• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

By Root 288 0

Spain and Nicene orthodoxy’, in K. Bowes and M. Kulikowski, eds., Hispania in Late Antiquity: Current Approaches (Leiden, 2005), 77–120.

[179] Pan. Lat. 2.10–11; Theoderet, HE 5.5–6; Sozomen, HE 7.2.1; Orosius, Hist. 7.34.2–5; Epitome de Caesaribus 47–48.

[180] The case for western help, though not accepted here, is best made in R. Malcolm Errington, ‘Theodosius and the Goths’, Chiron 26 (1996): 1–27.

[181] Units: some or all of Notitia Dignitatum, Or. 5.64–66; 6.33, 62, 64, 67; 7.47, 57; 8.27, 32; 9.41, 46 (= 6.64), 47; 28.20; 31.64; 38.18–19, 32–33. Laws: Codex Theodosianus 7.13.8–11. Farmers: Libanius, Or. 24.16.

[182] Zosimus, HN 4.30.2; 4.31.2–4.

[183] Evidence tabulated at M. McCormick, Eternal Victory: Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium and the Early Medieval West (Cambridge, 1986), 41–46.

[184] P. Heather, Goths and Romans, 332–489 (Oxford, 1991), 147–56, clarified the structural defect of Zosimus’ account for the first time.

[185] Zosimus, HN 4.25.2–4.

[186] Themistius, Or. 14.181b.

[187] Zosimus, HN 4.31.2–4; Codex Theodosianus 7.18.3–5.

[188] Zosimus, HN 4.33.1.

[189] Zosimus, HN 4.33.1–2.

[190] Descriptio consulum, s.a. 382 (Burgess, 241).

[191] Themistius, Or. 16.

[192] Synesius, De regno 21 (Terzaghi, 50C); Themistius, Or. 16.209a–210a; Pan. Lat. 2.22.3, but the reference to military service at 2.32.4 need not necessarily refer to the agreement of 382.

[193] Themistius, Or. 16.211a.

[194] Synesius, De regno 19 (Terzaghi, 43D).

[195] Notitia Dignitatum, Or. 5.61; 6.61.

[196] Campaign against Maximus: Philostorgius, HE 10.8; Zosimus, HN 4.45.3; Pan. Lat. 2.32.3–4; against Eugenius, Orosius, Hist. 7.35.19.

Chapter Eight: Alaric and the Sack of Rome

[197] R. Harhoiu, Die frühe Völkerwanderungszeit in Rumänien (Bucharest, 1997); M. Kazanski and R. Legoux, ‘Contribution à l’étude des témoignages archéologiques des Goths en Europe orientale à l’époque des Grandes Migrations: la chronologie de la culture de černjahov récente’, Archéologie médiévale 18 (1988): 7–53.

[198] Descriptio consulum, s.a. 381 (Burgess, 241).

[199] Zosimus, HN 4.35.1; 4.38–39.

[200] Eunapius, frag. 59 (Blockley) = 60 (Müller).

[201] Gregory of Nazianzus, Ep. 136.

[202] Eunapius, frag. 59 (Blockley) = 60 (Müller); Zosimus, HN 4.56.2–3.

[203] Zosimus, HN 5.5.4; Claudian, Get. 166–248; 598–647; Synesius, De regno 19–21. For Alaric’s Goths described as a gens: Claudian, č cons. Hon. 474; Get. 99, 134, 169, 533, 645–47.

[204] Descriptio consulum, s.a. 383 (Burgess, 241).

[205] Zosimus, HN 4.45.3.

[206] Sozomen, HE 7.25; Theodoret, HE 5.18; Rufinus, HE 11.18; Ambrose, Ep. 51.

[207] ILS 2949.

[208] Claudian, Get. 524–25; č cons. Hon. 104–108.

[209] Jordanes, Get. 146.

[210] Zosimus, HN 4.50–51; Claudian, Ruf. 1.350–51.

[211] Claudian, Stil. 1.94–115; Ruf. 1.314–22, č cons. Hon. 147–50.

[212] Eunapius, frag. 58.2 (Blockley) = John of Antioch, frag. 187 (FHG 4: 608–10).

[213] Orosius, Hist. 7.35.19; Zosimus, HN 4.58.2–3.

[214] Zosimus, 4.58.6; Orosius, Hist. 7.35.19; Socrates, HE 5.25.11–16; Sozomen, HE 7.22–24; Rufinus, HE 11.33; Philostorgius, HE 11.2; Epitome de Caesaribus 48.7.

[215] Socrates, HE 7.10.

[216] Zosimus, HN 5.5.4.

[217] Claudian, Ruf. 2.54–99; Eunapius, frag. 64.1 = John of Antioch, frag. 190 (FHG 4: 610).

[218] Zosimus, HN 5.7.3; Eunapius, frag. 64.1 = John of Antioch, frag. 190 (FHG 4: 610).

[219] Claudian, Stil. 2.95–96.

[220] Claudian, Ruf. 2.105–23 and 235–39, with Gild. 294–96 and Stil. 1.151–69.

[221] Claudian, č cons. Hon. 435–49; Stil. 1.188–245.

[222] Zosimus, HN 5.5.6–8.; Claudian, Ruf. 2.186–96; Eunapius, VS 476, 482.

[223] Claudian, č cons. 479–83; Zosimus, HN 5.7.2. Date: Paulinus, č. Ambrosii 45, 48, for the relevance of which see E. Burrell, ‘A re-examination of why Stilicho abandoned his pursuit of Alaric in 397’, Historia 53 (2004): 251–56.

[224] Eunapius, frag. 64.1 = John