Gothic Wars in the Balkans, 3rd – 4th Centuries

Kalin Stoev

		Institute for Balkan Studies & Center of Thrakology Bulgarian Academy of Sciences	DOI
		University of Library Studies and Information Technologies, Bulgaria,  Fuculty of Library Studies and Cultural Heritage	20 June 2020
		Този имейл адрес е защитен от спам ботове. Трябва да имате пусната JavaScript поддръжка, за да го видите.	core article

 

Abstact: The origins of the tribe and the time of its migration to the lands of Maeotis and their historical places are above our knowledge. The present-day scholarship places the early history of the Goths along with the history of the tribe of Gutoni. From later times their identification with the Scythians is popular. Some places in the historical traditions show that by "Scythians" have been thought also the tribe of "free Dacians". Their first invasion against the Romans is attested (Dexippus) in the year 238, when they plundered the town Histria in the province of Moesia. Apparently, the Goths were growing stronger and sought to obtain a more important place in the anti-Roman raids, since the notion of Patricius that Carpi complained that they had not receive as much donatives as the Goths, despite of the fact that they are stronger than them. It is plausible that in this time it was important for the Romans to have a watchdog at the Russians step, whose task was to prevent further barbarian migrations towards the Danube area. The greatest invasions of Goths in the Third Century happened in 249–251 and 267–269.  were discussed with a thorough analysis of the events and their significance for the early Gothic history and the history of the Roman Provinces in the fore math of the Late Antiquity. The re-reading of the sources and epigraphically data leads to conclusion for the localization of the battle by Naissus as probably accurate.

Key words: Goth, Barbarian Raids, Roman Provinces, Crisis of the 3^rd Century

 

The diplomatic relations of the Roman Empire with the barbarian North were rather obscured. After the end of the roman imperial expansion in 9 AD in Teutoburg forest, the aim of the most of the Roman rulers was to exercise their political superiority through a complicated system of patronage relations and client kingdoms. It seems that the Roman-Germanic relations were more or less similar to the relations with other client states, such as Armenia, which was unable to accept an appointed king prior to the approval by the Romans. We could conclude that this kind of relations proved to be beneficial for both sides, since the Romans could enjoy a relative peace on the northern boarders by being defended by some tribes against the others and the northern tribes could gain access to the roman markets on the great rivers – Danube and Rhine. Giving donatives and gifts to the ruling class in these tribes were also an important part of the diplomatic process.

In times of invasions and turbulence, however, this state of affairs was shattered. The Historia Augusta mentions turbulences among the German tribe of Quadi, who, instigated by the anti-roman party, tried to invade the roman boarders and presumably to settle in the province of Pannonia (HA, Vita Marci, XVII, 2).[1] The mutineers were soon sentenced to death and the previous peace conditions were restored. Nevertheless, the death of the praetorian prefect gave the emperor Marcus Aurelius the right to launch a preemptive war against the Marcommanic tribes, which was soon to turn in the longest war in the history of the Roman Empire.

           

            Gothic prehistory. The Gutons.

We can only risk an assumption that initially the relations between Rome and the Goths were similar. The origins of the tribe and the time of its migration to the lands of Maeotis and their historical places are above our knowledge. At present, the following version of early Gothic history, before the identification with Scythians, is accepted.

The present-day scholarship places the early history of the Goths with the tribe of Gutoni. So, the first mentions of the Goths are considered to be the places in Pliny the Elder (with source Pyteas from Messalia: Plin. Hist. Nat. 37, 35; 4, 99 – Gutoni); Tac., Germ, 44, Gotones, who already places the Goths in Bohemia. According to Tac. Ann. II, in the time of Tiberius the young Prince Catualda, fled from Morobod and sought asylum from the Gutons, who eventually helped him to drive Morobod away from its kingdom.  Further mentions of Gutons are found in Strb., VII, 290, and in geographical description of Claudius Ptolemaeus, where the name of the Early Goths aspirated and the tribe was mentioned as Guthones. 

Led by the mythological figure of Berig, the Goths migrated from “Skandza” to the southern shores of the Baltic[2]. If we keep in mind that the migration happened in the fifth generation of Gothic kings, accoding to Jordanes (Jord. Get., 121), that happened between 50–70 AD and around 118 the Gutons.  In 150, the geographer Ptolemaeus was the last ancient author to mention the Gutons, and in 242, Goths (Gouthoi) appeared in the inscription of Shapur (Γούθθων τε καὶ Γερμανῶν ἐθνῶν: SEG 20: 324). At the same time, however, Ptolemy knew Gouthes in Scandinavia.

According to R. Hahmann, the Goths have always lived on the continent and the migration from Scandinavia as a whole is a common Germanic folklore.[3] We will not consider this question, but we will assume that by Trajan's time the Goths certainly dwelled on the banks of river Vistula. Moreover, the vision for a Gothic migration contradicts the sources, which from the time of Strabo and Pliny speak of Gutons in Europe from the time of the Early Principate. This could be explained solely by the assumption that Jordanes' version of Skandza is imposed later. The Quellenforschung would certainly reveal Skandza as a common topos for the German peoples: The famous historian of the Langobards, Secundus Tridentine also uses it for a mythological Uhrheimat origin (Skadanan), the same applies for the written history of the Burgundians. The history of Paul the Deacon (historia gentis Langobardorum, based on the saga origo gentis langobardorum) is practically superimposed on that of Jordanes - they migrate again from Skandan, then fight the vandals. It is a direct copy of the Jordanian tradition.

A two assumptions arise in connection with the Gothic history during the Marcomannic wars. According to one of them, the Gothic migration led to turmoil in the Germanic North, which caused some changes in the ethnical picture of Transdunavia and forced other Germanic nation to settle near or even within the Roman limes. According to Cassius Dio (72, 12, 1), the Vandal tribe of Astings, led by their chiefs Raus and Raptus, asked permission from the Dacian provincial governor Cornelius Clemens to settle in Roman territory. What they get is permission to attack the lands of the Kostoboks and after a decisive victory against them they settle there. Clemens hoped that this barbaric infighting would ease the pressure on the Roman borders by the two tribes, but the Astings continued to torment Dacian territory. Victory against the Kostoboks, however, gave them a notoriety of conquerors and the Lakringi, in fear that they would be again incited by Clemens against them, attacked and defeated them. Eventually, the Astings calmed down and the emperor (Marcus Aurelius) allowed them to settle on Roman soil as federates. We can also consider another hypothesis that deserves attention: that initially the Goths are a part of a broader Germanic coalition, led by the Vandalic tribes - we have already seen in the History of Paul the Dean that the Vandals have an important role in the Ethnogenesis of the Germanic people and in this period settled in the close proximity of the Danube province, probably in the former land of the Bastarnae. There is an assumption that some Goths participate as Roman allies (or mercenaries) in Caracalla’s expedition force against Parthia in 217 (Dio 78, 5.4., 6.1.10 – Scythans).   

This explanation could be the reason why the later sources (Jordanes and Historia Augusta) ascribe a Gothic origin to the Roman Emperor Maximinus the Thracian. The claims for his Gothic descent were probably an eco from the times at the time of compiling the main sources for him (and the sources for HA and Jordanes), when the Goths already often crossed the Danube, in the 3rd century, and gained popularity after their initial successes in Dacia. The father of Maximinus is said to be a Goth (in HA his father was a Gothia, and in Jordan – a patre Gotho). This still shows the restlessness of the Goths and the menace they presented for the Danubian land from 3^rd century onward. This also shows a considerable “Gothicization” of Dacia (according to Jordanes and Orosius - Dacia became Gothia) and the northern Balkan Moldovan landscapes. However, our earliest source, Herodian does not mention the Goths, but his expression in "the deepest, most distant Thrace" and the fact that he is a mixobarbarian shows that it’s birthplace really the ripa Thraciae which is mentioned in the latter source as ripa Gothiae. A further evindece for Goths, serving in the Roman army early in 3^rd century, speak strongly for an involvement of Goths in the Roman affairs in that time

If we, however, follow the traditional narrative of Jordanes’, we can presume that the Goths were initially followed Vandals example to come in terms with Romans, to settle along the lake Maeotis (Sea of Azov), after the conquest of some Scythian and Sarmatian tribes (Spali, the story in Jordanes).

Beginning of the invasions in Moesia

 The sources suggest that at this time the Goths were rather unimportant tribe, fighting for its place under the sun with the stronger barbarian coalitions as the Carpi. Their first invasion against the Romans is attested (Dexippus) in the year 238, when they plundered the town Histria in the province of Moesia. According to Dexippus, this attack marked the beginning of the Scythian, i.e. the Gothic wars.

The reason for Dexippus and subsequent sources to place Histria at the beginning of the "Scythian" wars can be revealed from the text of Historia Augusta, which says that: Sub his pugnatum est a Carpis contra Moesos. Fuit et Scythici belli principium, fuit et Histriae excidium eo tempore, ut autem dexippus dicit, Histricae civitatis (HA, Max. Et Balb., XVI, 2). A litteral copying of an ancient tradition is to be precluded - Scythians and Carps in HA are surely a calque from Dexippus. Dexippus is not entirely consistent when he always says Scythians instead of Goths - in his surviving fragments of the war of 267, he distinguishes between Heruli, Scythians and Goths - just as the HA version repeats (Eluroi, Skythikon ethnos; in HA,besides this, the Scythians were however everywhere equalled to Goths).[4]

This leads us to believe that at the time of the attack on Histria, the Gutons were part of a new coalition, led by the Carps, which were generally perceived as Scythians. HA's version is that the coalition is dominated by the Carps (Zosimus also knows of an attack on the Carps only), Dexippus's version - that these are general Scythian wars. As banal as it is, it should be reminded - Scythians do not mention ethnic characteristics, but are a predicate to the name of peoples living on the border of the empire.
We are used to automatically assuming that Scythians, in the tradition of Dexippus, automatically means Goths. In fact, it is more correct to say that there is a confederation of tribes on the borders of the Roman world, which at that time included also the Goths. The Scythian-Gothic identification is an invention of Dexippus and it does not seem to have taken place in the 3rd century in other authors, such as Cassius Dio or Herodian. Some places in the former show that by "Scythians" can be also meant a tribe of "free Dacians" and point to such a conclusion. Actually, the name “Free Dacians” is a modern term, borrowed from Cassius Dio, “Dakoi prosoroi”, and most probably is used by the author to denote the whole population on the borders of Dacia, or in the former Trajan's Dacia, of Dacian or other origin (Dacian tribes Carpi, Costoboci, German Bastarni).

The Dacians (or their coalitions) were undoubtedly among the main opponents for the Romans of the North in the north - according to Cassius Dio, while Septimius Severus was preparing its march against Pescennius Niger, the "Scythians" had planned something against the empire, but lightning killed three of their chiefs and thwarted their plans. In this case, it is not only possible, but also obligatory to draw a parallel with Suetonius' account about the three fallen Dacian leaders from the time of Augustus. For this information, Dio probably drew from a local tradition.

Apparently, the Goths were growing stronger and sought to obtain a more important place in the anti-Roman raids, since the notion of Patricius claims that Carpi complained that they had not receive as much donatives as the Goths, despite of the fact that they are stronger than them. It is plausible that in this time it was important for the Roman to have a watchdog at the Russians step, whose task was to prevent further barbarian migrations towards the Danube area.

Thus the decisive event that the sources tell us in 238 is the existence of certain contradictions between the Goths and the Carps, as the eloquence of Peter Patricius from De legationibus shows, especially eloquently, where the Carps directly say that they stand above the Goths and express their astonishment that the emperor paid a tax to them.[5] 238 is interesting for other reasons as well. This is The year of the six emperors and the last of the reign of Maximinus the Thracian, who fought one of the last wars, after which the victory name Dacicus was officially given, ie. as an integral part of the emperor's nomenclature. According to the sources, however, Maximinus did not fight against the Dacians, but led two campaigns - one against the Sarmatians in the "ethnic cauldron" near Pannonia, and another, only prepared, against an unnamed enemy all the way to the ocean. A. Alföldi suggested that this enemy must have already been the Goths, who are clearly enjoyed an increasing power in the Dacian space.[6] This would give us further proof that Dacicus can be given to a common adversary, of which the Goths are a part. Whether this is the case or not, after Maximinus' reign, the title Carpicus appeared, and in the sources, as we see from Peter Patricius, the Goths finaly appeared. From Maximinus’ time onwards Dacicus will now be known only for its highly propagandistic functions - in the titulature of Gallienus and Aurelian, who are the Emperors that actually abandoned the Province Dacia. This, in my opinion, is indicative of the fact that both peoples, Carps and Goths, had probably already emancipated from the domination of the "Dacians," called as we saw in the sources and the archaic "Getae". From now on, so to speak, the Goths enter their historical period and, we dare to say, are about to find a certain historical identity – the identification with Getae. This identity will play an important in their political propaganda from this time on. In fact, it was the existence of Dacia as the last bastion of the Roman state that supported the definition of various tribes living on its borders as Dacians, and with its disappearance, they more or less acquired for the Romans more specific ethnic specifics.

The Carpi, however, possibly a newly created and very strong coalition of free Dacians and Sarmatians, were eager to show their power anew. A Carpic attack against Dacia proved to be disastrous for the province. In 246, the Carpic hordes ravaged Dacia and reached Moesia (some scholars claim that the Goths also took part in this invasion). Their attack possibly tried to reach the heart of the Dacian province, Transilvania, where the gold mining districts were situated. The rash intervention of the Roman Emperor Philip prevented the penetration deep into the province; however several roman towns, as Romula on the Olt were destroyed. Later Philipp, concerned more for his safety than for the security of the boarders, dispatched the Dacian legion XIII Gemina in Aquileia, “the Gate to Italia” that proved to be fatal for the defense of Dacia.[7]

A mutiny against Philip the Arabian, born in the place Shahba in the province of Arabia, was soon to rise among the Danubian legions. Philip had usurped the throne by using his position as praefectus praetorio for making a plot against the emperor Gordian III during the latter’s Persian expedition After the emperor’s death, Philipp had been recognized by the Senate and rushed to negotiate a disgraceful peace with Persian King Sabur – a good example his future foreign politics, since Philipp preferred rather to pay for peace, instead of achieving it with sword. The Gordian’s successful campaign ended with a peace with Shabur, according to which the Romans were obliged to pay a contribution of 500 000 Denaria and to pay an annual phoros.

Concerned more in strengthening his positions in the Senate and the City of Rome, Philipp was far from the picture of “military emperor”, which the legions of the boarder liked and preferred. The protectionism within the emperor’s inner circle was an important mark of this reign. Philipp’s brother, C. Iulius Priscus was given the unusual title “rector Orientis” (CIL III 14149). Some appointments of people from the east in the armies on the Danube border could also have triggered the soldier’s discontent. Philipp’s financial measures also provoked anger, especially in Syria. The result was a row of mutinies throughout the Empire. Especially sensitive was the Danube border, where the soldiers of Upper Moesia proclaimed a commander known as Pacatianus for Emperor. The problem for the soldiers on the Danube there seemed to be evident: the legions didn’t acquire the expected after the victory against Carpi; we have grounds to conclude that the Carpic issue was settled by promising them the donatives that earlier were given to the Goths. It is to presume that a settlement of some Carpic or Dacian tribes on Moesian soil as foederati, which meant the reduction of legionary and arable land, were among the factors for soldiers’ discontent.   

Seeing himself in trouble and incapable of dealing with the situation alone, Philipp sought help by the Senate. The nobility were behind him against the soldier’s discontent. Especially devoted to Philipp’s cause seemed a nobleman called C. Messius Q. Decius Valerianus, who gained considerable experience in dealing with Danubian provinces and was entrusted with the mission to negotiate with the soldiers in Moesia and Pannonia.

Meanwhile, the pretender Pacatianus was executed by his own soldiers. Despite of this, the legions were still restless. No money and no land was received after the Carpic war and therefore stayed aside, when the Gothic king Ostrogotha crossed the Danube in punitive expedition, caused by the refused tribute. When Decius arrived at Lower Danube, which was the target of the Gothic invasion, he was unable or unwilling to cope with the Gothic incursion. Instead, he tried to restore the fides in the army of Lower Moesia by dismissing some rebel soldiers and set out for Rome to report to Philip that the situation on the boarder was under control. This was an uttermost false statement, for the soldiers of the lower Moesian legions, angry of Decius’ measures, deserted massively to the side of Ostrogotha. The Lower Moesian limes was left undefended, which encouraged the Goths to gather a large coalition of tribes, which included the Taifali, Astringi, Peucini, and 3000 Carpi, and to try to achieve a more considerable success by taking a Roman city.[8] As leaders of the newly created coalition were chosen the Gothic nobleman Argaithus and Guntericus – both were probably favorites of Ostrogotha. The barbarian army laid siege on one of the largest cities in Lower Moesia – Marcianopolis. Abandoned from the Moesian troops, the city was left only to its own defenders. Although we have a relative good report about this siege (Dexippus of Athens), our sources present two different versions about how it eventually ended. According to Jordanes, the citizens of Marcianopolis payed a ransom in order that the Goths to abandon the siege, while Dexippus affirms that the citizen’s militias expelled the invaders. If we follow the same author, some problems with the Gepidi caused a withdrawal of the Goths to Dacia. The passage, however, could be anachronistically attached in order to elucidate some aspects of the Gothic-Gepidian relations, or to praise a later victories of Ostrogotha; thus we don’t have serious ground to presume that the Goths have broken their invasion in Moesia. More plausible explanation is that from the very beginning the Gothic army was divided in two: one, led by Ostrogotha agents Argaithus and Gunterichus that remained by Marcianopolis, and one, led by the famous Cniva, which at that time was probably a Gothic military leader (reiks).[9]

The most ambitious plan of the Goths was Cniva’s. While part of the Gothic troops were given the task to take Marcianopolis, and some others plundered a part of Lower Moesia, probably Scythia Minor, abandoned by the roman commanders (it was not mentioned if these were part of the second Gothic army), the core of the Gothic troops were divided in two parts, Cniva aimed at the Moesian fortress of Novae and the financial centre of the province – Oescus, which means that this time the plundering and looting were not the only goal of the Goths.[10] They probably sought to achieve a more considerable success by capturing and annihilating the most important Roman City on the Danube – Oescus and the main stronghold of Lower Moesia – the camp of the I Italian legion by Novae. The information of Jordanes gives us further the ground to presume that the soldiers and officers of the other main force of the province – legio XI Claudia in Durostorum was in disarray and unable to fight with the Goths. The land of Scythia Minor was therefore plundered, as also the numismatic evidence suggests.

By receiving the news, the Emperor Decius rushed to the Balkans. The consequent events showed Decius’ intention to defend the major cities that the Goths turned their attention to. Being probably superior in numbers, the invaders were able to divide their army in more subunits and to threaten several important cities at once. With Decius arriving with soldiers, gathered from the German and Upper Moesian legions, Cniva escaped the danger of being stuck between the forces of the coming Decius and the Lower Moesian governor Trebonianus Gallus, who defended Oescus, and hastened to Nicopolis ad Istrum, in the inland of the province. By this town, the Gothic warlord once again refused to give Decius a decisive battle and headed off to Philippopolis, one of largest cities in the province of Thrace that probably maintained its loyalty to Philipp.

At this time and presumably facing the growing discontent in the army, the most important for the new Emperor Traianus Decius was seemingly to defense his “own city” (ipsius urbis ferre subsidium in Jord. Get. 101), namely the Beroa (Augusta Traiana), which means that he either wanted to prevent the sack of town that bore its name by the Goths, or to block the road of the Goths to Philippopolis. The Gothic hordes of Cniva tried to cross the mountain range of Haemus by Nicopolis ad Istrum, and probably at first tried to capture Augusta Traiana. Here Cniva probably expected help by Ostrogotha and his vice-commanders, but they apparently decided to prolong for a bit too long, which was eventually mocked by Cniva’s soldiers,[11] so Cniva had to turn his attention back to Philippopolis.[12] Meanwhile, the Goths laid hands on Philipoppolis, who were sympathized the former emperor Philipp and thus full of anti-Decian sentiments. After a long battle, the commandant of Philipoppolis Priscus gave the town, and it was sacked.[13]    

The battle of Beroa was also a failure for the Romans. Decius’ army was nearly destroyed and he retreated with the survived soldiers to northwards, in order take advantage of Gallus’ fresh troops, presumably led by legio I Italica. If we combine the evidence of Jordanes and Zosimus (I, 17, 23), we could presume that Gallus was consequently was sent with part of the troops in the region of the Scythian limes (Danubian, although Zosimus erroneously mentions that he went as far as Tanais – the river Don), while Decius had time to strengthen his influence over Moesian army to overtake the supreme command of the Lower Moesian army.

Loaded with booty and captives of war, the Goths, probably spending the winter in Philippopolis, went on their way back. Traianus Decius, willing to give battle on the Moesian plain, made a crucial mistake by letting the army of Cniva (and probably also Ostrogotha), overloaded with booty and captives to cross Haemus. The huge masses of Goths marched through eastern Lower Moesia. At some time Cniva become aware of the fact that he won’t be able to escape the emperor who was on the chase, so he prepared to give a decisive battle by an unknown marsh[14], near the Roman fortress of Abrittus.

The Goths arranged their army in three frontlines, the last however hidden behind another marsh. We could only dare a supposition that it consisted of a cavalry, behind which were the captives and the booty, as we know from the descriptions of other “barbarians” as the the Triballi or the Celts. The battle scheme of Decius is unknown. The core of his army seems to have been the legions, ahead of the Lower Moesian I Italica, the detachements of Upper Moesian VII Claudia, IV Flavia. We must presume further that squadrons of irregular “barbarian” units such as equites Mauri et Osroheni, which proved very useful to Philipp and before him in wars in Germany were present. After destroying the first two rows of the Gothic army (youth and inexperienced footman), and loosing his son and co-emperor in the battle, Decius rushed in attack against the Gothic cavalry in the third row and we must conjecture that he was followed by his own equites singulares – and died with them. Not aware that he’s about to come into the marsh, Traianus Decius was sucked by it and shot by the Gothic archers.

The version of Zosimus that Gallus was the traitor that didn’t come to help and -moreover – desinformated Decius about the nature of the battlefield to come into this trap is not to be excluded. We must note that apparently Decius’ officers were unaware of the specifics of the terrain by Abrittus, which excludes the participation of XI Claudia, stationed in Durostorum, in the battle. Lower Moesian troops were thus to be blamed for negligence of the Roman interests – probably a large part of the commanding body here were Philipps’ protégées.

This way or another, the defeat by Abrittus was a severe blow for the Roman seld-confidence. The 50’s and 60’s of the 3^rd Century was a period of a heavy crisis and withdrawal of the Roman authority in the Eastern Balkans. The usurper Trebonianus Gallus rushed to conclude peace with the Goths, which included an annual tribute. A new pretender – Aemilius Aemilianus, succeed to achieve a victory against them and was proclaimed as emperor by the Moesian troops. In the battle by Interamna, Aemilianus gained victory against Gallus, but soon afterwards he was killed by his own soldiers by the news that the governor of the dux of the Germanic limes Publicius Licinius Valerianus was proclaimed Emperor and was eventually recognized by the Senate. The new ruler rapidly acknowledged his son Gallienus for successor.[15]

Meanwhile the Goths took advantage from the struggle for the power and made a new raid south of the Danube in the autumn of 253. They reached as far as Thessalonica, but did not achieve anything considerable. However, the renewed invasions caused fear in the province of Achaia and the authorities there took measures for fortifications of the important roads. The chronics attest a new raid in 254. Zosimus ascribes to the Goths an invasion in Italy, but this statement is probably false. Nevertheless, Gothic raids could have reached the last westwards from Dacia, which seems to be devastated from them. The last epigraphic evidence for the imperial power from this province is to be dated in 256, the year when Gallienus’ son Cornelius Valerianus was proclaimed Caesar.

In the same year the Goths crossed the Danube again, taking in advantage the fact that Gallienus was engaged in a war against Germans and Valerian was left the European part of the Empire for an expedition against the Persian Sappor. Epigraphic testimonies attest a construction of a new fortress in Montana in the same area, probably because of this renewed invasion. The castellum Almus was also fortified. For the inner defence of the Lower Moesia was created a new military unit, who stationed in the castellum Sostra.[16]     

In favour of an invasion probably Gothic and probably at the same time, speaks also Historia Augusta. The compilator states in Vita Aureliani (XI, 1), that Valerian entrusted the protection of the Moesian provinces to Aurelian, the future emperor, who had some successes in repelling the invaders out of the Province. According to the information, preserved in a probably factious letter from Valerianus to Aurelian, the future emperor should serve vice agentis under а certain Ulpius Crinitus (s. Duces ripae), who was in charge of the defense of the Illyrian and Thracian limes, and should engage in battle with the invaders near Nicopolis.  Since 257, Gallienus, an Emperor in charge for the European parts of the Roman world, has been known as Dacicus Maximus, probably because of a victory against the Goths and their allies in Moesia.

In the next decades, the Gothic raids were backed up by considerable naval forces, as the sources explicitly state. In 256 Valerianus a mysterious tribe called Boranes undertook a sea raid against the important Roman Port in Pityes, on the shore of Colchis, and was repulsed from Successianus, the Roman praefect there. Two years later, in 258, a large band of Tervings (the word used for designating the later Visigoth) and Carps build their own fleet in Tyras and ravaged a number of cities on the shores of Black Sea and Propontis: Tomis, Anchialo, Byzantion, Khalchedon, Nicaea, Cius, Apamaea, Prusa. In 262 or 263, Chalkedon, Ilium and Ephesos, faced a new Gothic naval invasion, led by the military chiefs Respa, Veductus, Taruarus (mentioned only in Jordanes). The sources mention that the invaders set the famous temple of Artemis in fire (HA, Div. Claud. VI, 1; HA, Gall. Duo, XX, 107) Between 264 and 266 there was a fourth sea invasion towards Cappadocia and in 266 the Goths succeeded to plunder Bythinia.[17]

In 267 a new raid began and judging by the historical narrative, it was the most populous to that time. The leading tribe (most accurate probably migration) however were not the Goths, but the Germanic Heruli, as later sources: Syncell., 717; Zonar. XII, 23 claim. They undertook a large campaign with 500 ships, and regardless of an alleged defeat in a sea battle by the Roman General (probably praefectus orae) Venerianus (HA, Vita Gall. Duo, 13, 7), they plundered Cyzicus on the shore of Propontis, penetrated the Aegean Sea and ravaged the islands Lemnos and Skyros. An invasion in Attica followed and the city was plundered. Besides Athens, a number of Greek cities were sacked: Sparta, Corinth, Argos. After being finally expelled by the forces of the Athenian civic militia, led by the historian Dexippus himself[18], they set out north, to Epirus and Macedonia, where they apparently defeated by Emperor Gallienus by the river Nestos (today Mesta in Bulgaria) on the borders of the province of Macedonia.[19] The Emperor, however, was soon to retreat from the Balkans, since Aureolus, one of his main commanders, provoked a mutiny against him and took the important town of Mediolanum. A year later, huge barbarian masses, called "Scythians" (Scytharum diversi populi) in the sources, but actually representing a large coaltion of tribes: Greutungs, Ostrogoths, Tervings (all of these names of Gothic tribes), Visas (probably the Visigoths), Bastarni, Gepids, Celts and Heruli, set out to settle south of the Danube (the tribes in HA, Div. Claud., VI, 2).   

 The pattern of this invasion was so similar to the previous that some authors used to claim that there was only one large invasion, led by the Heruls and the Goths. The main sources for these events were Zosimus, who allegedly follows closely the description in the Skythica of Dexippus, Zonaras and HA, but the later source is rather vague. An interesting case is Ammianus Marcellinus, who uses this invasion to present a brief retrospective for the Gothic invasion from the Time of Decius onwards.

Memorable, although often disputed in terms of their historicity event in this invasion, was a new siege of Philippopolis. According to Ammianus Marcellinus, the city was looted. B. Rappaport defends the opinion that the siege of Philippopolis under Claudius was a fabrication inserted by Ammianus along with his excurse about the history of Nicopolis ad Istrum, the city of Victory, which corresponds to the information in Jordan, but an inscription found in 1963 hails Marcianus, one of Gallienus most important general, left by him as commander-in-charge in the Balkan front, a „savior and evergetes” (see Marcianus). Ammianus, however, also says that the cities Anchialo and Nicopolis have been captured (cf. Jord., Get. XX, 107), which could indeed lead to the conclusion that his passage is a retrospective compilation of the Gothic raids in 3^rd Century.   

 According to our sources, a mass of app. 320,000 warriors, with women, children and slaves broke out from the Northern Shores of the Black sea. In the historiography it is accepted that their army was divided in two in the Region of Propontis – the first part sailed along the shore of Aegeis up to the Thessalonica.[20] The second made its way in the heartland of the Balkan Peninsula.[21] The description of the events is, however, very obscure. HA in the form of a Panageric conveys the path of the naval part of the Goths from Byzantium and, after one failed attempt to capture Cyzicus on the Propontis, to Cassandrea and then Thessaloniki. The Gothic masses decided that there is not enough time to prepare the Siege of Thessalonica and set to the North of the Macedonian lands, plundering the regions of Doberus and Pelagonia (Zosim. I, 42-43). There they were checked by a bold attack by the Dalmatian cavalry led by the future Emperor Aurelianus and left 3000 people killed. Apparently, there was a second battle – probably as a result of Emperor’s efforts to prevent the two Gothic armies from gathering their forces together. This was the so called „battle of Naissus” (the city mentioned only in retrospective passage in Zosimus, I, 45), where the Roman troops killed 50 000 of the invaders and practically ended the Gothic menace, with another 2,000 soldiers fallen in the pursuit in the aftermath.

After the defeat, the Goths surprisingly did not turn back to Moesia, but once again marched southwards with the goal to reach their vessels in Thessaly and Greece (Zos. I 43). Some of them eventually tried to make their way to the Danube through Thrace and Haemus range, but suffered another defeat. According to Zosimus, only the rivalry between the roman cavalry and infantry prevented Claudius from chasing the barbarians; there is a further statement for a small roman defeat in the turmoil. After the defeat, they returned to the fleet and unsuccessfully besieged Crete, Rhodes, Cyprus, and Pamphylia.

The course of events, as described by Zosimus (as we have stated above, HA is almost useless in regard of the chronology these events), is confused, full of repetitions and generally unreliable. This was probably also the case with the Gothic invasion previous to 267–269. There is, however, not any single convincing evidence neither that the invasions of 269 and 267 in fact two different historical events are, nor that the decisive victory happened near Naissus.[22] The Zosimus’ narrative is permeated with anachronisms and although he mentions that the massive invasion of the Goths began just after the proclamation of Claudius for Emperor, his enemies were explicitly called Eroulos kai Peukas kai Gotqous, in oder words, Zosimus has the same source as HA, but the Historia’s source had anachronistically added some of ethnonyms, known by the later history of the Goths. The invaders from 267, however, were left almost anonymous by Zosimus, who designated them by the vague Skythai. The text of Zosimus leaves also the impression that the Heruli and their coalition were encouraged by the success of the previous raid to undertake a new invasion – this time even more massive and having all the signs of an attempted migration (6000 vessels are mentioned in Zosimus). So, most probably, we have to deal with two waves of a migration of the Germanic tribes, dwelling on the Northern Shore of the Black sea, first led by the Heruli, second probably initiated by the Goths, but with with the Heruli as the main force. The existence of two separate invasions by two different northern tribes (or coalitions) is problematic, also because of Zosimus statement that the „second” Gothic invasion was inspired by the alleged successes of the first raid. It could be hardly regarded as a victorious effort due to the alleged decisive victory of Gallienus on the river Nestos.[23]

The historiography normally claims that Claudius is the Emperor, who is the main winner over the Gothic hoards and thus the saviour of the Empire. Most of the written literary evidence in fact does the same: in this order, however, should be considered the brief statement of Zosimus (erroneously in the time of Probus) that the barbarians that survived the battle between Claudius and the Scythians were engaged in battle in the mountains between the provinces Macedonia and Thrace (Zos. I 45), and some purely rhetorical description of the Claudius engagement, which were deprived of any reasonable narrative of the course of the events and should be considered as drown by some panagerical tradition more or less connected to the Constantine Dynasty, which claimed origin from Claudius II Gothicus (Aur. Vict. De Caes., 34, 1; Iulin. Orat. I, 6; Inc. Panag. Const. Aug. 2).[24] The Historia Augusta is surely a protagonist of this tradition: its description of the course of the events follows closely HA, as we have noted above, in terms of the ethnicity of the invaders (s. above for the description of the nations), and also in terms of the chronology of the events – the first invasion was checked by Claudius together with Marcianus, afterwards follows a second invasion (Div. Claud, VI, 1: VI. 1 Sed redeamus ad Claudium. Nam, ut superius diximus [triginta], illi Gothi, qui evaserant eo tempore, quo illos Marcianus est persecutus, quosque Claudius emiti non siverat, ne [qu]id fieret, quod effectum est, omnes gentes suorum ad Romanas incitaverant praedas. 2 Denique Scytharum diversi populi… Romanum solum inrup[uen]erunt atque illic pleraque vastarunt). There is, however, a source that stays out of this row – it is Ammianus Marcellinus (XXXI, 15, 3 …sed adsumpto in imperium Claudio glorioso ductore et eodem honesta morte praerepto per Aurelianum…), who attributes to Claudius merely a secondary role in the fight against the invaders, who dies before the Goths were finally expelled from South-Eastern Europe – a deed, fulfilled by his successor Aurelianus. This surely stays out of the tradition of HA and Zosimus (drawn most likely on the basis of Dexippus). Ammianus negligence of Claudius deed seems eloquent enough, since he is chronologically the closest to the time of the invasion author.  

Several other circumstances also raise concern about their unanimous identification with the Goths solely and about the description of the events from 267–269 as two strictly separate historical events, which led, as the modern historiography implies, to two victories – Gallienus’ by Nestos and Claudius’ by Naissus. We mentioned the statement of Ammianus the invaders laid siege on Philippopolis and also the fact that despite of the previously expressed doubt, this statement was corroborated by an epigraphic monument. However, it must be said that Ammianus describes the siege of Philippopolis as a great cataclysm, with the removal of 100,000 people as captives, which rather suggests that in this case the historian speaks of the great Gothic pogrom in the city in the time of Decius. However, the presence of an inscription of Marcianus, Gallienus' dux here is extremely important, because it shows the political subordination of the military command in town and has a direct bearing on our problem.

The most provocative circumstence is that we have a further evidence for the placement of Marcianus as commander-in-chief in this region: the existing testimonies seem eloquent enough in their statement that the Danube lands at 267 and 268 were entrusted to a man called Marcianus (with some variations of the name in the different sources), who was probably assisted by Claudius. Describing the final battles of Claudius against the Goths, Zosimus says that the Emperor faced a wall of wagons somewhere in the mountain Thracia. Almost identical portrayal of the event is to be found in Vita Gall. Duo (XIII, 9-11), fulfilled by Marcianus and placed in a unknown mountain passage named mons Gessacem: Gallienus interea vix excitatus publicis malis Gothis vagantibus per Illyricum occurrit et fortuito plurimos interemit. Quo comperto Scyhtae facta carragine per montem Gessacem fugere sunt conati. 10 Omnes inde Scythas Marcianus varia bellorum fortuna --- quae omnes Scythas ad rebellionem excitarunt.

The considerations above strongly suggest that the main victories over the Goths were achieved by Marcianus, who probably checked in Haemus. The inscription from Philippopolis is thus a testimony for the fact thata Marcianus should be regarded as saviour of the Provinces of Moesia and Thracia, which of course provoked the honours for him in one of the most populous cities in Thrace. An overloooked inscription from Rhodos shows that he was jailed as saviour also there, presumably in 270,[25] which is another proof that he was actually a suprime leader against the Goths from 268 to 270 and we could regard all the events as a part of a single invasion. It is probably only a coincidence that there are no further epigraphic evidence for his deeds in Moesia or Thracia. We could also presume that it is logical that after the death of Gallienus, Claudius, chosen for a new Emperor, is propagated as the main leader of the Roman victories on the Balkans.[26] This is by no means an utterly false statement: if Marcianus was a chief of the great Moesian – Pannonia Commando (see Marcianus), Claudius, together with Aurelianus, were probably entrusted the command of the mounted cavalry of Gallienus for Achaia and Macedonia. The first one achieved a victory in Pelagonia, and the second one helped Marcianus with the battle for Haemus. Further poof is to be found in the account of the barbarian casualties by Zosimus – 3000 killed by Aurelianus in Pelagonia / 3000 killed by Gallienus on „Nestos,” which practically speaks in favour of our hypothesis that the Gallienic victory over the Heruli was in fact won by Aurelianus.

So, the battle of Nestos is exactly the battle, which historicity should be contested. Its credability is based only on a single source, and moreover much later one: the Byzantine author Synkellos. The hydronym in Synkellos is however given as Nessos, which, with much more plausibility could be regarded as a form of Naissus.[27] On the other hand, we have a strong reason to believe that Nessos exactly Naissus is, for exactly this form is preserved in Ammianus Marcellinus (Amm. Marc. XXI, 10, 5): Nessos. On more thing – the form Nessos is given for Naissus in Synkellos due to the fact that the latter copied Dexippus to describe the battle with the Goths, who, in other hand, has probably drawn its geographical names from the Arrianus’ Anabasis, where the route of Alexander the Great during his march to the North of Thrace went through a certain river called Nessos. Here we can find also an explanation for the curious description of the above mention tactics of the Goths, to use their wagons as a weapon against the Romans that is most probably a topos, loaned from the description of Alexander’s battle against the Thracians from the mountain tribe of Bessi.

In any case, the summer of 269 ended in a major defeat for the Goths, starring the Gallienus’ generals and cavalry leaders Aurelianus, Marcianus, and Claudius Gothicus, who, perhaps because of his leading role in Gallienus' assassination, was elected emperor. The chronology of events should be probably restored as follows: a Gothic raid, siege of Thessalonica and devastations in Greece, first battle against Aurelianus in Pelagonia (the battle of “Nessos” of Synkellos), withdrawal of Gallienus to Mediolanum and death of Gallienus, which allows the Heruli and the Goths to proceed further to the North, battle of Naissus (erroneously also Nestos), led by Marcianus, return of Claudius and Aurelianus to the Balkans to proceed further with the repulsion of the Goths from the Balkans, which is also the reason why Marcellinus ascribes to Aurelianus the main role in the Gothic-Herulic war.

 The Gothic invasions as allies of the Heruli is also the latest great invasion that was undertaken by this German tribe. In 269–270 the remnants of the Germanic army on the Balkans were enslaved, despersed among the Roman troops or settled as colons (HA, Div. Aurel. IX, 1: Multi naufragio perierunt, plerique capti reges, captae diversarum gentium nobiles feminae, inpletae barbaris servis Scythicisque cultoribus Romanae provinciae. Factus limitis barbari colonus e Gotho). Nevertheless, in the time of Aurelianus we heard something more about them: In the autumn of 271, the Goths invaded again, under the leadership of Kanabas or Kanabaudas (in Thrace and Illyria), as claimed by a number of sources (HA, Eutropius, Jordan). On his way to Palmyra, Aurelianus defeated and killed him, together with another 5,000 Goths, which was the reason why he becomes Gothicus. Heading back from the East to Rome, in 273, Aurelianus chscked a renewed invasion of the Carps and settled part of them on Roman soil. In general, the problems with the Goths in the Time of Aurelian and Probus, are targeting settlement, and these invasions were not a considerable military problem. According to B. Rappaport, Dacia was left in connection with Aurelian's last campaign in the East against Persia to leave a secure rear. The abandoned province was left to the Visigoths, also according to Eutropius Taifals, Victorians, and Gepides, Astingi Vandals, probably remnants of the Carps and Bastarni, whose power was most probably diminished under Gothic pressure.[28]

 In 275 a new naval attack followed, this time on Cilicia, repulsed by Tacitus and his brother Florian. After Tacitus' death in Tiana, Annius Florianus ended the war. In 278, in the time of Probus, there was a great invasion of Illyricum and Thrace, with the participation of Sarmatians, Hepides, Vandals, Burgundians. But HA speaks of Sarmatas ceterasque gentes, but also of omnes Geticos populos, which Probus accepted in deditio or amicitia. It is probably a matter of mass need for land from the older and weaker tribes, as Probus also settled 100,000 of the Bastarni in Thrace, which is actually the latest evidence for this once mighty and dreadful tribe, which was finally turned into honest and good subjects of the Empire in the words of HA. It is possible that from this Time onwards the Gothic urge for migration was calmed down, because they pushed their neighboring tribes to the south. According to Rappaport, peaceful relations with the Goths after Probus were based on the payment of taxes and permission to trade within Rome.

The Sarmatians and the Carps seem to be the main adversaries on the lower Danube in the next yeras. According to Barnes, Diocletian first accepted the Sarmatian Name in 285.[29] According to the Latin Panageric, he took again the Sarmatian title in 289, when the first inspection of the Danube border began. He also dates Diocletianic campaign against the Saracens to 290, some of whom settled in Thrace. In 291 Diocletian was in Oescus. From 293 a third inspection of the Limes began, reaching as far as Byzantium: Beroea, Philippopolis, Serdica, to Singidunum. With the proclamation of Galerius for co-emperor, his victories became also victories of Diocletian.

In 296 Diocletian campaigned against the Carps: once again mentioned in the Panageric. It is associated with the destructions in Tropaeum Traiani, dated to this period. Shortly after 296, Diocletian took acclamations such as Sarmaticus and Germanicus, in Probably in this connection 295 is the great inspection of the Limes, for which inscriptions from Transmariska, Durostorum, Kladovo indicate. After returning from Persia, he took the title of Carpicus in 295. Jerome reported the accommodation of Carps and Bastarni in Roman territory for this year. In 297 coins for Victoria Sarmatica are minted in Heraclea and Thessalonica. The 295 Carps were finally driven out of Dacia and settled in Pannonia by Diocletian. But Diocletian again accepted the title of Carpic between 301 and 304. The settlement was probably made by Galerius.

The last information about a campaign against Transdanubians in the Time of the first Tetrarchy is from 304, probably again against the Carps. Meanwhile, 301 and 302, probably 303 (according to Lactantius), also in 306-307, Galerius campaigned against the Carps and the Sarmatians.

 

[1] …Pannonias ergo Marcomannis, Sarmatis, V(u)andalis, simul etiam Quadis exwtinctis servitio liberavit…

[2] Щукин  2005, 26.

[3] Hachmann 1970, 15 ff.

[4] For ethnonyms and the sources s. Zahariade 2010, 163–183.

[5] Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, IV: cited by Popa-Lisseanu 2015, 319.

[6] Alföldy 1939, 141.

[7] Domazsewski 1967, 188.

[8] The dates of the Gothic invasions and the number of raids are a notorious point of discussion in the literature. The suggested date of the invasion of Marcianopolis are 250 (Ботева-Боянова 2014, 156), 248 AD (Gerov 1980, 99), 248/249 AD (Филов 1914, 26), the autumn of 249 AD at the latest (Wittig 1931, 1265). The other opinions are presented in detail in Ботева-Боянова 2014, 154 ff.

[9] For the problems of the Institution of the King powers between the Goths: Nordgren 2004; Wolfram 2001.

[10] An attempt to trace the routes of the Goths according to a war-time coin deposits during this invasion is made by Gerov 1980, 93–113. 

[11] See Stoev 2017 with literature for the analysis of these narratives.

[12] It seems that not long ago Decius had suffered an­other defeat near “Beroa,” which he treated as equally important to the fall of Philippopolis: … μὴ δὲ τῆ cυμβά̣c̣η ἐν τῶ πεδί̣ω κακοπραγία· καὶ τῆ θρακῶν ἁλώcει ταραχθένταc (Folio 194v l. 22-24). Whether this was due to the fact that, as we could presume, a part of Cniva’s troops tried to attack Augusta Traiana before joining him before the walls of Philip­popolis, which is reported by Jordanes as well; or maybe Cniva’s initial plan was to attack Philippopolis, and after the initial failure (ГИБИ 1: 10-13), he headed towards Augusta Traiana, and on finding that Decius was already there, he went back again. Actually, the best explanation seems to be con­cealed in the text by Jordanes, who states that Decius was surprised by Cniva while he was putting up his camp. This could mean that the emperor did not expect an attack coming from Cniva, i.e., from the “Philippopolis” group of the Goths.

[13] For Priscus and the hypothesizes about him see Stoev 2017.

[14] For the source for the battle and the localization of the battle place see recently: Radoslavova, G., Dzanev, G, N. Nikolov (2011), 21-51.

[15] The political events see in Johne (ed.) (2008), 252 ff.

[16] See the evidence in Eck, Ivanov 2009.

[17] The narrative and chronology in Rappaport 1899, 70 ff.

[18] Recently I. Piso had recently raised doubt that this Dexippus and the Historian the same person are: Piso 2016, 203.

[19] Rappaport 1899, 71 ff.

[20] Some scholars claim that during their sail southwards some of the Goths managed to laid waste on Marcianopolis and Tomi, as stated in HA, Div. Claud: Pugnatum est enim apud Moesos et multa proelia fuerunt apud Marcianopolim. The information is probably an anachronism.

[21] Johne 2008, 302.

[22] The strongest and most influential support for this view: Alföldy 1939, 138-164. Most of the authors seem to decline sych opportunity: see Kettenhoffen1992, 291-313; Kotula 1991, 237-243; see Johne 2008, 301, 15 with literature.

[23] Rappaport 1899, 72.

[24] We should acknowledge that Eutropius, IX, 1 stays out of this order or evidence.

[25] About it Hartmann 2006, 85, f. 10 with literature.

[26] For the coins and inscriptions for Claudius as Gothicus s. Stoev 2017.

[27] See also Wolfram 2001, 64.

[28] Rappaport 1899, 80 ff.

[29] Barnes 1970, 20 ff. with the itinerary of the Emperors.

Sources:

ГИБИ = Гръцки извори за българската исто­рия, т. 1. София, 1-13/ GIBI = Greek sources for the Bulgarian history, vol. 1, Sofia, 1-13.

Amm. Marc. = Amm. Hist. = Ammianus Marcellinus, Rerum Gestarum libri, quae supersunt

Dio = Dio Cassius, Historiarum romanorum libri quae supersunt

IScM = Inscriptiones Scythiae Minoris

Jord. Get. = Jordanes, Getica sive De Origine Actibusque Gothorum

Plin. Hist. Nat. = Plin., Nat. Hist. = C. Plinius Secundus, Naturalis Historia

SEG = Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum

Syncell. = Syncell. Chronogr. = Georgius Syncellus, Chronographia

Strb.  = Strabo, Geographia

Tacitus, Germ. = Germania vel De origine et situ germanorum

Zonar. XII, 23 = Zonar. = Zonaras, Epitome Historion

 

Secondary Sources:

Ботева-Боянова, Д. (2014) Античните текстове и тяхното четене днес. Акценти от осем века фрагментарна история на Древна Тракия (IV в. пр. Хр. – IV в. сл. Хр.) (София)/ Boteva-Boyanova, D. (2014) Antichnite tekstove i tyahnoto chetene dnes. Aktsenti ot osem veka fragmentarna istoria na Drevna Trakia (IV v. pr. Hr. – IV v. sl. Hr.) (Sofia)

Филов, Б. (1914) „Римското съкровище от Николаево“. – Известия на бъл­гарското археологическо дружество 4, 1–48/ Filov, B. (1914) “Rimskoto sakrovishte ot Nikolaevo.” – Izvestia na bal¬garskoto arheologichesko druzhestvo 4, 1–48.

Щукин, М.Б. (2005) Готский Путь. Готы, Рим и Черняховская культура (Санкт-Петербург) Shtukin, M.B. (2005) Gotskiy Puty. Gotы, Rim i Chernyahovskaya kulytura (Sankt-Peterburg)

Alföldy, A. (1939) “The invasions of people from Rhine and the Black Sea.” – In: The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. XII, 138–164.

Barnes, T.  D. (1982) The new Empire of Diocletian and Constantine (Cambridge, Massachusetts – London).

Gerov, B. (1980) Beiträge zur Geschichte der römischen Provinzen Mösien und Thrakien. Bd. I–II (Amsterdam)

Domaszewski, A. v. (1967) Die Rangordnung des römischen Heeres. 2. durchgesehene Auflage. Einführung, Berechtigungen und Nachträge von Brian Dobson. (Köln – Graz.)    

Eck,W., R. Ivanov (2009) C. “Iulius Victor, senatorischer Legat von Moesia inferior unter Valerianus und Gallienus und das Castell Sostra-Siosta,“ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphic 170, 1-10.

Hachmann, R. (1970) Die Goten und Skandinavien (Berlin).

Hartmann, U. (2006) “Der Mord an Kaiser Gallienus.” – In: Johne, K.-P., Gerhardt, T., Hartmann, U. (eds.) Deleto paene imperio Romano. Transformationsprozesse des Römischen Reiches im 3. Jahrhundert und ihre Rezeption in der Neuzeit (Stuttgart), 81–124

Nordgren, I. (2004) The Well Spring of the Goths: About the Gothic peoples in the Nordic Countries and on the Continent (Lincoln).

Johne, K.-P. (ed.) (2008), Die Zeit der Soldatenkaiser. Krise und Transformation des Römischen Reiches im 3. Jahrhundert n. Chr. (235-284) (Berlin).

Jones, C. P. (2015) Further Fragments of Dexippus (online, https://www.aca­demia.edu/11913736/Further_Dexippus_ online, 09.08.2018).

Kotula, T.  (1991) “Νέσσος et Νάϊσσος : problème topographique et historique des campaignes de Gallien et de Claude II.” – Eos, 79 , 237–243

Kettenhoffen, E. (1992) “Die Einfälle der Herulen der Heruler ins Römische Reich.“ – Klio 74, 291–313.

Martin, Grusková (2014) “Scythica Vindobonensia” by Dexippus (?): New Fragments on Decius’ Gothic Wars. – Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 54, 728–754.

Piso, I. (2015) “Bemerkungen zu Dexippos Vindobonenesis (I).“ – Göttinger Forum für Altertumswissenschaft 18 (2015) 199–215.

Popa-Lisseanu, G. (2015) Dacia in autorii clasici. (Bucuresti).

Radoslavova, G., Dzanev, G, N. Nikolov. (2011) “The battle at Abrittus in AD 251: Written Sources, Archaeological, Nimusmatic Data.” – Archeologia Bulgarica 15, 21–51.

Rappaport, B. (1899) Die Einfälle der Goten in das Römische Reich bis auf Con­stantin (Leipzig).

Stoev, K. (2016–2017) ЧNotes on Decius’ Gothic War in the Light of the new fragments of Dexippus of Athens.” – Orpheus 23–24, 80–92.

Wittig, K. (1931) “Messius (C. Messius Quintus Traianus Decius).“ – Realency­clopaedie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft 15. 1, 1244–1284.

Wolfram, H. (2001) Die Goten. Von den Anfängen bis zur Mitte des sechsten Jahrhunderts. Entwurf einer historischen Eethnografie. 4. Auflage, 2001.

Zahariade, M. “A Crux in bellum Scythicum. The Invasion in 267: Gothi or Heruli?” – In: Antiquitas Istro-Pontica, 2010, 163–183.