late 8th, early 9th CE

Syncellus used the lost chronicle of Eusebius.

3.3.5 Ballista rallied Roman stragglers and inflicted defeats on Persian in Lykaonia

Syncellus reported that naval power changed the military situation.  Ballista landed unexpectedly at Pompeiopolis; defeated Persian forces, and captured Shapur’s harem.  Shapur withdrew and took Valerian as a prisoner for life. 

Syncellus had a good source in Eusebius, and seems reasonably reliable.

His comments on the death of Gordian and Shapur’s third campaign are discussed below.

___________________________________

 

al Tabari 839 -  >915 CE

al Tabari was born c.839 CE in Tabaristan. He wrote a history in Arabic called the History of Prophets and Kings [50] which covers the period from the Patriarchs to July 915 CE [51] .  For al Tabari, history was Allah’s will revealed by example [52] .  He wrote: “I rely on traditions (akhbâr) and reports (âthâr) [53] . These seem to be oral tradition (i.e. isnad – the chain of authorities) and written reports no longer available [54] . He often did not indicate who his sources were as he often repeated “it is said”.

 

2.1.2 Shapur's accession to sole rule

al Tabari praises Shapur’s reign, after an exotic story of his birth and recognition by Ardashir.  The tale is an unlikely, but politically necessary, justification of Shapur’s right to rule.

 

3.1.2  Nisibis captured by Persians (252?)

al Tabari had an account of the fall of Nisibis because the city wall was “split” by some unusual means (possibly an unexpected subsidence). There is no mention of Nisibis being captured in Shapur’s inscription, but as it was re-captured by Odaenathus later it seems reasonable to accept al Tabari’s account that Shapur captured Nisibis as a preliminary step towards his incursion into the Roman East.  D&L (p. 280) have a break before the excerpt that may have cut out the source used at this point.  (Note: a later date of 260 CE in Shapur’s third campaign is also possible [55] .)

al Tabari has Valerian mistakenly besieged in Antioch rather than being captured in a battle near Edessa and Haran.

al Tabari did not in the end judge his sources, but put them side by side without deciding.  He made mistakes and included mythical material, but some information is valuable.  He is a mixed bag.

___________________________________

 

Eutychius (Sa'id b. al-Bitriq)       c. 938 CE

Eutychius wrote his Annales (from Christ to 938 CE) in Arabic

3.1.4 Shapur's 2nd campaign against Rome (252)

Eutychius followed al Tabari’s information about the split in Nisibis’ wall then added a morality tale to it, how deception was overcome by prayer and sincerity.  Eutychius has the capture of Nisibis preceding Shapur’s conquest of Syria and this is likely.

Eutychius has a strong religious bias, but seems to have some good information.

___________________________________

Chronicle of Se’ert  c.1036 CE

This was a Nestorian chronicle written in Arabic after 1036 CE. It drew on early Syriac material [56]

 

3.4.2 Settlement of Roman prisoners by Shapur in Persia

The Chronicle calls Persia, the land of the “Nabateans”.  This seems strange because Nabatea is South and the Persians are East.  Since Valerian was cursed, the Chronicle fittingly had Valerian depressed and apparently dying soon after.  The prisoners of war were dispersed and so Christianity spread throughout Persia.  The Chronicle may imply that Antioch was captured twice.

A heavy religious purpose detracts from its reliability.

___________________________________

Zonaras c. 1118 CE

Ioannes Zonaras wrote a Historical Epitome creation to 1118 CE.  He probably used John of Antioch, Ammianus Marcellinus and possibly Nicomachus Flavianus as sources [57]

2.2.1 Death of Gordian (b) Roman view

Zonaras puts traditions together without harmonising them as shown below, on 2.2.1.

 

2.2.3  Philip's treaty with Shapur I

Zonaras detailed Roman territorial concessions but may have overstated them as D&L indicate that Mesopotamia could not have been entirely given over [58] .

 

2.2.5  Philip in Mesopotamia and Armenia(?)

If Philip had some sort of campaign it must have been internal to Roman territory. Millar writes that peace in the area lasted till 252 CE [59] , so it is unlikely that Philip regained any territory lost or ceded to Iran.

 

3.1.3  Khosrov II of Armenia murdered - flight of Trdat to Rome

Zonaras has Tiridates/Trdat as a king rather than the infant at the time of the Persian incursion (as Agathangelos).  This may reflect an accurate tradition which has been confused by the number of “Trdats” and who succeeded who.

3.3.5 Ballista rallied Roman stragglers and inflicted defeats on Persian in Lykaonia

Zonaras also gives an account of Ballista’s counter-attack; the loss of Shapur’s harem and Valerian as a prisoner for life.  He has Agathias’ “valley of corpses” story.  He mentioned Odaenathus the Palmyrene and his appointment as dux orientis.

Zonaras is erratic in reliability, with some good and some improbable traditions.

___________________________________

 

Michael the Syrian  1126 – 1199 CE

The Syrian Monophysite Patriarch Michael (1126 –1199 CE) [60] produced a chronicle that put church, world, and mixed events into a three-column format.  He identifiedhis target reader as "the one who loves the truth and cares for accuracy" [61] . Weltecke [62] notes that he is sober in his judgements, and had an abundance of ancient and highly regarded sources (both sacred and profane), which are not available today.

 

2.1.4 Restoration of the Kingdom of Edessa

The excerpt gives 166 CE as the date Edessa came under Roman rule.  This corresponds well with Avidius Cassius’ capture of Edessa from the Parthians [63] when Lucius Aurelius Verus was emperor.

The text also has “the Edessenes and their kings” came under Roman rule, indicating that the kings continued with some form of authority.  This accords well with the times of Ma'nu VIII (165-177 CE), Abgar the Great (177-212 CE) and Abgar Severus who administered Edessa for the Romans till Caracalla (211-17 CE) made it a Roman colony in 214 CE [64]

Michael’s text still has a king of some sort around up to the fifth year of Philip (249 CE).  There had been “crown-prince” (PSGRYB) Manu for 26 years [65] . Also, Septimius Abgar seems to have been re-instated as king by Gordian, because he apprears as king on coins with Gordian [66] .  However, the king has disappeared by October 242 when Antonina Edessa has been "liberated" [67] .  Michael is thus out by six or seven years and so is Ball who follows him [68] .

Michael wrote emotively that the Edessenes came under the Roman “yoke”; they were “deprived” of their king; and had a “tribute of servitude” “imposed” on them. 

His opinion about the Romans does not seem to have biased his report.  His access to and use of good sources makes his work reliable.

___________________________________

top of page top of page 

The Death of Gordian (D&L 2.2.1)

 

The Death of Gordian has 24 extracts, which will be treated together.  D&L divide the Roman views into four traditions [69] which don’t quite fit, so sub-categories are introduced.

J

(i) Gordian opened the Janus gate,

(ii) Initial success,

(iii) After a brilliant campaign, Gordian is murdered by Philip’s intrigues.

     (“after a brilliant campaign” is added to D&L for clarification.)

Z

(i) Timesitheus initial success and the change on his death,

(ii) Gordian died in a mutiny incited by Philip,

(iii) Zaitha burial.

H

 Gordian died in battle when he fell from his Horse

 and crushed his thigh

B

 Gordian died in the ranks/battle/camp Betrayed by a colleague.

 

 Oracula Sibylline XIII or Xrhsmoi\ Sibulliakoi/ (Χρησμοὶ Σιβυλλιακοί )   <267/8 CE)

This excerpt defined the “B” tradition.  It seems designed to show that Gordian’s expedition was just, and it was his unfortunate death that produced a Roman withdrawal (rather than a Persian win).  This was the opposite political spin to Shapur’s inscription.

The Oracle described the initiating event as an “uprising” on the part of a coalition of forces.  The Persians are described as “enterprising”.  There is an implication from these two words that the Persians were subject to the Romans and that the Persians (commendably?) seized an opportunity when it arose.

The text also has Gordian “insatiable for war” and in pursuit of “vengeance” (full stop as given in D&L), which gives the idea that it was a “just war” for Roman “glory”.

Now the translation and arrangement of lines 19 and 20 are disputed, so it is difficult to draw firm conclusions.  What can be said is this: either though deliberate deceit, or tactical error, Gordian died but his body remained in Roman hands.  As it was Gordian’s “colleague” that is specified by the Oracle, this pointed to either Philip or his brother Julius Priscus putting Gordian “in harm’s way”.  Whatever the motive, the result was either a betrayal of trust (e0n ta/cei ( ἐν τάξει) = in the camp) or a betrayal through tactics (e0n ta/cei (ἐν τάξει ) = in the ranks/battle).

Aurelius Victor: pub. 361 CE, liber de Caesaribus (Augustus to Constantius)

Julian appointed Aurelius Victor governor of one division of Pannonia, when they were at Sirmium, (Amm. Marc. xxi, 10, 6).  Later, Theodosius appointed him city prefect [70] making him a part of the ruling establishment.

He had the “J” tradition, which probably reflected the official position of the time.  It claimed initial success (probably at Resaina).  It cleverly avoids mentioning Shapur’s victory over Gordian in battle (at Meshike), as Gordian is said to have died on the way home after “a brilliant campaign”.  The account is improbable, because if Gordian was alive after “a brilliant campaign” then he would have determined the ceasefire conditions, rather than Shapur and Philip. 

Thus the “J” tradition probably represents “what should ideally have happened”.

Eutropius: pub. <370 CE, Breviarium ab Urbe Condita

Eutropius (x. 16) was a soldier under Julian in his Parthian expedition. His summary of history covered the time from the city’s foundation to the death of Jovian, A.D. 364. 

Eutropius mistakenly wrote “Parthians” for Persians. 

He used the "J" tradiiton (as expected from someone on senatorial rank [71] ). 

He also used the “Z(iii)” monument tradition (with Zaitha apparently “20 miles” from Circesium) and has Gordian’s remains (ideally) taken home to Rome. 

The monument tradition seems reasonable (especially in the light of Ammianus Marcellinus’ testimony below).

Festus: pub. <369/70 CE, Breviarium Rerum Gestarum Populi Romani

Festus Rufius, or Rufus, was the author of a Roman history summary written about 369 CE.  He used Eutropius as a source for this period [72] .  Festus continues Eutropius’ mistake with “Parthians” for Persians, and his abbreviation of Eutropius’ account has no independent value above Eutropius.

Jerome: pub. >378 CE, Chronicon.

Jerome translated the Chronicle of Eusebius, which he revised (using a different philosophy about the Roman Empire), and extended up to 378 CE.

He follows "J(ii)", "J(iii)" and "Z(iii)" and has no independent value.

 

Ammianus Marcellinus: Res Gestae 353 – 378 CE

In the first excerpt, D&L unfortunately leave out the sentence about Gordian’s “successful campaigns and treacherous murder” which seems to reflect the "J(ii)" and "J(iii)" tradition. 

Ammianus was in Julian’s expeditionary force and in the first excerpt gives the "Z(iii)" tradition as an eye-witness. 

Philip is named in the second excerpt, possibly as the "Z(ii)" tradition.

The word “tomb” is the Latin tumulum, which means “a mound of earth, a hill” and associated with tumulo “to bury”, hence burial mound.  However it is not necessarily a burial site, as it is like the Greek mnh/ma (μνήμα ) , which can mean “tomb” or “memorial monument”.  It may have marked ou tthe place where Gordian died [73] because his remains should have been returned to Rome.

If Gordian died at Zaitha, then it is possible that the Persians defeated the Romans at Meshike, (enabling Shapur’s boast) and the Romans fell back and reformed at Zaitha.  Gordian’s poor handling of the battle then induced a general revolt, which caused Gordian’s death and Philip’s election.  Philip, with sufficient but not solid support from his troops, would have been forced to approach Shapur in the same way that Jovian did, after Julian died.  The Romans need not now mention the battle of Meshike, as it was not when, and where the ultimate decisions were made.

The problem with this reading is that, if Zaitha is some 400 km upstream from the place identified as Meshike, this is too far for a retreat position and a subsequent approach to Shapur.

The “J(iii)” tradition which puts Philip in a bad light, could have emerged in the time of Decius who was opposed to Philip [74] .

Ammianus followed Eutropius with the official "J" tradition and also the more eyewitness "Z" tradition.

Scriptores Historiae Augustae: Gordiani Tres, >360 CE

Three extracts are given under this heading. 

The first has: Gordian’s campaign through "J(i)", "J(ii)" and "Z(i)" culminating in the political exaggeration that, “Roman power occupied the whole of the East”.  It called Philip “low born but arrogant”, and followed "Z(ii)", through a comic opera about Gordian being out manoeuvred by Philip in elections and for his life.

The second has the senate “naturally deceived” and implies it really knows nothing about anything.

The third has "Z(iii)" with an double-entendre about how Gordian was able to conquer the Germans but was “no conqueror of Philippi”, i.e. ostensibly the plains of Philippi but really the two Philips.

The "J"and "Z" traditions were combined (without "J(iii)" being necessary), giving a innocuous tale with Shapur completely ignored.

Epitome de Caesaribus: (Augustus to Theodosius) 395 CE

This excerpt has the "Z(ii)" and "Z(iii)" traditions.

Orosius:   Historia adversus paganum (Adam to 417 CE)

Orosius wanted to defend Christianity by showing that calamities did not come because of Christianity in the Empire, because there were just as many before the empire became Christian. He used Eutropius as a source [75] as illustrated by the mistake of the Parthians.  He chose to omit Eutropius’ "J" tradition in favour of the "Z(ii)" and "Z(iii)" tradition.

Zosimus: Historia Nova (180 – 410 CE)

Zosimus was born c. 345 CE [76] .  Pearse writes that Zosimus was a pagan anti-Christian who "slavishly" copied Eunapius [77] and others.

The first of the three extracts has the "Z(i)", "Z(ii)" traditions, with similar language to the SHA Gordiani Tres, especially with the detail about the messengers announcing Gordian’s death from disease. 

The second has the "Z(iii)" tradition with “Timesitheus” misspelt as “Timesicles”.

The third extract ignored Shapur and improbably denied any loss of Roman territory.

Jordanes: c 550 CE, Historia Romana

Jordanes probably based his history on a lost work of Aurelius Memmius Symachus [78] (d. 525 CE).  He followed the "J" tradition with the “Parthian” mistake.

John of Antioch: Chronicle, creation to 610 CE

According to Murison, John of Antioch was a “somewhat inept” [79] chronographer.  D&L point out a geographical error [80] .  He followed the "J" tradition with the “Parthian” mistake.

Ioannes Malalas: creation to 563 CE

Malalas has the H tradition.  D&L point to similarities in the death of Gordian II and Philip [81] as a possible explanation of its origin.  The "H" tradition was probably unreliable being based on an anachronism.

Chronicon Paschale: creation to 629 CE

The Chronicon Paschale was written by one of of the clergy of St. Sophia, Constantinople [82] . The sources used included Eusebius, Panodorus (395-408) and the Chronographía of Malalas [83] (537) with its most complete text.  The extract does not refer to any of the four traditions but does show Philip killing Gordian’s hostage son.

 

Georgius Syncellus: early 9th Century, a chronicle (e0klogh5) (ἐκλογἦ )

George wrote in the early ninth century and called his work an e0klogh (ἐκλογἦ -is this correct?) (collection of excerpts). He used Julius Africanus, Eusebius, Pandorus and Annianus [84]

Georgius Syncellus followed the " J(ii)" and "J(iii)" tradition (after initial success and victory over Shapur, Gordian is murdered by Philip).  Note: D&L say he followed "Z" [85] .

Georgius Monachus: Chronicon (Adam to 842 CE)

Georgius Monachus followed the "H" tradition (which is probably unreliable). He may have derived it from Malalas.

Georgius Cedrenus: chronicle from creation to 1057 CE

Georgius Cedrenus followed the "H" tradition, (which is probably unreliable). He may have derived it from Malalas.

Ioannes Zonaras: Historical Epitome, creation to 1118 CE

Ioannes Zonaras probably used John of Antioch, Ammianus Marcellinus and possibly Nicomachus Flavianus as sources [86]

The first extract shows that he used the "H" tradition, with the twist that Gordian died in Rome.  This is inconsistent with the second extract in which Gordian died on the way to Ctesiphon as it followed Syncellus’ words closely with "J(ii)", "J(iii)" then added "Z(i)", "Z(ii)" following Zosimus with a change of vowel from the misspelt “Timesicles” to “Timesocles”. Thus Zonaras puts the three traditions together without harmonising them.

 

Conclusion of Gordian’s death:

The “B” and “H” tradition should probably be discounted. 

The “J” tradition was probably the official one.

The “Z” tradition was probably the closest to the truth.

___________________________________

 

Valerian's capture (D&L 3.3.1)

 

The Capture of Valerian has 24 extracts, which will be treated together. 

D&L give three Roman traditions about Valerian [87] but more categories are added for clarity.

C

(i) Valerian was Captured in during battle,

(ii) he lived a long time as a slave,

(iii) his skin was flayed and put in the temple

F

Valerian lived as a Footstool for Shapur

O

Valerian was an old man and died at the battle

N

(i) Plague or famine made the Army weak

(ii) Valerian was treacherously seized in Negotiations

M

Valerian sought protection from Roman Mutiny

 

top of page top of page 

Lactantius: published c 315 CE [88] , de mortibus persecutorum

Lactantius was a Latin writer who published 414 –315 CE [89] .  In his de mortibus persecutorum, 5,he tried to show that God punished all the persecutors of the Christians (like Valerian) with violent deaths.

Lactantius did not say how Valerian was captured; he had "C(ii)", "F" and "C(iii)". 

D&L [90] suggest that Psalm 110:1 was the source of Lactantius’ depiction of Valerian being a footstool.  The flaying of an enemy’s skin and presentation in the Temple seems a standard custom, and it is reasonable to conclude that happened.

Eusebius: 260 - 340 CE, Historica Ecclesiastica

Eusebius had only "C(ii)".  He gave no details of how it came about.

Eusebius further reported, that Constantine wrote, that Valerian was defeated because Valerian did not acknowledge the one God.  Again no details were given.

De Caesaribus

This is a purely mythological representation of Valerian as a captive.

Aurelius Victor: pub. 361 CE, liber de Caesaribus (Augustus to Constantius)

Aurelius Victor has "C(i)" and "O".  He gave 260 CE for Valerian’s capture and death. 

The date of his capture is in accord with coins and documents [91] , but the report of his death is premature.  When Aurelius Victor wrote that Valerian was an old man (contradicting "C(ii)" ), this may be an attempt by the ruling class to exonerate his defeat.

Eutropius: pub. <370 CE, Breviarium ab Urbe Condita

Eutropius had "C(i)" and "C(ii)", which may be the official view. 

He anachronistically refers to the “Parthians”.

Festus: pub. <369/70 CE, Breviarium Rerum Gestarum Populi Romani

Festus followed Eutropius and had "C(i)" and "C(ii)", but more correctly, has “Persians”

Jerome: pub. >378 CE, Chronicon.

Jerome had "C(i)" and "C(ii)", with a hint that Valerian’s persecution of the Christians was the cause of his downfall.

Scriptores Historiae Augustae:  Valerian, >360 CE

SHA Valerian has “O”, i.e. Valerian was only defeated because he was an old man. 

Shapur was warned that Roman defeat was only a prelude to Roman success. 

It seems to be a “paid political advertisement”.  Valerian is written of positively in contrast to Christian views.

Epitome de Caesaribus: (Augustus to Theodosius 395 CE)

This Epitome had "C(i)", "C(ii)", "C(iii)" and "F", with the anachronistic “Parthians” of Eutropius.

Orosius:   Historia adversus paganum (Adam to 417 CE)

Orosius had "C(ii)" and "F ",with the same hint as Lactantius that his persecution of the Christians led to his downfall.

Zosimus: Historia Nova (180 – 410 CE)

Since he was a staunch pagan, Zosimus rejected the Christian philosophy behind Valerian’s downfall.  Zosimus argued the rejection of paganism contributed to Roman weakness.  He produced a new and different account about Valerian.

Zosimus had "N(i)" and "N(ii)".  Plague was responsible for the army’s weakness and then Shapur violated the rules of negotiation.  The introduction of disease shifted emphasis from personal choice to impersonal fate.  This, however, for Zosimus, didn’t excuse Valerian from eternal shame. 

Zosimus did not allow that the Persians acquired any Roman territory.

Petrus Patricius: c. 527-565 CE

Petrus Patricius had "N(i)" and "N(ii)".  He followed Zosimus’ account of plague weakening the army and Shapur’s deception.  He also had "C(ii)" and "C(iii)" as Galerius accused the Persians of deceiving Valerian, keeping him a prisoner till he was old and preserving his skin.  Thus he has both major traditions.

Jordanes: c.565 CE

The Romana is an outline of world history that records the growth of Rome from the time of its legendary founder, Romulus, to the Byzantine emperor Justinian (reigned 527-565).  The writer has not yet been sighted this extract.

Agathias: 536 - >558

Agathias has the Emperor killed which sounds like the "O" tradition.  He described Shapur as “wicked and bloodthirsty”.  He reported a terrible punishment against Valerian (that D&L omit in their extract!).  Cilicia, Syria and parts of Cappadocia were “ravaged”.  Then he gave an exaggerated tale of filling valleys with corpses to make a level path.  Shapur did have a reputation for cruelty [92] and some event on a minor scale may have happened, but as it stands, this would be an exaggeration

Evagrius: Historia ecclesiastica 431 - 594 CE

Evagrius wrote that Nikostratus called Valerian’s expedition “ignominious”

Chronicon Paschale: creation to 629 CE

The Chronicon Pascale has the "O" tradition (Valerian was 61 years old). It reported that the Persians killed Valerian in an “uprising”, as if they were subjects.

Chronicon miscell. ad ...724 pertinens

The Chronicon misc has "C(ii)".

Georgius Syncellus: early 9th Century, a chronicle (e0klogh5) ( )

Syncellus had the "N(i)" of Zosimus, with famine in Edessa exchanged for plague.  He also had the “M” tradition of incipient mutiny that led to Valerian’s voluntarily surrender and agreement to betray his own army.

Georgius Cedrenus: chronicle from creation to 1057 CE

Cedrenus had Valerian reign for 15 years, which is not correct.  He had "C(i)" and "C(iii)" with the capture incorrectly placed in (Cappadocian?) Caesarea.  The reported size of the army (20,000 men) was smaller than other reports.

Ioannes Zonaras: Historical Epitome, creation to 1118 CE

Zonaras had two traditions, "C(i)" and also the combination of "N(i)" (famine at Edessa) and "M".  He cannot decide between the two.  In "C(i)" the Romans were vastly outnumbered to exonerate them.  For Zonaras, whichever way it happened, Shapur behaved dishonourably

 

Conclusion on Valerian’s capture

The “C” tradition is early and seems the most likely. 

The “F” tradition seems propaganda and unlikely. 

The “O” tradition seems designed to exonerate Valerian and should be discarded.

The “N” and “M” traditions seem elaborations on a theme and unreliable.

___________________________________

 

Inscriptions (other than SKZ)

2.3.2 Julius Priscus rector orientis

This inscription is useful evidence for the title being given to Julius Priscus, the Emperor’s brother.

 

2.3.3 Cavalry unit dedication at Bostra (between 244 & 249)

This inscription is evidence for a heavy cavalry unit at Bostra, but the dating is not certain.

 

2.3.4 Legion VIII Augusta veteran's sepulchre inscription in Syria

This inscription is evidence that the VIIIth legion was in Syria some time.

 

3.2.3  Inscription Commemorating the Victory of Emesenes over Shapur I etc.

The first inscription ascribed some victory to an undefined local hero.  It has been suggested (without clear evidence) that the date was in the time of Shapur’s expedition (252/3 CE).  The other two inscriptions do not add any significant information.

 

3.2.4  Repair to the walls of Batnae by a Prefect of Osrhoene (after 256?)

This mentioned repair to Batnae’s city wall.  It is reasonable to assume that defences were rebuilt sometime after Shapur’s withdrawal.

 

3.2.5 Transfer of troops to Arabia (259?)

This inscription is about the transfer of troop to Arabia.  If it can be dated to around 259 CE it would be evidence, since it would have been appropriate to position troops in response to the Persian threat.

 

3.3.3 Attempt by Kirder the Mobed to introduce Zoroastrianism to Roman lands

The Middle Persian inscription of Kirder at the Ka`ba-i Zardusht (KKZ) described an attempt to introduce Zoroastrianism to Roman lands.  There is no reason to reject this.

 

Conclusion on Inscriptions:

These inscriptions give some specific information but there is a problem with dating that restricts their usefulness.

 

General Conclusions

As seen from above, the historical reliability attributed to literary sources depends upon:

• the chronological gap between event and recording,

• how much they were intended for political purposes,

e.g. to discredit a foreign invader or support a conquering army,

• how much they were intended for religious or moral purposes,

• how much they were intended for geographic or land-title claims,

• how much the sources they relied on can be confirmed by other means.

• how well the authors evaluated and/or reconciled their sources.

 

The era of the Roman wars of Shapur I (from Gordian III to Gallienus) is poor in reliable source material.  What literary sources are available, are generally epitomes of earlier historical works, a few inscriptions, some papyrii and a good number of coins.

The available narrative texts follow their own agendas and are not co-extensive.  While some authors may be considered to be reliable, exotic tales and embellishments abound in the others.  The inscriptions are limited in their usefulness because they cannot be dated with precision.

 


Post Script

A Semi-Empirical Reliability score

It is proposed that the assessment of the reliability of literary sources can be done by a systematic numerical evaluation of literary criteria.  (Something similar has been done in a business information context to assess how well Annual Reports reflect actual performance and predictive value). 

After appropriate literary criteria are selected, they are weighted by scaling each criterion to a number.  The maximum possible total from each criterion is calculated.  An appropriate scale (e.g. out of 100, 10 or 5) is chosen and using the maximum possible total, a normalising factor is determined.

Each source is then evaluated by deciding on a number for each of the criteria. 

All the numbers for a source are summed and normalised to produce a reliability score (“r score”).   Mathematically this is represented as r score

This approach is termed “semi-empirical” because it requires a subjective judgement on the number and weight of each criterion.  The method systematises how subjective evaluation is carried out.

A “what if” analysis will need to be done by varying the number and weighting of criteria to assess the sensitivity of the model to changes in scoring.

 

1) Desirable literary criteria

The first problem will be to identify desirable literary criteria.

Some of these literary criteria could be:

• The time between the event and the record, i.e. the chronological gap.

• The apparent motives and goals of the author.

• The presuppositions and values inherent in the text.

• The intended audience, e.g. official report or general public.

• Balance (shown by considering different interpretations).

• Evaluative use of material, e.g. argumentation and weighing evidence.

• Evidence of bias, e.g.

- selecting and/or omitting known relevant material.

- derogatory or encomiastic comments.

• The status of the sources, e.g. official archives or private correspondence.

• Discrimination between the sources used, e.g.

- statements why one might be rated more highly than another.

- whether sources are primary (autopsy) or non-contemporary (“ear”).

- whether conflating sources produces a consistent or a confused narrative.

Corroborating evidence, e.g. external support from other independent sources or archaeological investigations.

• Accuracy in transcribing sources, e.g. by comparison with the original and/or parallel sources.

• Whether the strategy is appropriate, eg. genre, style and examples.

• Intrinsic value: either inscriptions or the only source available.

• Any questions the author may have left unanswered, or refuted without stating.

• The use and assessment by contemporary and later authors.

 

As a preliminary test and example of the method, only four criteria will be chosen, the chronological gap, the status of the sources, the evidence of bias obscuring events and the evaluative use of the material.

 

2) Determination of weightings

The “chronological” gap has the implication that eyewitnesses are better than those writing many decades or centuries after.  This is complicated by the fact that those who do write later may use eyewitness accurate accounts or embellished accounts. A scale from 0 to 3 will be chosen.

0        long time after events, poor sources

1        long time after events, reasonable sources

2        long or short time after events, good sources

3        eyewitness account.

 

The status of the sources is a judgement on their intrinsic value.  Official sources rank higher than private sources.  A scale from 0 to 3 will be chosen.

0        poor sources

1        private sources

2        official sources

3        good official sources

 

The “evidence of bias” is important and should have significant weighting. A non-linear scale from 0 to 5 will be chosen.

0        serious bias, significantly altering events

1        bias, which may affect reporting

3        bias which does not affect reporting

5        balanced reporting

 


“Evaluative use” of material shows that care is taken in judgements. A scale from 0 to 2 will be chosen.

0        confused accounts.

1        accounts stated without judgement

2        accounts reconciled and judgements indicated.

 

3) Normalising.

The maximum possible score in this example is 3+3+5+2 = 13.  A scale out of 100 would be inappropriate since 100 would be subjectively taken as 100% reliable.  Also the resolution of the scale doesn’t warrant it, as the normalising factor would be well above 1.0 at 7.7.  A score out of 10 seems appropriate, as a 5 point scale would be too coarse and leave many sources on the same rating.

top of page top of page 

4) Example

This is only representative of the method, as there is little data for some authors (which, for example, distorts the result for Porphyry).  The calculating function for this spreadsheet example is =CEILING(SUM(Range)*10/13,1).

 

Author

Chron/3

Status/3

Bias/5

Eval/2

r score

Agathangelos

1

0

0

0

1

Agathias

1

1

2

1

4

Al Tabari

2

1

3

1

6

Alexander Lycopolitanus

1

1

3

1

5

Ammianus Marcellinus

2

3

4

2

9

Aurelius Victor

2

3

3

0

7

Georgius Cedrenus

0

0

2

0

2

Eunapius

2

3

4

0

7

Eusebius

2

3

4

2

9

Eutropius

2

2

3

1

7

Eutychius (Sa'id b. al-Bitriq)

1

1

3

1

5

Evagrius

1

2

3

1

6

Festus

2

2

3

1

7

Jerome

2

2

3

0

6

John of Antioch

0

0

2

0

2

Jordanes

1

1

3

1

5

Lactantius

2

1

1

1

4

Libanius

1

3

3

1

7

Ioannes Malalas

0

1

0

0

1

Michael the Syrian

1

3

5

2

9

Georgius Monachus

1

1

3

0

4

Moses Khorenats'i

0

1

1

0

2

Orosius

1

2

1

1

4

Petrus Patricius

1

1

3

1

5

Philostratus

2

2

2

0

5

Porphyry

2

3

3

1

7

Georgius Syncellus

2

1

3

1

6

Ioannes Zonaras

1

1

2

1

4

Zosimus

1

2

2

1

5

top of page top of page 

Bibliography

 

M.H.Dodgeon & S.N.C.Lieu

The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars”

Routledge, London

1991

Adler, William

Time immemorial, Archaic History and its Sources in Christian Chronography from Julius Africanus to George Syncellus

Dumbarton Oaks

1989

al Tabari

The History of al-Tabari, trans. Franz Rosenthal

State University of New York

1989

Allen, Pauline

Evagrius Scholasticus, The Church Historian

Spicilegium Scarum Lovaniense

1981

Ball, Warwick

Rome in the East, The Transformation of an Empire

Routledge, London

2000

Chesnut, Glenn, F.

The First Christian Histories

Editions Beauchesne, Paris

1977

H. Dessau

"Über Zeit und Persönlichkeit der S.H.A.,"

Hermes, 24

1889

J.B. Segal

Edessa ‘the Blessed City’

Oxford

1970

Lieu, S.N.C.

AHST250/350 lecture notes

Macquarie

2003

Millar, Fergus

The Roman Near East 31 BC – AD 337

Harvard

1993

Weltecke, Dorothea

 “Originality and Function of Formal Structures in the Chronicle of Michael the Great”

Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, V.3, N.2

 July 2000

Yahshater, Ehsan

The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol 3(1)

Cambridge

1983

 

Electronic media

Encylopaedia Brittanica

2002 DVD

Michael I. Rostovtzeff

http://ddc.aub.edu.lb/projects/archaeology/berytus-back/berytus08/19.html

C.L. Murison Dept. of Classical Studies, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, CANADA

http://omega.cohums.ohio-state.edu:8080/hyper-lists/classics-l/listserve_archives/log94/9405e/9405e.6.html

Catholic Encyclopaedia, 1908

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08466c.htm

Comm. Dept. of the Diocese of Armenian Church of America (Eastern), Mr. George Kassis.

http://www.armenianchurch.org/church/history/agathangelos1.html

(broken link as at 21 April 2015)

David Potter

Bryn Mawr Classical Review

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/1991/02.02.02.html#NT2

Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. New York. Harper & Brothers. 1898: at the Perseus site

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0062&layout=&loc=

Michael DiMaio, Jr. reviewing the book by: Samuel N.C. Lieu and Dominic Montserrat (edd.), From Constantine to Julian: Pagan and Byzantine Views, A Source History. London: Routledge, 1996 in Bryn Mawr Classical Review 97.4.27

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/1997/97.04.27.html

Roger Pearse

http://www.ccel.org/p/pearse/morefathers/zosimus00_intro.htm

University of Pennsylvania Press

http://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/2033.html

(broken link as at 21 April 2015)

top of page top of page 

Appendix 1

Known authors in D&L pages 34 – 67

 

Agathangelos

3.1.1, 3.1.3

History of the Armenians (I)

226 - 230 CE

Armenian, Greek, Arabic

Khosrov II of Armenia murdered at instigation of Sassan (after 244), flight of Trdat to Rome

Agathias

2.1.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.1

cont. Procopius history

(552 - 568)

Greek

Shapur's accession to sole rule. Shapur's 3rd campaign & Valerian's capture (b) The Roman & Byzantine view

Al Tabari

2.1.2, 3.1.2

History of Prophets & Kings (Ta'rikh al Rusul wa'l-Muluk)

Arabic

Shapur's accession to sole rule. Nisibis captured by Persians (252?)

Alexander Lycopolitanus

3.3.2

contra Manichaei opiniones disputatio

Latin?

The prophet Mani in Shapur I's campaigns

Ammianus Marcellinus

2.2.1, 2.2.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.1

The Later Roman Empire

Latin

Death of Gordian (b) Roman view. Fall of Antioch (253? or 260?)

Aurelius Victor

2.2.1, 3.3.1

liber de Caesaribus

Latin

Death of Gordian (b) Roman view. Shapur's 3rd campaign & Valerian’s capture (b) The Roman & Byzantine view

Georgius Cedrenus

2.2.1, 3.3.1

CSHB chronicle from creation to 1057

Greek

Death of Gordian (b) Roman view. Shapur's 3rd campaign & Valerian’s capture (b) The Roman & Byzantine view

Eunapius

3.2.1

vitae Sophistarum

Greek

Fall of Antioch (253? or 260?)

Eusebius

3.3.1, 3.3.1

Historica ecclesiastica, vita Constantini

Greek

Shapur's 3rd campaign & Valerian’s capture (b) The Roman & Byzantine view

Eutropius

2.2.1, 3.3.1

breviarium, summary of Roman history

Latin

Death of Gordian (b) Roman view. Shapur's 3rd campaign & Valerian’s capture (b) The Roman & Byzantine view

Eutychius (Sa'id b. al-Bitriq)

3.1.2, 3.1.4

Annales Christ to 938 CE

Arabic

Nisibis captured by Persians (252?). Shapur's 2nd campaign against Rome (252)

Evagrius

2.2.3, 3.3.1

Historia Ecclesiastica 431 - 594 CE

Greek

Philip's treaty with Shapur I. Shapur's 3rd campaign & Valerian’s capture (b) The Roman & Byzantine view

Festus

2.2.1, 3.3.1

breviarium, summary of Roman history

Latin

Death of Gordian (b) Roman view. Shapur's 3rd campaign & Valerian’s capture (b) The Roman & Byzantine view

Jerome

2.2.1, 3.3.1

Chronicon.  (cont. Eusebius  but with different philosophy)

Latin

Death of Gordian (b) Roman view. Shapur's 3rd campaign & Valerian’s capture (b) The Roman & Byzantine view

John of Antioch

2.2.1

FHG. Frag 147 creation to 610 CE

Greek

Death of Gordian (b) Roman view

Jordanes

2.2.1, 3.3.1

Historia Romana

Latin

Death of Gordian (b) Roman view. Shapur's 3rd campaign & Valerian’s capture (b) The Roman & Byzantine view

Lactantius

3.3.1

de mortibus persecutorum

Latin

Shapur's 3rd campaign & Valerian’s capture (b) The Roman & Byzantine view

Libanius

3.2.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.1

oratio

Greek

Fall of Antioch (253? or 260?)

Ioannes Malalas

2.2.1, 3.1.5, 3.2.2

CSHB Ap. Synopsis Sathas, creation to 563 CE

Greek

Death of Gordian (b) Roman view. Antioch betrayed by Mariades to Shapur I (253?). Persian column defeated at Emesa (?)

Michael the Syrian

2.1.4

Chron

Syriac

Restoration of Kingdom of Edessa

Georgius Monachus

2.2.1

Chronicon

Greek

Death of Gordian (b) Roman view

Moses Khorenats'i

3.1.1, 3.1.3

History of the Armenians (II)

Armenian

Khosrov II of Armenia murdered at inst. of Sassan.(after 244) - flight of Trdat to Rome

Orosius

2.2.1, 3.3.1

Historia adversus paganum

Latin

Death of Gordian (b) Roman view. Shapur's 3rd campaign & Valerian’s capture (b) The Roman & Byzantine view

Petrus Patricius

3.3.1, 3.3.1,3.4.1

FHG, frag 9, frag 11

Greek

Shapur's 3rd campaign & Valerian’s capture (b) The Roman & Byzantine view. Shapur bribed Roman soldiers in Edessa on return journey

Philostratus

3.1.4

FGrH

Armenian

Shapur's 2nd campaign against Rome (252)

Porphyry

2.2.2

vita Plotini

Latin

Plotinus with Gordian

Georgius Syncellus

2.2.1, 3.3.1, 3.3.5

a chronicle

Greek

Death of Gordian (b) Roman view. Shapur's 3rd campaign & Valerian’s capture (b) The Roman & Byzantine view. Ballista rallied Roman stragglers & inflicted defeats on Persian in Lykaonia

Ioannes Zonaras

2.2.1, 2.2.1, 2.2.3, 2.2.5, 3.1.3, 3.3.5

Historical Epitome creation to 1118 CE

Greek

Death of Gordian (b) Roman view. Philip's treaty with Shapur I. Philip in Mesop & Armenia(?). Flight of Trdat to Rome Ballista rallied Roman stragglers & inflicted defeats on Persian in Lykaonia

Zosimus

2.2.1, 2.2.1, 2.2.1, 2.2.3, 2.3.1, 3.1.4, 3.1.4, 3.3.1, 3.3.1, 3.3.1

Historia Nova 

(180 - 410)

Greek

Death of Gordian (b) Roman view. Philip's treaty with Shapur I.  Julius Priscus IC of East. Shapur's 2nd campaign against Rome (252). Shapur's 3rd campaign & Valerian’s capture (b) The Roman & Byzantine view

 

top of page top of page 

Appendix 2

Anonymous authors in D&L pages 34 – 67

 

Chronicle of Se'ert

3.4.2

Arabic

Settlement of Roman prisoners by Shapur in Persia

Chronicon miscell. ad ...724 pertinens

3.3.1

Syriac

Shapur's 3rd campaign and Valerian’s capture (b) The Roman and Byzantine view

CSHB Chronicon Paschale creation to 629 CE

2.2.1, 3.3.1

Latin

Death of Gordian (b) Roman view. Shapur's 3rd campaign and Valerian’s capture (b) The Roman and Byzantine view

de Caesaribus

(Emperor Julian)

3.3.1

Latin

Shapur's 3rd campaign & Valerian’s capture (b) The Roman & Byzantine view

Epitome de Caesaribus (Augustus to Theodosius)

2.2.1, 3.3.1

Latin

Death of Gordian (b) Roman view. Shapur's 3rd campaign and Valerian’s capture (b) The Roman and Byzantine view

Oracula Sibylline

2.2.1, 2.2.4, 2.3.1, 3.1.4, 3.1.5, 3.2.2

Greek

Death of Gordian (b) Roman view. Accession of Philip - Eastern instability. Julius Priscus IC of East. Shapur's 2nd campaign against Rome (252). Antioch betrayed by Mariades to Shapur I (253?). Persian column defeated at Emesa (?)

SHA

2.1.1, 2.2.1, 2.2.1. 2.2.1, 3.1.5, 3.3.1

Latin

Renewal of hostility between Rome & Persia (241). Death of Gordian (b) Roman view. Antioch betrayed by Mariades to Shapur I (253?). Shapur's 3rd campaign and Valerian’s capture (b) The Roman and Byzantine view

FHG, frag 1

3.1.5, 3.3.4

Greek

Antioch betrayed by Mariades to Shapur I (253?). Fulvius Macrianus refused to send help to Valerian

 

 

top of page top of page 

Appendix 3

Inscriptions in D&L pages 34 – 67

 

SKZ

Shapur at Kaaba of Zoroaster

2.1.3, 2.1.5, 2.2.3, 3.1.4, 3.2.6

Arsacid Pehlevi, Sassanian Middle Persian, and Greek

Description of his empire. Death of Gordian 244 (a) Persian view.  Philip's treaty with Shapur (in Greek). Shapur's 2nd campaign against Rome (252) (in Greek). Shapur's 3rd campaign against Rome (260?) (a) The Persian side.

IGR

2.3.1

Arabic, Greek

Julius Priscus IC of East

IGR

2.3.1

Greek

Julius Priscus IC of East

CIL

2.3.2

Latin

Julius Priscus rector orientis

IGR

2.3.4

Latin and Greek

Legion VIII Augusta veteran's sepulchre inscription in Syria

IGLS

2.3.3

Latin

Cavalry unit dedication at Bostra (bet 244 & 249)

IGLS

3.2.3, 3.2.3

Greek

Inscript. Commemorating the Victory of the Emesenes over Shapur I

IGLS

3.2.3

Greek

Inscript. Commemorating the Victory of the Emesenes over Shapur I

TAPA

3.2.4

Greek

Repair to the walls of Batnae by a Prefect of Osrhoene (after 256?)

PAES

3.2.5

Latin

Transfer of troops to Arabia (259?)

KKZ

3.3.3

Middle Persian

Attempt by Kirder the Mobed to introduce Zoroastrianism to Roman lands

 

Footnotes

[1] M.H.Dodgeon & S.N.C.Lieu, “The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars” Routledge, London 1991, pp 34 – 67

[2] See Appendix 1

[3] See Appendix 2

[4] See Appendix 3

[6] D&L p.355, n.8

[7] Ball, Warwick, Rome in the East, The Transformation of an Empire, Routledge, London 2000, p.120 Plate 26

[8] Millar, Fergus, The Roman Near East 31 BC – AD 337, Harvard, 1993, p.154.

[9] D&L, p358, n25

[10] Zosimus I, 27,2

[11] Yahshater, Ehsan, The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol 3(1), Cambridge, 1983, p.125

[12] D&L, p.360, note 6

[13] D&L, p.361, n.9

[14] D&L, p.363, n.23

[15] D&L, p.xiii

[16] Millar, op sit, p.531.

[17] D&L, p.359, n.31

[18] D&L p.359, n.34

[19] Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. New York. Harper and Brothers. 1898 at the Perseus site:http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0062&layout=&loc=philostratus

[20] D&L, p.369 m.60

[21] D&L, p.xi

[22] D&L p.xii

[23] H. Dessau, "Über Zeit und Persönlichkeit der S.H.A.," Hermes 24 (1889), 337-92

[24] D&L p.xiii

[25] D&L p.xiii

[26] David Potter in Bryn Mawr Classical Review, http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/1991/02.02.02.html#NT2

[27] doctissimi viri, quem causa eloquentiae dignum parentela sua putavit et praefectum statim fecit”

[28] D&L, p.ix,x

[29] D&L p.ix

[31] D&L, p.358, n.28

[32] D&L p.359, n.33

[33] D&L, p.363, n.20

[34] D&L, p.364, n.25

[35] The site is the work of the Communications Department of the Diocese of the Armenian Church of America (Eastern) under the direction of Mr. George Kassis. http://www.armenianchurch.org/church/history/agathangelos1.html

[36] Cited from Lieu, S.N.C., in AHST250/350 lecture notes, VI,1

[37] D&L p.viii

[38] D&L, p.368, n.57

[39] D&L p.286

[40] D&L p.354 note 3

[41] Encylopaedia Brittanica 2002 DVD: entry under John Malalas

[42] John Malalas, Chronicle 13.25

[43] Catholic Encyclopaedia, 1908 at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08466c.htm

[44] D&L, p.364, n.27

[45] Chesnut, Glenn, F., The First Christian Histories, Editions Beauchesne, Paris, 1977, p206f.

[46] Allen, Pauline, Evagrius Scholasticus, The Church Historian, Spicilegium Scarum Lovaniense, 1981, pp 1-4.

[47] Allen, Pauline, op sit, pp 6-11.

[48] Catholic Encyclopaedia, 1908 at: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10598a.htm

[49] D&L p.396 note 6

[50] Ta'rikh al Rusul wa'l-Muluk

[51] D&L p.394 note 1

[52] David Waines article on “al Tabari” in Encyclopaedia Brittanica 2002 DVD

[53] al Tabari, The History of al-Tabari, State University of New York, 1989, trans. Franz Rosenthal, p.170

[54] “Not a single book survives from Pre-Islamic Iran”, Yahshater, Ehsan, The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol 3(1), Cambridge, 1983, p.xx

[55] D&L, p.360, n.1

[56] D&L, p.394 n.4

[57] Michael DiMaio, Jr. reviewing the book by: Samuel N.C. Lieu and Dominic Montserrat (edd.), From Constantine to Julian: Pagan and Byzantine Views, A Source History. London: Routledge, 1996 in Bryn Mawr Classical Review 97.4.27. Found at http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/1997/97.04.27.html

[58] D&L, p.358, n.29

[59] Millar, op sit, p.154.

[60] D&L, p.xi

[61] ô qôrûyô rôhêm shrôrô aw da-btîl hatîtûtô

[62] Weltecke, Dorothea, “Originality and Function of Formal Structures in the Chronicle of Michael the Great”, Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 3, No. 2, July 2000, on line at: http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol3No2/HV3N2Weltecke.html#FN17

[63] D&L p355. n5

[64] J.B. Segal, Edessa ‘the Blessed City’, Oxford, 1970, p.14-15

[65] Millar, op sit, p.151.

[66] Millar, op sit, p.476.

[67] Millar, op sit, p.152.

[68] Ball, op sit, p.91

[69] D&L p.355, n9

[73] D&L p.356, n12

[74] D&L p.356, n13

[76] D&L p.ix

[78] D&L p.xi

[79] C.L. Murison Dept. of Classical Studies, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, CANADA. at: http://omega.cohums.ohio-state.edu:8080/hyper-lists/classics-l/listserve_archives/log94/9405e/9405e.6.html

[80] D&L, p.357, n.22

[81] D&L, p.357, n.3

[82] University of Pennsylvania Press: http://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/2033.html

[83] Catholic Encyclopaedia, 1908 at :http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03730b.htm

[84] Adler, William, Time immemorial, Archaic History and its Sources in Christian Chronography from Julius Africanus to George Syncellus, Dumbarton Oaks, 1989, p.134.

[85] D&L, p.355, n.9

[86] Michael DiMaio, Jr. reviewing the book by: Samuel N.C. Lieu and Dominic Montserrat (edd.), From Constantine to Julian: Pagan and Byzantine Views, A Source History. London: Routledge, 1996 in Bryn Mawr Classical Review 97.4.27. Found at http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/1997/97.04.27.html

[87] D&L, p.367, n.46

[90] D&L, p.367, n.47

[91] D&L, p.368, n.50

[92] D&L, p.368, n.57


Peter's Index Peter's Index  Philo Philo  top of page top of page  Bardaisan Marcion &Mani Bardaisan

email Write me a note if you found this useful