A Military Life of Constantine the Great

By Ian Hughes

A new analysis of the strengths, organization, weapons, and tactics of the Roman army Constantine inherited and his military reforms.

Much of Constantine I’s claim to lasting fame rests upon his sponsorship of Christianity, and many works have been published assessing whether his apparent conversion was a real religious experience or a cynical political maneuver. However, his path to sole rule of the Roman Empire depended more upon the ruthless application of military might than upon his espousal of Christianity. He fought numerous campaigns, many against Roman rivals for Imperial power, most famously defeating Maxentius at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge. In this new study, Ian Hughes assesses whether Constantine would have deserved the title “the Great” for his military achievements alone, or whether the epithet depends upon the gratitude of Christian historians.

All of Constantine’s campaigns are narrated and his strategic and tactical decisions analyzed. The organization, strengths, and weaknesses of the Roman army he inherited are described and the effect of both his and his predecessors’ reforms discussed. The result is a fresh analysis of this pivotal figure in European history from a military perspective.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Open Road Integrated Media
• Release date: Jan 13, 2021
• ISBN: 9781526724243

Ian Hughes

Ian Hughes specializes in Late Roman history and is the author of Belisarius, the Last Roman General (2009); Stilicho, the Vandal who Saved Rome (2010); Aetius: Attila’s Nemesis (2012); Imperial Brothers: Valentinian, Valens and the Disaster at Adrianople (2013); Patricians and Emperors (2015); and Gaiseric, the Vandal Who Destroyed Rome (2017). A former teacher whose hobbies include football, wargaming, and restoring electric guitars, Ian lives near Barnsley in South Yorkshire.

Book preview

A Military Life of Constantine the Great

A Military Life of Constantine the Great

Ian Hughes

First published in Great Britain in 2020 by

Pen & Sword Military

An imprint of

Pen & Sword Books Ltd

Yorkshire – Philadelphia

Copyright © Ian Hughes 2020

ISBN 978 1 52672 423 6

eISBN 978 1 52672 424 3

Mobi ISBN 978 1 52672 425 0

The right of Ian Hughes to be identified as Author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the Publisher in writing.

Pen & Sword Books Limited incorporates the imprints of Atlas, Archaeology, Aviation, Discovery, Family History, Fiction, History, Maritime, Military, Military Classics, Politics, Select, Transport, True Crime, Air World, Frontline Publishing, Leo Cooper, Remember When, Seaforth Publishing, The Praetorian Press, Wharncliffe Local History, Wharncliffe Transport, Wharncliffe True Crime and White Owl.

For a complete list of Pen & Sword titles please contact

PEN & SWORD BOOKS LIMITED

47 Church Street, Barnsley, South Yorkshire, S70 2AS, England

E-mail: [e-mail]

Website: www.pen-and-sword.co.uk

Or

PEN AND SWORD BOOKS

1950 Lawrence Rd, Havertown, PA 19083, USA

E-mail: [e-mail]

Website: www.penandswordbooks.com

Contents

Introduction

Abbreviations

Chapter 1 Background

Chapter 2 Diocletian and His Reforms

Chapter 3 Constantius and Son

Chapter 4 The Rise of Constantine

Chapter 5 The Conquest of Northern Italy

Chapter 6 The Battle of the Milvian Bridge

Chapter 7 Constantine: Western Emperor

Chapter 8 The Bellum Cibalense

Chapter 9 Descent to War

Chapter 10 The Final Conflict

Chapter 11 The Reforms

Chapter 12 Crispus and Fausta

Chapter 13 Sole Emperor

Chapter 14 Constantine’s Later Campaigns ¹

Chapter 15 Aftermath and Conclusion

Constantine’s Campaigns (Born c.272)

Notes

Select Bibliography

Introduction

Given that there are many, many books, articles and websites covering many aspects of the life and times of Constantine I ‘The Great’, the ‘First Christian Emperor of the Roman Empire’, it is probably necessary to justify the production of yet another to add to the extensive list.

Without doubt, the majority of the works about Constantine concern his ‘conversion’ to Christianity and the impact this had, both on the Roman Empire and on the growing Christian religion. Specific aspects for extensive analysis include dissertations on his ‘vision’ prior to the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, the First Council of Arles in 314, his persecution of the Donatists in Africa and the First Council of Nicaea in ad 325. However, the greatest number cover the question of how, when or even, in a minority of cases, if Constantine actually converted to Christianity.

Of the remainder, the main thrust of the text is usually the timing and nature of the change from the earlier Principate, where the Roman Emperor was seen as the Princeps (‘First’ or ‘Leading Man’) and was theoretically seen as the ‘First Among Equals’, to the Dominate, where the Emperor was given the title Dominus (‘Lord’) and was undoubtedly seen as being above normal men. This change is usually attributed to the reign of Diocletian, with Constantine being the main beneficiary since he then conquered the whole Empire in the early fourth century.

All of these approaches assess individual aspects of Constantine’s life, generally without placing that life within its context. For, more than anything, Constantine was a man of his time and of his culture. The late-third and early-fourth centuries were a period of turmoil and change within the Empire. Unlike the early years of the Empire, emperors were no longer necessarily members of the political and educated elite. Instead, they were often ‘lower-class’ men promoted due to their military ability following a pathway through to membership of the higher echelons of the army.

Likewise, with relation to religion, the early Empire had an inclusive policy towards religion, with ‘foreign’ gods being identified as aspects of Graeco-Roman deities, and so their veneration was an accepted part of Roman culture, with the odd exclusion due to some forms of worship being thought unacceptable; for example, some of the more exotic rites of the East. However, the third century had seen the rise of new forms of religion, with Mithraism and Christianity, forms of monotheism, growing. It should be remembered, though, that at this time ‘Christianity’ was simply a label covering several disparate sects and communities who each believed slightly different variations of the religious texts which later became known, after much revision and editing, as ‘The Bible’. Possibly in response, but certainly concurrently, the old Graeco-Roman religion had been undergoing changes, with a growth in the concept that the Roman gods were all aspects of one single deity, commonly worshipped as ‘Sol Invictus’ (‘Unconquered Sun’).¹

Consequently, the early life and attested ‘conversion’ of Constantine must be placed within the context of his being elevated to the throne as a military commander, which remained one of the central pillars of his career, amid the religious turmoil and confusion caused by the rise of Christianity in its many forms. By studying Constantine solely within the framework of his religious policies and beliefs, it is possible that a significant aspect of his rise and rule is often overlooked.

The aim of this book is to assess Constantine’s rise and reign from a military viewpoint, and as such it will remain focused more upon Constantine’s military accomplishments than upon his religious policies or the change from the Principate to the Dominate. Although both of these topics will raise their heads in the current volume, the main thrust here will for the most part avoid these controversies, concentrating instead on the military and political aspects of Constantine’s rise to power, at least as far as the sources will allow. However, the changing nature of the role of the Emperor and the overtly political aspects of Constantine’s use of Christianity will need to be assessed.

Terminology

For a student of the Early Imperial Roman Army, with its main emphasis on legiones and auxilia, the terms used for the Later Roman Army can be confusing: even for those who are conversant with the names used, the interchangeable nature of the names in the ancient sources can cause uncertainty. Where necessary, these terms will be explained in the relevant portion of the text, but a brief recap will possibly be of some help to those unused to the army of the Late Empire.

The Early Imperial Army was principally composed of three main troop types: legiones, the legions of popular imagination, close-order troops who focused upon close combat; auxilia, the ‘helpers’, slightly less heavily-armed troops of non-Roman origin who could commit to a fight in close combat but who could have ‘specialist’ abilities such as archers and slingers; and alae, literally ‘wings’, allied cavalry who, as the name implies, usually fought on the ‘wings’/flanks of the infantry.

Over time these were augmented by a few other troop types, but in the main the Roman army continued to function in the same manner. The only major change was that it became more common for detachments to be withdrawn from frontier legiones, and these became known as vexillationes after the vexillum standard they bore bearing the insignia of the parent legion.

By the time of the Notitia Dignitatum, ‘List of Offices’, a document which outlines the expected administrative organization of the Later Empire, dated to around the beginning of the fifth century, things had changed. The legiones were still in existence, but their size and distribution around the Empire had changed. In addition, in part due to the reduction from c.5,500 men to c.1,000–1,200 men, the number of individual legiones had increased from c.30 to c.100.²

Similarly, although units of auxilia remained stationed along the frontier, these had been augmented by troops also designated auxilia who were not. This was because the old practice of deploying the army along the frontier had changed: although there were still troops to defend the frontier, the main strike force was now the comitatus/comitatenses, a ‘mobile field army’ which originally began serving under individual emperors. Consequently, the auxilia palatinae (‘of the palace’) and the auxilia comitatenses were now a cut above the old frontier-based auxilia.

In addition, there were now several other types of troops – for example cunei, riparenses and limitanei – whose specific function is sometimes unclear but who appear to have remained stationed along the frontier rather than serving in the ‘field army’.

Slightly more confusing is the creation of new units of cavalry designated vexillationes, no doubt also due to their use of the vexillum. It is sometimes difficult to differentiate in the sources between cavalry vexillationes and legionary-detachment vexillationes.

Even more confusingly, these changes are undated in the sources, so it is necessary to resort to speculation in order to arrive at a conclusion regarding the dating, attribution and function of these units. On the other hand, as they are sometimes attributed to Constantine it is necessary to analyze the sources in order to determine whether Constantine was responsible for their creation.

One of the major problems concerning the military changes taking place from the reign of Diocletian onwards is that the sources are so poor that any hypothesis must remain valid. Unfortunately, the consequence of this is that throughout the twentieth century ‘in this field, theory is all too easily certified as fact.’³ The main thrust of this text will be to outline the course of Constantine’s rise to power, reach conclusions concerning the nature and dating of the changes that took place within the Roman army during his lifetime, and also to determine how Constantine was able to win battles in which he is constantly attested as being heavily outnumbered. To complete this undertaking, the first task is to assess the value of the various sources that have survived to the present era. Please note that only the major sources are evaluated here: others will be assessed as part of the main text.

The Sources

The problems with the sources are many and varied. This ranges from their scarcity to their terminology. For example, one of the major sources for information on military matters is Ammianus Marcellinus. However, despite him being a soldier during the fourth century, the fact that he uses ‘different unit designations in an almost haphazard and indiscriminate way’ can result in modern historians becoming bewildered and confused, and having difficulty in reaching agreement concerning the terms he uses and their application.⁴ In reality, by this period of Roman history there is the problem that terminology is now very imprecise, possibly because the new terms for military units clash with the older terms upon which historians relied to demonstrate their knowledge and education.⁵ On the other hand, it should be remembered that the practice of using different terms with the same meaning, especially when it comes to military affairs, is also a modern trend, aimed at avoiding endless repetition and the loss of the audience.

Another example, although much later, is the Codex Theodosianus, which uses the word turma as the designation for ‘unit’, whereas in the earlier Empire a turma was a distinct subdivision of a cavalry unit.⁶ The difficulty lies both with the ancient sources, but also with modern (military) historians who expect the terms and linguistics in use in the first century CE to remain static and have the same meaning in the fourth century. Yet there are 300 years between the two and so it is unsurprising that over time meanings have changed.

Having discussed some of the problems associated with the sources, it is now possible to look at them in more detail. The sources fall into four broad categories: Ecclesiastical Histories (which include Hagiographies: Lives of the Saints, including the Vita Constantini of Eusebius), Secular Histories, Letters and Chronicles. In addition, there are the ‘panegyrics’ given to Constantine and his sons, the law codes of the Codex Theodosianus and the Codex Justinianus, and the Notitia Dignitatum (List of Imperial Offices). There are also several smaller works which sometimes give relevant information, for which see the ‘List of Abbreviations’ at the end of the Introduction. Unfortunately, their fragmentary nature and large number means that there are too many sources to analyze individually. Only a brief description of some of the major sources is given here.

Secular Histories

Ammianus Marcellinus is the most important writer from the fourth century. His Res Gestae covered the period from the accession of the Emperor Nerva in CE 96 to the death of the Emperor Valens in 378. Sadly a large amount of the work has been lost, with only the books covering between CE 353 and 378 remaining. Although Ammianus does not cover the reign of Constantine, his work is used by military historians in an attempt to assess the condition of the army in the mid-fourth century.

Jordanes (fl.550s) wrote two books. The Romana (On Rome) is a very brief epitome of events from the founding of Rome until 552. Due to the fact that it is extremely condensed, it can be useful but offers little that cannot be found elsewhere. Jordanes also wrote the Getica (Origins and Deeds of the Goths). This work is valuable in that it contains a lot of information that would otherwise be lost, but this mainly concerns the later period, when the Goths were settled within the Roman Empire. Unfortunately, due to its bias towards the Goths, even the small amount of material it contains with reference to Constantine must be used with caution.⁷

The Scriptores Historia Augusta (SHA) is the only source in Latin for the period known as the ‘Third Century Crisis’. Unfortunately, although in theory it contains the ‘biographies’ of many different rulers between CE 117 and 284, much of its content is believed to be pure fiction, although it should be noted that the existence of several usurpers included in the text and believed to have been imaginary have since been proved due to the finds of their coins. Probably written at the end of the fourth/ beginning of the fifth century, despite its unreliability it remains the sole source for much of the period prior to the accession of Diocletian in 284. Consequently, it can sometimes be used to provide additional information, but extreme caution needs to be used throughout.

Zonaras wrote his Epitome Historiarum (Extracts of History) in the twelfth century, using earlier works to compile events from the third and fourth century. The details found can be used to support or expand upon the life of Constantine, although it should be noted that their accuracy is disputed.

Zosimus (c.500) wrote the Historia Nova (New History) which covers the period from the mid-third century to 410. He appears to have used two main sources for his information. Eunapius was used for events to 404 and Olympiodorus was used for the years from c.407 to 410. Zosimus was a pagan, writing in Constantinople, who was determined to show that Christianity was the reason for the disasters suffered by the Empire. He closely follows Eunapius and Olympiodorus. He is not critical of his sources, so although his work is useful, it needs a great amount of caution when it is being used.

Ecclesiastical Histories and Associated Works

‘Hagiographies’

Although not ‘Hagiographies’ in the strictest sense of the word, there are two works that are best described in this way.

The Anonymus Valesianus, sometimes given the separate conventional title Origo Constantini Imperatoris (The Lineage of the Emperor Constantine) possibly dates from around 390 and purports to be an account of Constantine’s early life. Although useful in some places, its brevity and positive view on Constantine results in it needing to be used only when supported by other sources.

The most obvious ‘Hagiography’ is the Vita Constantini of Eusebius, which purports to be an accurate account of Constantine’s life from its earliest days. Sadly, as with most such works, the fact that it is aimed exclusively at promoting the sanctity of Constantine means that it omits information that is unpalatable to Eusebius’ view of his hero. Although it gives some useful information, its extreme bias means that it has to be used with great caution.

Ecclesiastical Histories

Eusebius also wrote an Ecclesiastical History. Covering the period of Imperial rule, this work is important in that it offers a detailed history of Christianity up to the time of Constantine, in many cases using sources otherwise lost. However, its focus on Christianity and Eusebius’ inherent bias means that although the work is of some value, caution is necessary.

Lactantius’ De Mortibus Persecutorum (Of the Manner in Which the Persecutors Died) is not strictly speaking an Ecclesiastical History, being rather a biased Christian attempt to explain the manner in which the emperors who persecuted Christianity met their end. Although extremely biased, the work can be used to supplement knowledge of events surrounding the lives and deaths of some of Constantine’s contemporaries: Diocletian, Maximian, Galerius and Daia.

Orosius wrote his Historiarum Adversum Paganos Libri VII (Seven Books of History Against the Pagans) at some point in the early fifth century. Although possibly one of the most unbiased Christian works, its brevity means that although it can be used for an overall picture, its lack of detail can be frustrating.

Philostorgius wrote his Church History in the early-mid fifth century. It is in reality a history of the Arian Controversy rather than being strictly a history of the church. Due to its focus the work is of limited utility, but can be used to fill in some details on Constantine’s secular activities.

Socrates Scholasticus (born c.380) wrote the Historia Ecclesiastica (Church History) which covers the years 305 to 439. It was written during the reign of Emperor Theodosius II (408–450). Written solely as a history of the church, it contains much information on secular events, but mainly only where they impinge on church history. However, these items are otherwise unrecorded so they can offer unique insights.

Sozomen, writing in the mid-fifth century, wrote two works on Ecclesiastical History of which only the second survives. Although heavily based on the work of Socrates, it contains information not included in the earlier work. The result is that it can be useful in filling in gaps in the record, but its focus on Ecclesiastical affairs means that it is of limited usefulness.

Theoderet (c.393–c.457) wrote many works on Christian doctrine, but more importantly also wrote an Historia Ecclesiastica (Church History) which begins in 325 and ends in 429. He used several sources, including, among others, Sozomen, Rufinus, Eusebius and Socrates. Possibly due to the mixed nature of his sources, the work is chronologically confused and must be used with caution.

Letters

Later writers, including the Emperor Julian and Sidonius Apollinaris wrote many letters which have survived. Although dealing mainly with later events, especially Apollinaris, they can sometimes include references back to Constantine’s times which can give either additional information or corroboration to the other sources. Due to their very nature, their utility is strictly limited.

Chronicles

⁸

The chronicle was the form of history which ‘so well suited the taste of the new Christian culture that it became the most popular historical genre of the Middle Ages.’⁹ The positive aspect of this popularity is that several chronicles have survived. The negative aspect is that they displaced conventional history as the means of transmitting information about the past and so no complete histories written during the fifth century survive.

There is a further feature that causes difficulty when analyzing the chronicles, especially the fragmentary ones. Several collections of these sources were made prior to the twentieth century. Each of these collections could give the sources different titles. For example, the works referenced as the Anonymus Cuspiniani in secondary sources from the early-twentieth century and before are now referred to as the Fasti Vindobonenses Priori, following Mommsen’s description in the Chronica Minora, Vol. 1 (see Bibliography). Therefore readers should be aware that references in this book are likely to differ from these earlier works.

The Chronicon Paschale (‘Easter Chronicle’, so-called because of the author’s use of Easter as the focus of his dating system) is an anonymous chronicle dating from the early-seventh century, compiled in Constantinople.¹⁰ Although it is a later document and some of the dates and ‘facts’ are wrong, the Chronicon Paschale is useful in confirming other sources and adding detail to events. However, it must be used with caution thanks to the temporal distance between its compilation and the early-mid fifth century.

(Saint) Jerome wrote a Chronicle (Temporum Liber: The Book of Times), in Constantinople at some time around CE 380. Although containing some dating errors, it is valuable for including information not available elsewhere.

John Malalas (fl. Sixth century) wrote a chronicle intended to be used by both churchmen and laymen. Unfortunately, the work covers ‘history’ from the biblical period to the reign of Justinian in one book, so much is glossed over or omitted. As a result, the work is useful in places, but this is rare.

Difficulties with the Chronicles

The modern concept of a Chronicle is that events are accurately dated and each single occurrence is allocated a separate entry in its relevant date. This preconception has badly affected perceptions of the Chronicles, leading to accusations of inaccuracy and a poor grasp of time.

In fact, some of these observations are unfair to the chroniclers. Even in the modern era, where access to periodicals, newspapers and the internet is common, one of the most common radio competitions is ‘Guess the Year’. It is clear that without modern methods of establishing specific dates such as newspaper archives, human error in reporting events is to be expected.

Furthermore, ancient chroniclers were not writing with modern expectations in mind. As long as events were in roughly the correct order, the chronicle would fulfil its purpose. Therefore it is a common occurrence for the chronicler to include later events at a convenient place earlier in his account.

A further problem with the chroniclers is that they use different methods for calculating dates, sometimes based around presumptions such as the calculation for the date of Christ’s Passion. Therefore for much of the time establishing a specific date for an event can be almost impossible.

Panegyrics

When reading panegyrics, one piece of advice is worth remembering: ‘Notoriously, however, the aim of the panegyrist is not to tell the truth, but to glorify his subject, exaggerating the good and suppressing or distorting the bad, the inappropriate, or the inconvenient.’¹¹ With this in mind, it is possible to look at the panegyrics to Constantine and his sons that have survived.

These have been translated and analyzed by Nixon and Rodgers, In Praise of Later Roman Emperors: The Panegyrici Latini (see Bibliography). They contain information mainly concerning the secular events of the ruler being praised and as such can be extremely useful. However, their function can never be forgotten and so their extreme bias must be remembered at all times.

Other Sources

Aurelius Victor in his De Caesaribus gives a brief account of some of the events in the lives of Constantine and his contemporaries. Sadly, the brief entries do not give much in the way of the detail needed when writing a ‘biography’ of any of these emperors.

The Notitia Dignitatum is an extremely important document. It purports to list the bureaucratic and military organization of both the Eastern and Western Empires. Thousands of offices are listed. Dated to c.420 for the West and c.395 for the East, it is potentially a mine of statistical and legal information. Unfortunately there are many problems. Probably originating with the Emperor Theodosius in the East, it may in theory have been intended as a full list of offices. The Eastern section of the Notitia appears to date from some time in the early 400s. As a result, it is usually believed that the surviving document is a copy preserved in the West of the Eastern Notitia dating from the reign of Arcadius (395–408). Unfortunately, it was not kept strictly up to date and there are many omissions and duplications. Moreover, due to the fragmentation of the Empire during and immediately after Stilicho’s death in 408 it is uncertain whether many of the army units listed existed in reality or only on paper. As a consequence, information taken from the Notitia should be accepted as possible rather than certain.

There appear to have been later attempts to update the Western portion of the document and evidence suggests that these were last compiled at some date in the 420s, possibly under the orders of Constantius III (magister militum in the West from 411 and Emperor from February to September 421).

Unfortunately, there are internal problems with the Notitia which suggest that it does not reflect reality. For example, although the provinces of Britain had drifted out of the imperial orbit in the early 410s, the leaders and troops associated with the island are still included in the Notitia. The same is true of the provinces of Belgica and Germania. The fact that these are ‘unquestionably anachronistic’ suggests that the document includes material reflecting what had once been available to the Empire rather than the current military status.¹² Yet the document may also have been a statement of intent. If it was compiled under the orders of Constantius III in 421, it may have been his intention as Emperor to restore the glory of the West and incorporate the lost provinces back into the Empire.

As well as being useful in outlining what the Roman bureaucracy believed should have been the case, it is also possible to analyze the document in the hope of gleaning material concerning the earlier condition and deployment of the army. Yet as there is almost a century between the death of Constantine and the compilation and updating of the Notitia, it needs to be used with caution.

The Codex Theodosianus and the Codex Justiniani are collections made during the reigns of Theodosius II and Justinian I respectively of all of the laws issued since the reign of Constantine I (306–337). Added to this body of laws were new laws (novellae) passed by Theodosius II (Nov. Th.) and Valentinian (Nov. Val.) after 439. These were also collected and kept with the Codex, and now form part of the main text.

The ‘Codes’ are a valuable source of material for Constantine’s reign, although they do have their problems. In some cases it is possible to analyze the laws to establish their context and so determine the reasons for their passing. Furthermore, the laws are usually accompanied by the names of the emperor(s) that passed them, in most cases by the precise date on which they were passed and sometimes by the name of the city in which the emperor allegedly passed the law. This allows us to trace some of the movements of Constantine and his contemporaries, and may also enable us to link specific laws with specific events. Therefore, a close analysis of the Codices can open a window into aspects of Constantine’s life and policies that would otherwise be blank.

It is also interesting to note that one of the laws dismisses laws that were destined to be ‘valid for the cases of their own time only’.¹³ This highlights the fact that, like modern law, some laws passed by emperors were meant to deal with specific emergencies and events. After these had passed, the laws were naturally allowed to lapse. Modern examples include the laws passed to deal with the ‘emergency’ that was the Second World War. Once this war was over, these laws were repealed and ‘normality’ resumed.

In addition, when an emperor came to power in a civil war it was usual to cancel all of the laws enacted by his rival. Due to the manner of their compilation, in the case of Constantine the result is that almost all of the policies and legal enactments of all of his predecessors and opponents have been lost, surviving only on rescripts and tablets found in the provinces.

Vegetius wrote the Epitoma rei militaris (Epitome of Military Science) in the late-fourth century. Although in no way meant as a history, it includes some information concerning the Late Roman Army that would otherwise be lost. On the other hand, the work appears to be confused, being written on military matters by an individual with no apparent experience. Consequently it is of limited value, even when analyzing the army of the late-fourth century.

Conclusion

The information that is available in the sources should not detract us from the knowledge that they were all written with a purpose. Even when this bias is openly declared it can easily be overlooked or forgotten. If this is the case with the major sources as listed above, it is even more the case with the multitude of minor sources not listed. The less important sources that are used are of varying accuracy and utility and where necessary an analysis of these will be dealt with in the body of the text. However, if the source only gives us one or two snippets of information then it is possible that the source will not be analyzed.

One problem with all of the sources needs to be highlighted. This is where the sources inform the reader of political intrigue. The difficulty lies with the fact that the sources claim to know details of the kind which are always most suspicious: ‘tales of secret intrigues and treasons which could not be known to the world at large.’¹⁴ Whenever this kind of information is encountered, a full analysis will be attempted to decide whether there is the possibility of the author knowing the full details of events.

Spelling and Terminology

Wherever possible the simplest definitions and spellings have been used throughout the book. There are many examples in the ancient sources of variations in the spelling of individuals’ names, such as Gaiseric being spelt ‘Zinzirich’.¹⁵ Also, in most modern works Roman spellings are usually ‘modernized’ by removing the common ‘us’ endings and substituting a modern variant; for example, ‘Bonifatius’ becoming ‘Boniface’. Wherever possible the most widely-used variant has been employed in the hope of avoiding confusion.

When describing both the tribes along the Rhine and those who successfully invaded the Empire, at times the phrase ‘barbarian’ rather than ‘German’ has been used. Although the word ‘barbarian’ is now out of fashion, largely due to its negative aspects regarding comparative civilization levels with the Romans, it has been used as it is an otherwise neutral term, whereas the use of the word ‘German’ often implies ‘community and ethnicity on the basis of shared language’, which is actually misleading.¹⁶

In most cases the term ‘Goth/s’ has been used rather than ‘Visigoth/s’. Contemporary sources describe both the Visigoths and the Ostrogoths simply as ‘Goths’.¹⁷ During Aetius’ lifetime there was only one ‘Gothic’ threat, and that was the Goths in the West. The ‘Ostrogoths’ were peripheral, living in the faraway regions of Eastern Europe. It was only after their invasion of Italy under Theoderic in 493 that the West was forced to divide the terminology. Only where there may be confusion between the two ‘tribes’ will the terms ‘Visigoth’ and ‘Ostrogoth’ be used.

Abbreviations

In order to make the references more manageable, the following abbreviations have been used for ancient sources: