Roman Christmas Days I: 25 December 89BC - Triumph of Pompeius Strabo
Gnaeus Pompeius was a prominent member of the Pompeii family of Picenum in north-east Italy, Strabo was a prominent member of the Pompeii, a noble and wealthy family in Picenum in the north-east of Italy.
It is not clear when he received his cognomen of ‘Strabo’, but it appears to be a personal one as neither his father Sextus nor his son Gnaeus carried the name. As ‘strabo’ means ‘squinter’ or ‘cross-eyed’, it likely reflects a physical quirk of Pompeius himself.
While to be considered ‘rural’, the Pompeian family was powerful enough that they could not ignored by Roman Senate. This allowed Pompeius to enter Roman politics, likely starting out as a military tribune, and gradually climbing the cursus honorum to be serving as a promagistrate in Sicily in 93BC – that is, he had either been given the power of a magistrate (likely a praetor here) without being elected to that position or he had been elected as a praetor and then had his power extended (prorogued) for a further year out of state necessity. Given how his career would progress, it is likely that Pompeius had served as praetor, possibly in 94BC.
He had a prominent enough political position by 91BC, along with professed loyalty to the Roman state and ability to command the support of the area around Picenum that he was appointed to a military position in that area during the civil conflict between the Romans and their Italian ‘allies’ – the Social War.
Strabo showed that faith in his ability to garner support was not misplaced as he was able to raise up to four legions in Picenum, although initial evidence of his ability to lead them in battle was more mixed. He found himself having to withdraw in the face of an Italian force of Picentes, Vestini and Marsi at Mount Falernus in mid-90BC and then effectively blockaded in Picenum by the Italians due to being heavily outnumbered.
However, this situation allowed him to show his true skills as a commander. As the Italian army under Titus Afranius moved against Strabo’s army at Firmum, the Roman commander sallied out to meet it in battle. This might seem a little foolhardy given how outnumbered Strabo had been, but as fighting was joined, the extent of his manoeuvres became apparent – his own move out from behind Firmum’s walls to confront Afranius had not been the only sally by the Roman column. A detachment under Sulpicius Rufus had been sent out earlier, seemingly unnoticed by Afranius, and it now fell on the rear of the Italian lines. This did not immediately turn the tide, such was the confidence and numbers of the Italians, but at length some Roman forces managed to penetrate Afranius’ camp and set it alight. Seeing this, the Italians broke and fled, their commander dead in the field.
This victory allowed Strabo to lead his forces to the Italian capital at Asculum, which he would put under increasing blockade throughout the rest of 90BC and much of 89BC. These achievements at Firmum and Asculum, plus the deaths of other Roman commanders, saw Pompeius Strabo elected consul for 89BC. And he made sure not to just be stuck under the walls of Asculum throughout that time of siege – his forces may have successfully attacked a rebel column trying to move into Etruria, while sufficient watch and preparation was kept up to recognise and then face down an enormous Italian army of 60,000 men trying to relieve Asculum.
The combination of these victories and the tightening grip on Asculum saw the city capitulate, with Strabo subjecting it to a vicious sack to punish the city for its rebellion. In the aftermath of the sack, Strabo gained (or significantly increased) a reputation for greed. As a victorious general was due a sizeable portion of booty won in battle, Strabo would have to have been particularly avaricious in order to gain such a reputation amongst the rapacious Roman nobility.
For his victory over the ‘Picentes of Asculum’, on 25 December 89BC, Gnaeus Pompeius Strabo, son of Sextus, grandson of Gnaeus, consul, was accorded the honour of celebrating a triumphal entry into the city of Rome.
Cn. Pompeius Sex.f. Cn.n. Strabo, consul, over the Picentes of Asculum, 6 k.Jan. (Degrassi (1954) 107)
If the scant accounts of a companion or even a public slave standing just behind the triumphator reminding him of his own mortality (cf. Beard (2007) 85-92), Strabo seems to have taken it less than a warning and more a challenge to achieve as much power and influence as he could on his short time as a mortal – and it was to be much shorter due to his actions...
His consulship expired just a few days after his triumph, but there is some suggestion that he floated the idea of him holding the consulship again for 88BC. This was illegal but not unprecedented in a military emergency, which the Social War still was. Rome was just over a decade past from the last of Gaius Marius’ five consecutive consulships in the face of war in Africa and German invasion. But as his victory over Asculum effectively shut down the northern theatre of the Social War, Strabo had perhaps been too successful to give himself any chance of being irregularly elected consul again for 88BC.
That does not mean that Strabo was out of unscrupulous options to retain vestiges of his power. He retired to his estates in Picenum, not only taking his legions with him, but keeping them in the field, using the wealth he had accrued from Asculum to pay for what was essentially a private army. When the Senate transferred command of that army to the newly elected consul, Pompeius Rufus, Strabo was so disinclined to give up his forces that he incited a mutiny that saw Rufus murdered...
Strabo continued to remain aloof from Roman politics, choosing not to get involved in Sulla’s march on Rome in 88BC, likely worried that Sulla’s position would overshadow him. He did however answer the call for aid from the Senate the following year when Gaius Marius and Cinna were attacking Rome. Strabo arrived at Rome with his army, but again refused to commit decisively, keen to see who was going to win or to play both sides off against one another, leaving him as the real power broker – this fence-sitting saw him referred to by Rutilius Rufus as “the vilest man alive” (Plutarch, Pompey 37.3).
Strabo carried out negotiations with Cinna and when these failed – Cinna was likely unwilling to show Strabo the deference he demanded – Strabo attacked one of the Marian commanders, Quintus Sertorius, north of Rome. This battle came to nothing, either due to Strabo only making a limited demonstration of his displeasure, or because he had made an error in attacking one of the more capable Roman generals of the period.
In the aftermath of this failure of ‘gunboat diplomacy’, Pompeius Strabo died in 87BC. It is usually thought that he perished during an outbreak of disease in his camp outside the Colline Gate. While having shown some ability in the field, his greed and cruelty had made Strabo hated by his soldiers to the point that they tore his corpse from its bier and dragged it through the streets.
One tradition recorded by Plutarch, Appian and Orosius, has the general being struck by lightning. Some versions even have him sick with disease and struck by lightning, perhaps demonstrating the extent of the gods’ wrath upon him... It could also be asked that if Strabo could be so hated by his own men to have his corpse desecrated, might that ‘lightning’ have been wielded by someone in a Roman army uniform?
Even with reports of such anti-Strabo dislike in the camp, this did not translate to full on anti-Pompeian hate, for the deceased general’s son, also Gnaeus Pompeius, would retain the loyalty of the Picenum legions and march them back home. And less than four year later, that same younger Gnaeus Pompeius would raise forces from amongst his father’s veterans and bring them to the aid of Sulla, the first step on a career that would see him recognised as ‘Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus’ – Pompey the Great.
Bibliography
Beard, M. The Roman Triumph London (2007).
Dart, C.J. The Social War, 91 to 88 BCE: A History of the Italian Insurgency against the Roman Republic. Ashgate (2016).
Hillard, T.W. ‘Death by Lightning, Pompeius Strabo and the People’, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 139.2 (1996) 135-145
Kendall, S. The Struggle for Roman Citizenship: Romans, Allies, and the Wars of 91-77 BCE. Piscataway (2013).
Watkins, O.D. ‘The Death of Cn. Pompeius Strabo’, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 131.2 (1988) 143-150
Degrassi, A. Fasti Capitolini Turin (1954) https://www.attalus.org/translate/fasti.html
Roman Christmas Days II: 25 December 274 - Aurelian’s Sun Temple
Upon becoming Roman emperor in (possibly the last months of) 270, Lucius Domitius Aurelianus, known as Aurelian, was faced with a Roman state riven into three parts – the central provinces under Aurelian’s control, the Gallic Empire centred on Gaul and the Palmyrene Empire ruling the eastern provinces and Egypt.
Aurelian’s initial military escapades as emperor focused on securing Italy and the Danube fronter from raids by the Iuthungi, Alamanni and Goths. This was largely completed by 272, although it did include the abandoning of the imperial province of Dacia. This allowed Aurelian to set his sights on defeating and reincorporating the provinces that had had been usurped by the Palmyrenes under Zenobia and her son Vaballathus.
After marching across Anatolia largely unhindered through early 272 – only Byzantium and Tyana are said to have offered any resistance, Aurelian and his forces entered north-west Syria, brushing aside a Palmyrene army at Immae by winning a cavalry skirmish. He then claimed control of Antioch and defeated its retreating garrison at Daphne, before the confronting and defeating the main Palmyrene army at Emesa, reclaiming all the eastern provinces for the Roman Empire.
Part of his celebrations included visiting the Temple of Elagabal, a prominent sun god in the region. There Aurelian “beheld that same divine form which he had seen supporting his cause in the battle” (HA Aurelian 25.5). Because of this, Aurelian built numerous sun temples, including one in Rome itself “which he consecrated with still greater pomp” (HA Aurelian 25.6), seemingly on 25 December 274.
This was accomplished using many of the spoils taken during the subjugation of Palmyra, possibly including statues of the Sun and Babylonian god, Belus (Zosimus I.61.2), leading to the temple being praised for its beauty (Aurelius Victor, De Caesaribus 35–37). A college of pontifices (Dei) Solis and annual games with circus races was established for the cult attached to the new temple, along with four-year games (agon Solis) to be held at the end of the Saturnalia. Funds were also allotted to pay the attendants and for the upkeep of the temple (HA Aurelian 35.3).
Of course, given the awful reputation of Elagabal in Rome due to his association with the emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus – a.k.a. Elagabalus – the sun temple that Aurelian founded in Rome was to Sol rather than Elagabal, the version that actually inspired it.
Aurelian’s temple to the sun was not the first such building in Rome – indeed, it was the fourth, with previous edifices sited in the Circus Maximus, on the Quirinal Hill and in Trastevere.
No ruins of the temple have been identified and despite it being renowned for its beauty, Aurelian’s sun temple is not described in the ancient sources or depicted on any coins. It appears to have been located in regio VII, somewhere to the east of the Via Lata, likely on the Campus Agrippae. Beyond that, we descend into speculation – it could have been on the western edge on of the Quirinal Hill or further north where the Via Frattina now enters the ‘field’.
A 16th century sketch from Andrea Palladio of substantial ruins east of the Via Lata has been suggest to be the remains of Aurelian’s sun temple; however, even though this sketch gives a detailed outline of those ruins and their size, the identification of them with Aurelian’s temple is uncertain and perhaps unlikely given their location.
The construction of this temple must have taken years, so if the dedication of a completed temple was what took place on 25 December 274, then it must have been begun long before that date (White (2007) 136), perhaps when Aurelian first visited Rome as emperor in 271 or even before that, with Aurelian taking over a building project from a previous reign and having it dedicated as his own.
Bibliography
Platner, S.B. A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome. London (1929)
White, J. The Roman Emperor Aurelian: Restorer of the World. Barnsley (2015)
Roman Christmas Days III: 25 December 304 - The Martyrdom of Anastasia of Sirmium
It may surprise many that until the reforms of the mid-20th century, the focus of the daytime Mass on Christmas Day was not the birth of Christ or even his Virgin Mother or earthly step-father - no, instead, that honour was given to a martyr saint from the era of the Diocletianic Persecution: Anastasia of Sirmium.
For such an important individual, we might expect to have significant information about her; however, other than she was killed in the Pannonian city of Sirmium on 25 December AD304, virtually, all of the stories about her stem from centuries after her death.
Anastasia was prominent enough by the late 5th century to have her name added to the Roman Canon of the Mass, one of only eight women commemorated by name in it. A legendary account from the 6th century at the earliest professes to give information about Anastasia’s life. It presents her as the daughter of Praetextatus, a vir illustris, which indicates that he had held high office in the Roman Senate (although positing this formal appellation for the 3rd century is likely anachronistic, as it does not appear in any written sources before AD354 - CTh XI.1.6 - and perhaps did not become a regularly used title for another generation after that). Catholic tradition has her mother be St. Fausta of Sirmium.
This account also has Anastasia, possibly looking to flee the cruelty of her husband Publius, become a pupil of Chrysogonus, another saint connected to Zadar in Croatia (he is that city’s patron saint), who was reputedly martyred in Aquileia during the earliest days of the Diocletianic Persecution (presumably at the hands of Maximian, rather than Diocletian who was in the east at this point).
Anastasia seemingly travelled with Chrysogonus to Aquileia, but was not immediately caught up in the persecutory fervour that did for her teacher. She was either able to escape, was not targeted or was fortunate enough to move on before falling into persecutory hands.
But any such fortune did not last long. From Aquileia, she travelled to Sirmium to meet with the Christian community. If she was attempting to take shelter there, it did not work. Anastasia was apprehended and executed, seemingly being burned at the stake.
This initial account calls Anastasia a Roman but does not state that she suffered martyrdom. Later accounts of Anastasia and Chrysogonus connect both to the city of Rome, possibly to explain the presence of churches dedicated to them - Titulus Anastasia and San Crisogono.
A similar relocating of Anastasia due to the presence of a church with a similar name may be seen in the Martyrologium Hieronymianum. When recording Anastasia of Sirmium, with a feast day on 25 December, it also posits her veneration in Constantinople, with her body being transfered there to be interred in a church to the ‘Anastasis’ – ‘Resurrection’ during the pontificate of Gennadius (458-471; Theodore Lector, HE II.65).
Some of the material about Anastasia is so different, even conflicting, that it may be that there are (at least) two separate Anastasias being conflated.
There would seem to be an Anastasia of Rome and an Anastasia of Sirmium. It was the latter who was apprehended, tortured by Florus, prefect of Illyricum, and then burned at the stake.
It is Anastasia of Rome who may have been the student of Chrysogonus, and was executed through crucifixion and beheading. It is not clear which of these Anastasias was (unwantedly) married to the cruel Publius.
The version of Anastasia’s life that appears in the Roman Martyrology attempts to reconcile the varying stories, presenting her being ‘tied to poles’ and burned at the stake. The mention of her being martyred on the island of Palmaria seems out of place as it is in the very north-east of the Ligurian Sea, a considerable distance from Rome or Sirmium - might one of the Anastasias have fled or been exiled there?
It does seem likely that the entirety of the stories attributed to these Anastasias are legendary, possibly aside from their martyrdoms in Rome and Sirmium - everything else may be literary invention to cover the barest of bare bone accounts.
Whomever she was, Anastasia of Sirmium became venerated as a healer and an exorcist, with her relics in the Church of St. Anastasia in Zadar in Croatia.
In the Orthodox Church, Anastasia is venerated as Pharmakolytria - ‘Deliverer from Potions/One Who Cures’, although that church celebrates the feast of Anastasia on 22 December, while the Syriac Orthodox Church celebrates it on 28 September.
Roman Christmas Days IV: 25 December 323 - CTh XVI.2.5
On 25 December 323, the emperor Constantine issued the following edict to a certain Helpidius.
“Whereas We have learned that certain ecclesiastics and others devoting their services to the Catholic sect have been compelled by men of different religions to the performance of lustral services, We decree by this sanction that, if any person should suppose that those who devote their services to the most sacred law may be beaten publicly with clubs, provided that his legal status so permits. If, however, the consideration of his honourable rank protects him from such an outrage, he shall sustain the penalty of a very heavy fine, which shall be vindicated to the municipalities.”
Given on the eighth before the Kalends of June at Sirmium in the year of the consulship of Severus and Rufinus - May (December) 25, 323.
Essentially, with this law, Constantine was stating that Christians could not be forced to participate in pagan rituals and practices. Anyone who was found to have forced such participation was to either be publicly beaten by clubs or fined depending on their rank.
However, there are issues with this law. Most important for this piece is the issue of date. The eighth day before the Kalends of June is a full 7 months before 25 December. But placing it on 25 May cannot be reconciled with what is known about Constantine's actions during the middle of 316, specifically in relation to his first conflict with Licinius and the Battle of Cibalae, a battle whose dating to 316 is not completely unanimous (the alternative, voiced by prominent historians like Ramsay MacMullen and A.H.M. Jones, is 314).
A redating of this law to 25 December would seem to be based on the notion that 'Kalends of June' should read 'Kalends of January', a date that fits in better with known actions and movements of Constantine.,
The other mysteries involved in this law are who are those mentioned (except Constantine, who I think we all know!)
Helpidius = the identity of this man is not completely clear, although it is suggested by Pharr that he was acting vicarius of the Praetorian Prefect of Illyricum.
Severus = Acilius Severus, who served as urban prefect in Rome from January 325 to November 326, and was part of the gens Acilia, which had had other consuls during the 3rd century, although it is unknown if Severus was directly descended from these previous consuls.
Rufinus = Vettius Rufinus, about whom nothing else is known, unless this is the same man as Gaius Vettius Cossinius Rufinus, who held a series of positions in Italy under Maxentius - curator of the Via Flaminia, Tiber riverbed and Rome's drains, corrector of Regio X Venetia et Histria. He was prominent enough in the Roman Senate for Constantine to find it useful to curry favour by honouring Rufinus. He made him comes Augusti nostri, appointed him urban prefect of Rome (20 August 315 to 4 August 316), entrusted him as a diplomat to Licinius in the east, and consul for 316, although nothing else is heard of him after this year, unless this is the same person as the Vettius Rufinus who held the consulship with Acilius Severus in 323.
Roman Christmas Days V: 25 December 333 – The Elevation of Constans to Caesar
On Christmas Day 333, Constantine I elevated his youngest son, Constans to the rank of Caesar during a ceremony in Constantinople. Despite his lofty status as a member of the imperial family and his eventual accession as emperor in his own right, we are somewhat in the dark about when Constans was born and therefore how old he was when he was elevated to Caesar.
When Constans was assassinated in 350, he was recorded as dying in his thirtieth year (Eutropius X.9; Zonaras XIII.6), although Aurelius Victor, Epit. 41.23 claims he was 27 at the time of his death, suggesting a birth in 323, therefore making Constans about ten when he was elevated. However, this possibility is also opposed by Panegyrici Latini X.36.1, which records Constans' existence during the year 321.
While still a minor, Constans was elevated at an older age than his brothers - Constantine II became Caesar when he was perhaps not even a year old, while Constantius II was elevated at the age of seven (their elder half-brother Crispus was at least ten upon his elevation in 317, but his birth year is nowhere recorded, other than knowing that his mother Minervina was no longer Constantine's concubine by 307).
Regardless which of these proposed dates of birth, they mean that Constans was of an age, as well as an imperial status, that he did not get wield actual power. That is not to say that his father Constantine I was not above giving his underage sons military positions, even if they would not yet be old enough to actually lead the armies or make any command decisions. Constantine II was commander of Gaul from the age of ten, where Constantius briefly replaced him in 331 at the age of 14.
However, it would seem that Constantine did not feel the need to post his youngest son to a frontier or region due to his age and his having enough other underlings to suffice - indeed by 335, Constantine already had four imperial/familial underlings commanding parts of his empire - Constantine II (Gaul), Constantius II (east), Dalmatius (Balkans) and Hannibalianus (Pontus).
That said, given that Constans was part of Constantine’s succession plan - he was to receive command of the provinces of the Middle Danube, Italy, Africa and Illyricum - in 337, it is possible that he was already established there before Constantine's death.
It has even been suggested that Constans’ elevation was planned to coincide with the millenial celebrations of the traditional birthday of Byzantion itself - derivations from Herodotus and Eusebius suggest that Byzantion was founded in 667BC, making AD333 the millennium year of the city. There may even have been precedent for any such coordination of an imperial elevation with a major city anniversary, with Philip I possibly elevating his young son, Philip II, from Caesar to Augustus around the time of Rome's 1,000-year celebrations in 248 (Ramskold (2018)).
This elevation was the first major imperial event to take place in the rededicated Constantinople, so it might be expected that Constantine pulled out all the stops for it. We might even suggest that any ceremony or procession that accompanied the elevation of Constans provided some precedents and outline for imperial coronations in Constantinople for the next 1,200 years.
Bibliography
Marcos, M. ‘Constantine, Dalmatius Caesar, and the Summer of A.D. 337’, Latomus 73 (2014) 748-774.
Ramskold, L. ‘The silver emissions of Constantine I from Constantinopolis, and the celebration of the millennium of Byzantion in 333/334 CE’, Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 68 (2018) 145-198.
Woudhuysen, G. ‘Uncovering Constans' Image’, in Ross A. J. and Burgersdijk D.W.P (eds.) Imagining Emperors in the Later Roman Empire. Leiden (2018) 158-182.
Roman Christmas Days VI: 25 December 336 - The Earliest Christmas Feast in Rome
Perhaps somewhat peculiarly, Christmas as the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ did not appear in the works of late 2nd century Christian writers such as Irenaeus and Tertullian. That is not to say that Christians of that period did not remember and celebrate the birth of Christ, only that “they did not agree upon a set date” (English (2016) 70-71). For example, parts of the Christian East were more likely to celebrate on 6 January, focusing on Christ’s baptism, rather than his birth.
However, 25 December had become clearly associated with Christ’s birth by the late 4th century, with prominent Church Fathers like John Chrysostom, Augustine of Hippo and Jerome recording it, so at some point in the intervening two centuries this celebration gravitated towards this specific date and was accepted by many Christians.
There were certainly other celebrations that could have influenced the ultimate choice of 25 December as Christ’s birthday – it was the traditional date the Romans associated with the winter solstice, the shortest day of the year, while since AD274, that date had hosted the birthday celebrations of Sol Invictus – the ‘Unconquered Sun’.
The generation after the deaths of Irenaeus and Tertullian in the first quarter of the third century saw at least two Christian scholars – Sextus Julius Africanus (c.160-240) and Hippolytus of Rome (c.170-235). The former suggested 25 December as the birthday of Jesus because it was 9 months after the conception date of 25 March that he worked out from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (Sextus Julius Africanus, De solstitia et aequinoctiaconceptionis et nativitatis Domini nostri Iesu Christi et Iohannis Baptistae).
Hippolytus is much more thorough in his dating…
“For the first advent of our Lord in the flesh, when he was born in Bethlehem, was December 25th, Wednesday, while Augustus was in his forty-second year, but from Adam, five thousand and five hundred years” (Hippolytus, Commentary on Daniel IV.23.3).
While we might take issue with these years – for example, Augustus’ 42nd year would equate to around 11BC, some 4 years before the earliest year given for Jesus’ birth, that Hippolytus was seemingly a student of Irenaeus could demonstrate that there was either development in the dating of Christmas during the first half of the third century, or that Irenaeus simply had not recorded any date for that celebration.
The fact that John Chrysostom, Homily on the Date of Christmas 1 indicates that the Roman west had ‘known’ about the birth date of Jesus “from the beginning” and had taught it to their eastern co-religionists presents a claim of their being a long tradition of 25 December being a celebration date incorporating Jesus of Nazareth.
However, the earliest official Roman recognition of 25 December as the celebration of Jesus’ birth does not come until the text of the Chronograph of 354, a calendar dating to its eponymous year and made for a wealthy Roman called Valentinus. Part 12 of this chronography – ‘Commemoration dates of the martyrs’ – begins with the line VIII kal. Ian. natus Christus in Betleem Iudeae, which means ‘eight days before the Kalends of January, the birth of Christ in Judaean Bethlehem’.
This would seem to place the earliest official recognition of the celebration of Christmas at Rome to 354; however, much has been made of the creation of the Chronography of 354, with the section on martyrial commemoration being thought to be written numerous years before the Chronography was completed, as early as AD336, marking this year, the penultimate of the reign of Constantine as the earliest recorded celebration of the feast of Christmas in Rome (Bradshaw in Larsen (2020) 7-10). Although that is not to say that it might have happened earlier, particularly with an increasingly Christian emperor having been in control of Rome itself since AD312.
Bibliography
Bradshaw, P. ‘The Dating of Christmas’, in Larsen, T. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Christmas. Oxford (2020) 3-14
English, A.C. Christmas: Theological Anticipations. Eugene (2016)
Huff, W. ‘Christmas isn’t Pagan’, https://ca.thegospelcoalition.org/article/christmas-isnt-pagan/
Roman Christmas Days VII: 25 December 350 - The Abdication of Vetranio
In AD350, the European provinces of the Roman Empire were awash with usurpers. Magnentius and Decentius ruled in the westernmost provinces having overthrown Constans; the city of Rome briefly recognised Nepotianus, a scion of the Constantinian family, while the Balkan provinces had declared the Illyrian magister peditum, Vetranio, as emperor.
While all three of these men were in opposition to one another, there was a legitimate Roman emperor still alive and ruling in the east, the last surviving son of Constantine the Great, Constantius II. And Constantius was not one to allow his father’s imperial legacy to be claimed by any old local commander or distant cousin.
So while Magnentius’ forced dealt decisively with Nepotianus and then squared up to those of Vetranio in the Julian Alps, Constantius was busy detaching himself from the eastern frontier where he had spent much of the previous decade or more confronting the Persian king, Shapur II.
There is much claimed about the usurpation of Vetranio – that it was a ‘normal’ usurpation, that Constantius’ sister, Constantina, was behind it all, or that it was even a loyalist plot to retain the Balkans for Constantius – for more depth, https://classicalassociationni.wordpress.com/2023/04/02/the-curious-case-of-vetranio-regional-usurpation-sisterly-power-grab-or-loyalist-plot/, but we are focusing specifically on the end of the Vetranio’s time as emperor.
In the last weeks of 350, Constantius II appeared in the Balkans at the head of an eastern army (Zonaras XIII.7), with Vetranio moving to intercept him. This would seem to have set the stage for a confrontation between emperor and usurper, possibly with Magnentius to later join the fray; however, instead of fight (and spawning much of the ammunition for seeing something peculiar about the whole usurpation), Constantius and Vetranio met in person at Serdica.
There, they came to an agreement, perhaps somewhat pre-planned but much more likely there-and-then, enforced by Constantius’ dynastic heritage, military reputation and sudden arrival in the Balkans.
This agreement was then announced to their assembled armies at Naissus on Christmas Day, 350: Vetranio was ‘willingly’ giving up the imperial title and command of the Illyrian field army. In return, Constantius would treat him as a retired father, rather than a vanquished foe, showing him respect and allowing Vetranio to live out the rest of his days (another 6 years as it turned out) in peaceful and well-off retirement in Prusa, Bithynia. (Jerome, Chron. 238; Chr. Min. I.238; Zosimus II.44.3-4; Philostorgius III.22).
Again, there is much that can be said about this whole scenario. Constantius and Vetranio had been in contact, through Constantina, long before the former appeared in the Balkans, which provides some fuel to idea that there were planned elements of this usurpation.
That said, this could easily have been just another opportunistic commander stepping into a power vacuum caused by events elsewhere (the murder of Constans and the pre-occupation of Constantius in this case), with the only difference to the story that had played out innumerable times over the previous century was that the alacrity of Constantius’ arrival ended the usurpation without a bloody fight, with possibly Vetranio’s own men putting pressure on him to not fight the last son of Constantine.
It is unlikely that Vetranio would have allowed Constantius to address his soldiers without an arrangement being come to beforehand, but we could entertain the idea that their agreement was something different that that which Constantius revealed to the assembled troops on Christmas Day.
In any such underestimating of Constantius’ cunning and rhetorical ability, Vetranio opened himself to what amounted to a very public defrocking, even if it was one that the emperor managed to frame as a willing relinquishing of power for the good of the empire. The major issue with such a scenario, and with many others that present Vetranio as a full-on enemy/duped foe of Constantius, is the deposed usurper being allowed a quiet retirement. If Constantius was in any doubt over Vetranio’s allegiance, his treatment of the deposed usurper would seem at odds with the lack of clemency he showed towards others he doubted, including members of his own family.
Whatever the circumstances of his usurpation, Vetranio had facilitated Constantius’ bloodless claiming of Illyricum in the face of Magnentius’ advance, which the emperor may well have thought worthy of respect and peaceful retirement. Ultimately, “the story behind Vetranio’s brief stint as emperor is somewhere in the middle of a stage-managed usurpation and out-and-out rebellion:” (Crawford (2016), 76) it began as the latter, with a slight hint of Constantinian influence, and essentially became the former due to Vetranio’s previous loyalty, Constantius’ pragmatism and rapid arrival in the Balkans.
Bibliography
Barnes, T.D. Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire. London (1993)
Crawford, P.T. Constantius II: Usurpers, Eunuchs and the Antichrist. Barnsley (2016)
Roman Christmas Days VIII: 25 December 496 - The Baptism of Clovis
A major event for the history of Western Europe took place on Christmas Day AD496, when Clovis, king of the Franks, was baptised as a Catholic by St Remigius at Reims. While our main source for the period, Gregory of Tours, presents surprisingly little about Clovis, either because he did not know much or was constrained by his own reductive, classicising literary style, he still manages to weave “disparate scraps into a moral tale presenting [Clovis] as a model ruler, [a second Constantine or even] a latter-day Old Testament figure walking righteously in the sight of God and smiting his enemies” (Halsall, (2007) 304).
But this conversion was not something that happened early in Clovis’ life, or even in his reign. Clovis was about 30 when he converted and had been king of the Salian Franks for about 15 years, having succeeded his father, Childeric, in around 481. Gregory himself gives no dates on Clovis’ reign except dating his death as ‘5 years after Vouille, 112 years after that of St Martin, and the 11th year of Licinius of Tours’ episcopate’ (Gregory of Tours, HF II.43), which seems rather thorough, but actually represents three separate years… 511, 508 and 518.
A central character in the conversion of Clovis was his wife, Clotild the Burgundian. As she was already a Christian, this shows that even when he was still a pagan, Clovis was not some rabid anti-Christian. She was keen for her husband to convert, something that he initially resisted, but not enough to reject Clotild’s wish for their first son, Ingomer, being baptised. However, when Ingomer then died in infancy, Clovis was reticent to allow their second son, Chlodomer, be baptised and grew angry when he fell ill after Clotild had him baptised. It was thought that only Clotild’s prayers saved Chlodomer, bolstering her calls for Clovis to convert.
She finally got her way in the aftermath of a Frankish victory over the Alamanni in c.495/496, which was reputedly only achieved after Clovis himself invoked Christ’s name, similar to Constantine at Milvian Bridge. The baptism of Clovis and up to 3,000 of his men was then undertaken by Remigius, bishop of Reims.
Gregory saw Clovis’ conversion as a central point of his Histories, possibly making some of Clovis’ less palatable crimes towards Christians all part of the story of his eventual conversion to Catholicism. And what were some of those less palatable crimes? Well, as a ruler, Clovis will have had to mete out capital punishment within his kingdom and perpetrate other acts considered sinful and morally wrong by Christianity. Furthermore, whilst still a pagan, Clovis’ armies plundered churches to inspire dread.
Another potential aspect of Clovis’ conversion in 496 is that it might not have been his first. The conversion he underwent in 496 was specifically to Catholicism, but there is a slight possibility that he had already accepted some form of Christianity before then. This suggestion comes from the fact that his sister, Lantechildis, was an Arian Christian, a denomination that had been prominent amongst many barbarian tribes since the second half of the fourth century and remained so even after Clovis’ demise amongst Goths, Vandals, Lombards, and Suebi. Clovis having dabbled in Arianism at some point before 496 is therefore not out of the question (cf. Avitus of Vienne, Ep. 46).
In the face of these Arian kingdoms bordering his expanding Frankish kingdom, the newly converted Clovis was able to present himself as a champion of the Catholic populations living under Arian control. Indeed, his decisive victory at Vouille in 507 ejected the Arian Visigoths from southern Gaul and was depicted as a great victory over heresy. The Catholic Clovis also expanded into Burgundy and subdued the Armonici of Brittany.
Perhaps most importantly in the political sphere, Clovis’ conversion to Catholicism made him and his people a much more viable ally for the Roman Empire and the Roman populations of Europe. The emperor Anastasius now saw Clovis as a partner against Gothic Italy, possibly even awarding Clovis an honorary consulship, whereas his becoming a Catholic removed an obstacle to integration between Franks and Gallo-Romans.
And while we might also ask if the opposite was true – did Clovis’ baptism undermine his rule amongst pagan Franks?, the increasing reliance on Gallo-Roman populations as officials helped see Roman law form the basis of Salian Law, a decision that combined with the expansion Clovis had been able to undertake (both as a pagan and a Christian) formed much of the outline of what would be modern France.
Bibliography
Halsall, G. Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West 376-568. Cambridge (2007)
Danuta, S. ‘Dating the baptism of Clovis: the bishop of Vienne vs the bishop of Tours’, Early Medieval Europe 7 (1998) 29-57
Wood, I.N. ‘Gregory of Tours and Clovis’, Revue Belge de Philologie et d'Histoire 63 (1985) 249-272
Roman Christmas Days IX: 25 December 597 - Augustine’s Mass Baptism
Part of the decline of Roman Britain in the late 4th and throughout the 5th centuries saw the undermining of the Christianity of the island in the form of pagan Germanic tribes, particularly the Angles and the Saxons. That is not to say that Christianity died out in Britain, with parts of the west and north retaining its faith, although that separation from the European mainland led to the British (and Irish) church developing slightly different practices from Rome, most famously over the calculation of the date of Easter.
But while for the most part, the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms of 6th century Britain were pagan, that does not mean that they were impenetrable to Christianity. This was shown in how the pagan king of Kent, Aethelberht, married Bertha, a Christian daughter of the Frankish king Charibert I. While there were undoubtedly political motivations behind this match, Aethelbert not only allowed Bertha to retain her faith, but to also bring her own bishop from Gaul, Liudhard, and restore a Roman Christian church in Canterbury.
This Christian foothold in Kent and Aethelberht’s status as bretwalda - overlord of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms - by the early 590s saw Kent become the target of a papal mission in 596 sent by Pope Gregory I. The man charged with undertaking the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons was the prior of the Abbey of St. Andrew in Rome, Augustine.
Augustine initially attempted to have the mission recalled due to the extent of the task, only to be rejected by Gregory, but by the time he arrived in Kent in 597, Augustine was surrounded by a group of 40 companions, including his eventual successor, Laurence of Canterbury, and had the support of the Franks, which Gregory organised to help ensure a friendly reception from the Kentish.
With the mission supported by his Frankish in-laws/allies, Aethelberht allowed Augustine to establish his base in the Kentish capital of Canterbury, which would eventually become Augustine’s episcopal see, i.e. he would be appointed the archbishop of Canterbury. The date is not certain, but Pope Gregory does refer to Augustine as a bishop in a letter dated to September 597, which could suggest that he was consecrated by a group of German/Frankish bishops.
Such a position likely increased Augustine’s ability to encourage conversion amongst the Kentish, with a large-scale event seemingly taking place on Christmas Day 597. In a letter written by Pope Gregory to Eulogius, bishop of Alexandria in mid-598, the former states that...
“for while the nation of the Angli, placed in a corner of the world, remained up to this time misbelieving in the worship of stocks and stones, I determined, through the aid of your prayers for me, to send to it, God granting it, a monk of my monastery for the purpose of preaching. And he, having with my leave been made bishop by the bishops of Germany, proceeded, with their aid also, to the end of the world to the aforesaid nation; and already letters have reached us telling us of his safety and his work; to the effect that he and those that have been sent with him are resplendent with such great miracles in the said nation that they seem to imitate the powers of the apostles in the signs which they display. Moreover, at the solemnity of the Lord’s Nativity which occurred in this first indiction, more than ten thousand Angli are reported to have been baptized by the same our brother and fellow bishop.”
Gregory the Great, Ep. VIII.30
This is usually taken to mean that Augustine oversaw the mass baptism of 10,000 Angli on Christmas Day 597. However, it could be that Gregory is saying that Augustine had overseen the conversion of 10,000 English between his initial arrival in Kent and Christmas 597, rather than a single one-off mass baptism.
Something else unclear from the initial steps of Augustine’s mission is when did Aethelberht himself convert. He was definitively Christian by 601 when Pope Gregory wrote to him as a Christian king (cf. Bede, HE I.32), but did it come before, during or after any Christmas mass baptism? The likelihood is that the Kentish king was either already Christian before Christmas 597 or that he did take part in the mass baptism. Surely, he would not have remained pagan after having allowed so many thousands of his subjects to convert.
It is possible that Augustine’s promotion to archbishop came in or before 601 when a further mission from Rome brought him a pallium, along with various other vessels, vestements, relics and books to firmly establish the metropolitan see at Canterbury. With that authority, Augustine was ordered to appoint 12 bishops in Britain, including one at York. Even with this Christmas Day mass baptism and the metropolitan elevation of Augustine, the Kentish conversion was by no means total; indeed, Aethelbertht’s son and successor, Eadbald, was still a pagan upon his accession in 616.
Bibliography
Higham, N.J. The Convert Kings: Power and Religious Affiliation in Early Anglo-Saxon England. Manchester (1997).
Macintosh, R. Augustine of Canterbury: Leadership, Mission and Legacy. Canterbury (2013).
Markus, R.A. ‘The Chronology of the Gregorian Mission to England: Bede’s Narrative and Gregory’s Correspondance’, JEH 14 (1963) 16-30
Wood, I. ‘The Mission of Augustine of Canterbury to the English’, Speculum 69 (1994) 1-17.
Roman Christmas Days X: 25 December 800 - The Imperial Elevation of Charlemagne
Upon becoming pope on 27 December 795, Leo III immediately sent word to the effective overlord of much of Italy, including the Papal States, the Frankish king, Charles the Great - Charlemagne. The new pope also sent the keys to the confession of St. Peter and the standard of Rome, in a demonstration that he recognised Charlemagne as the earthly protector of the Holy See.
Charlemagne responded with a letter of congratulations and a large portion of the treasure he had recently taken from the Avars, an open acceptance of not just Leo’s elevation but also of the pope’s recognition of Frankish overlordship.
This influx of cash and political support enabled Leo to show himself to be great church benefactor and charitable donator in Rome. However, the stature and urban popularity this garnered for him, along with Leo’s more humble origins, raised the ire of the Roman nobility.
On 25 April 799, armed men in the employ of relatives of the previous pope, Adrian I, attacked Leo during a procession to the Flaminian Gate. Their aim appears to have physically maimed Leo to the point that he would be disbarred from being pope with his eyes and tongue being targeted. He was only saved by the intervention of two envoys of Charlemagne and a force of their men. Leo then received shelter from Winiges, duke of Spoleto, before travelling to Charlemagne’s camp at Paderborn.
The Frankish king demanded the pope’s enemies, who were now accusing Leo of adultery and perjury, come before him. Nothing was solved, Charlemagne then had the pope escorted back to Rome, before joining him there in November 800. At a subsequent council, Leo swore an oath denying the charges brought against him, and his opponents were exiled.
Having prevailed against his enemies in Rome, Leo looked to tie himself and Charlemagne closer together politically and spiritually. An opportunity for that had appeared in 797, when Irene of Athens had succeeded her son Constantine VI on the throne of Constantinople. The pope refused to accept a female ruler and considered the imperial throne vacant. According to Leo, there was only one man capable of filling that vacancy...
And on Christmas Day 800, at Mass in St. Peter’s, Leo III proclaimed Charlemagne as the ‘Emperor of the Romans’ and then crowned him as such, and then also anointing Charlemagne’s son, Charles the Younger.
Charlemagne’s biographer, Einhard, claims that the Frankish king had no idea what Leo was about to do, and if he had, he would have rejected the proposed elevation. It seems unlikely that such a move had not been discussed, particularly as Charlemagne’s realm grew to encompass territories that had been Roman provinces and in the hands of non-Frankish peoples. Claims of Charlemagne’s possible rejection of such an elevation could be his own hindsight version of the refutatio imperii - a traditional show of reluctance that had been around in some form since the reign of Augustus over 800 years earlier.
The exact intentions of such an imperial coronation remain much disputed, but it seems unlikely that Leo would have elevated Charlemagne without his forewarned consent. It could be that this stage-managed coronation had been in the works since Leo and Charlemagne met in person at Paderborn in 799. Possibly even before. Indeed, in the years before 800, Charlemagne’s leading court scholar Alcuin of York had been referring to the Frankish realm in imperial terms. As well as the prestige of such a title, Charlemagne could have seen the assumption of imperial power as a way to further together his realm and then to further expand it.
Rather strangely though, Charlemagne never used the title ‘Emperor of the Romans’. That is not to say he did not incorporate this imperial aspect into his title - his official documents listed him as ‘Charles, the most serene Augustus, crowned by God, great peaceful emperor governing the Roman empire, and who is by the mercy of God king of the Franks and the Lombards’; however, Charlemagne may have been trying to limit the inevitable fall out with Constantinople by not making the specific claim to being ‘Roman emperor’.
Irene being on the imperial throne may have just been window dressing with Leo more keen to increase his own standing as an ally of a western emperor and even as a power broker, as well as tie said emperor closer to him in his feuds in Rome and with the likes of Benevento princes.
Unsurprisingly, this imperial ‘usurpation’ was not well received in Constantinople, but despite still having a presence in Italy, Irene could do little but proclaim her displeasure.
However, this was not the end of east/west matters regarding Charlemagne, Irene and Leo. In 802, “there also arrived the emissaries sent by [Charlemagne] and Pope Leo to the most pious Irene asking her to marry [Charlemagne] and so unite the eastern and western parts” (Theophanes, Chron. AM6294)
While Irene might have been inclined to accept, these potential imperial unification nuptials did not come to pass, possibly due to the very suggestion of unifying with the ‘barbarian’ west was enough to finally launch the plot to remove Irene from power.
However, given the military power Charlemagne had been able to project into the Balkans and how the Isaurian dynasty had rejuvenated the Roman Empire’s 8th century fortunes, it is an intriguing ‘what if’ regarding what an actually united Franco-Roman Empire could have achieved.
Bibliography
Collins, R. Charlemagne. Toronto (1998).
Costambeys, M., Innes, M. and MacLean, S. The Carolingian World. Cambridge (2011).
Mayr-Harting, H. ‘Charlemagne, the Saxons, and the Imperial Coronation of 800’, EHR 111 (1996) 1113-1133
McKitterick, R. Charlemagne: The Formation of a European Identity. Cambridge (2008).
Nelson, J.L. King and Emperor: A New Life of Charlemagne. Oakland (2019).
Sarti, L. ‘Frankish Romanness and Charlemagne’s Empire’, Speculum 91 (2016) 1040-1058
Sarti, L. Orbis Romanus: Byzantium and the Legacy of Rome in the Carolingian World. Oxford (2024).
Roman Christmas Days XI: 25 December 820 - A Yuletide Demise and Coronation
Despite a rather competent reign, securing peace with the Bulgars and proficient running of state affairs, Leo V had made himself unpopular in some circles (particularly with those who wrote history) by reinitiating iconoclasm in 815. On top of this undercurrent of opposition, Leo’s suspicions over the loyalty of one of his most prominent generals, Michael the Amorian sealed his grisly fate.
Having had Michael imprisoned on charges of conspiracy on Christmas Eve 820, Leo attended the matins service in the imperial palace chapel of St. Stephen. Suddenly, a band of assassins disguised as the choir revealed themselves and attacked the emperor. Leo was able to grab a large cross from the altar to defend himself, but his cries for help were for nought as the assassins had barred the chapel doors. A sword stroke cut off the emperor’s arm and as he fell in front of the communion table, he was hacked to pieces...
This violent removal of Leo V led to the only example of a sole Roman emperor to be elevated on Christmas Day, for the conspirators and assassins who had killed Leo quickly made for the prison where Michael the Amorian had been interned and proclaimed him emperor. As the gaoler did not have the key (it was reputedly on the hewn person of Leo) and a blacksmith was not immediately at hand, Michael II was proclaimed still wearing shackles on his legs.
In nearly 1,500 years of imperial Roman history, this was the only instance of a Christmas coronation. This seems surprising, particularly after the Christianisation of the empire and the imperial position itself. As God’s temporal representative, might we not expect more instances of imperial coronation on Christmas Day?
Is it just a quirk of chronological fate that only one Roman emperor needed to be crowned close to Christmas Day? Or did the Romans even actively avoid it? Christmas Day was not disqualified as an accession date throughout Christianity, with numerous kings and even a pope ascending their thrones on that date. It does not seem to have been an issue in the elevation of Michael II. But then the elevation of Michael II was not part of any conscious effort to have an elevation or coronation on Christmas Day itself. It was the result of the conspiracy that assassinated Leo V, who had imprisoned Michael and planned to execute him. The date was an interesting postscript.
Bibliography
Turner, D. ‘The Origins and Accession of Leo V (813–820),’ JOB 40 (1990) 171-204
Roman Christmas Days XII: 25 December 1250 and 1259 – Birth and Deposition of John IV Laskaris
By Christmas Day 1250, it had been over 45 years since the gutting of the Roman Empire with the fall of Constantinople to the Fourth Crusade in 1204. Those intervening years had seen much jostling for position between the various successor states – Nicaea, Thessalonica, Epirus Trebizond, and the Latin Empire centred on Constantinople.
However, through the involvement of Bulgars, Seljuks and even Mongols and the mistakes and achievements of various Greek emperors, by 1250, there was only really one successor state in the race for Constantinople – the Empire of Nicaea of Theodore II Laskaris.
And on said Christmas Day 1250, the Nicene emperor welcomed the continuation of his dynasty in the form of his only son, John. But while John would succeed his father as John IV, this came much earlier than was good for the Laskarid dynasty, with Theodore II falling ill and dying on 16 August 1258 when John was still only 7-years-old.
This required that the Empire of Nicaea entered a period of regency. Theodore’s choice of regent was George Mouzalon; however, he soon fell foul of a noble plot, which replaced him with its leader, Michael Palaeologus. A string of titles was granted to Michael in the following weeks – megas doux, despotes – before on 1 January 1259, he was proclaimed emperor, to rule alongside John IV. In reality, John’s continued minority made Michael VIII the senior partner.
The Nicene achievements in the aftermath of this becoming a ‘joint reign’ would seem to bear out that a good choice had been made. In late summer 1259, Michael’s brother, John Palaeologus, squared up to and defeated the forces of a dangerous alliance between Epirus, Achaea and Sicily at the Battle of Pelagonia. This victory left the Latin Empire at Nicaea’s mercy and after a couple of false starts in 1260, on 25 July 1261, another of Michael’s generals, Alexios Strategopoulos, captured Constantinople, reforming the Roman Empire.
Michael VIII took these victories as an opportunity to dispense with the masquerade. John IV had already been left behind in Nicaea, taking no part in the celebrations of the reclamation of Constantinople, but on Christmas Day 1261, John’s 11th birthday, Michael VIII had his ward and co-emperor deposed and blinded. John Laskaris was to spend the rest of his life as first a prisoner and then a monk, dying in 1305.
Michael VIII was to rule alone until his own death in 1282, founding what would be the longest ruling Roman imperial dynasty, the Palaeologans (1259-1460); however, his treatment of the legitimate emperor, John IV, was not completely forgotten – he would be briefly excommunicated by the Constantinopolitan patriarch, a revolt led by a Pseudo-John IV would emerge near Nicaea, Charles of Anjou would claim that John escaped his imprisonment and joined the Angevin court, while Michael’s son, Andronikos II, would visit John in 1290 to ask forgiveness for his father’s treatment of him.
Bibliography
Geanakoplos, D. J. Emperor Michael Palaeologus and the West, 1258–1282: A Study in Byzantine-Latin Relations. Cambridge (1959)
Geanakoplos, D. J. ‘Greco-Latin Relations on the Eve of the Byzantine Restoration: The Battle of Pelagonia – 1259’ DOP 7 (1953) 99-141
コメント