Why was Dio Cassius blameing the military for the problems of the 3rd century?
He was first of all a member of the Senate which, due to the emperors investment (paying great amount of money -> making army powerful) in the military and the fact that more and more emperors came from a military background, lost more and more power.
He was forced into retirement from his position as governor of Pannonia by the Praetorian Guard -> hostility thus understandable
Why is archaeological evidence for the 3rd century problematic?
- There are fewer finds of objects than for previous centuries.
- There is evidence for the contraction of many urban centres.
- There is evidence for only SOME parts of the empire where large-scale excavation took place.
- Decrease in the number of inscriptions found.
by the mid-third century different parts of the empire were on their own individual trajectories. Evidence?
The fragmentation of the empire into 3 different parts.
- Germania, Gaul and Britannia seperated themselves from the empire forming the ‘Gallic empire’.
- Syria, Palestine and Egypt broke away and formed the ‘Palmyrene empire’.
- This left the rest of the empire centered on Rome pretty diminished.
What caused the ‘3rd century crisis’?
- Long contact between Romans and people just beyond the frontier resulted in those people becoming better armed and increasingly familiar with Roman military tactics. They became to see the Roman empire as very wealthy and source of booty.
- The Roman army was unable to defend all the frontiers when they came under simultanous attack in different regions. -> when large numbers of soldiers were moved from the west to the east to fight the Persians, this left the west effectively undefended.
- The pressure on Romes frontier was the result of mass migrations by people much further to the north (Huns) which put pressure on those close to the frontier, pushing them into the empire.
Which parts of the empire particularly suffered from invasion?
Moesia Dacia Noricum, Raetia and Pannonia Gaul and Spain Taracco, Athens and Ephesus
What can petitions to emperors from provincial communities who suffered from the depredations of passing soldiers tell us about the ‘crisis’? About the army, the emperor and the provincials?
These can be used as evidence that there was a crisis in the 3rd century of which undisciplined soldiers who stole from provincial communities was a part.
But it can also be seen as evidence that the role of the emperor had not changed much. He was still seen as a person to whom the people could make a personal appeal and he considered and responded to their petition.
Also it could be seen as evidence that people still saw value in inscribing texts and displaying them publicly.
Why is the idea of a ‘crisis’ in the 3rd century open to different interpretations?
While the series of invasions across the northern and eastern frontiers of the empire would have been serious
for those affected, such as the people responsible for the Skaptopara inscription, many areas remained free from external incursions. As seen right at the start of this module, changing the parameters of how we examine a situation can produce very different interpretations of it.
Why can the large number of emperors during the 3rd century be seen as an indicator of ‘crisis’?
Most of these reigns were rather short lived. Thus this rapid turnover of emperors caused instability and could be seen as empire wide problem.
Short reigns creat a lack of continuity in imperial policy and force emperors to focus more on their own survival than on wider issues (-> contrast Augustus, longest reigning emperor)
How did the rapid change of emperors affect Roman citizens?
From the inscriptions and petitions to the emperor in the provinces we see that the emperor continued to be considered important. They were still emperors of the whole Roman empire and the ultimat source of power.
However, if members of a distant community wanted to appeal to the emperor they may have found that by the time their petition was delivered a different emperor was in office.
But this might have had little influence on the everyday life in the provinces. Some emperors gained and lost power befor the news could be communicated in every province of the empire.
Most important facts about the 3rd century emperors?
There were 29 emperors in the 70 years of the ‘crisis’
There were also 20 usurpers in the same period.
The breakdown of orderly succession is very marked, changeing leadership became the norm. Almost all emperors met a very violent end (killed by onw soldiers (Maximinus Trax), killed by the soldiers of a rival (Philip the Arab), killed in battle (Gordian), captured by enemies of Rome (Valerian) and killed by them.
Throughout the 3rd century Roman emperors were rarely seen in the capital. It has been calculated that they entered Rome in only 21 of the 50 years between 200 and 250 CE, and that these visits were often short.
What does the fate of Gordian, Valerian and Philip the Arab highlight about the 3rd century?
The army had become the making and breaking of Roman emperors. Emperors were reliant on their armies. Both Valerian and Philip were made emperors in the Provinces. Indicating that Rome and the senate were becoming increasingly unimportant politically.
Most important facts about the Sassanians?
They succeeded the Parthian empire in around 220 CE.
Their second kind was named Shapur I (the Great) and ruled for over 30 years. Years in which he saw a lot of Roman emperors come and go. -> This continuity of leadership was perhaps the reason why the Persians were so successful in this period
What was the main reason for the Sassanian’s miliatry success?
They had developed an army based on a heavily armoured and well-trained cavalry corps.
What does the relief at Bishapur show?
I shows Gordian III under the hooves of king Shapur I’s horse, certainly death, Philip the Arab begging the king od Perisa to allow him to stay Roman emperor and Valerian, captured by the Persians.
What message could we gain from the relief?
On the one hand this could be seen as in a way flattering for Roman reputation, as Shapur I uses this Roman reputation to elevate his own. He has killed one emperor, captured and killed an other and given his approval to the third.
But, on the other hand, these events were
unprecedented in Roman history and represented a serious humiliation for the Roman side. As such, they could be used as evidence that the political and military situation in the mid-third century was particularly grave.
The inscription of Shapur I says:
‘Gordian Caesar raised in all of the Roman Empire a force from the Goth and German realms’
What does that tell us?
- Romans have always relied on non-Roman auxiliary troops. So this could be seen as just the culmination of an existing process in which Rome had long taken adavnatge of the fighting skills of people whom they considered to be barbarians.
- Nevertheless, these people were of course all form inside the empire, although they did nont hold Roman citizenship. Recruiting people from outsied the empire could be seen as a decline in standards and thus part of a ‘crisis’
