Summarizing the Third Century Crisis

[D B Campbell]

Nevertheless, the cultural decline was present since the 250s if not earlier, so long before Aurelian.

Contemporaries certainly thought it had started with the death of Marcus Aurelius and had simply got worse -- if I remember correctly, there was a Sibylline prophecy that the world would end in AD 195!

Of course, if you catalogue the misfortunes, you can plot a curve which plunges in the 250s and 260s, and (imho) starts to pick up thereafter. But the world that Diocletian "restored" had become a completely different place.

[Jona Lendering]

Nevertheless, the cultural decline was present since the 250s if not earlier, so long before Aurelian.

Contemporaries certainly thought it had started with the death of Marcus Aurelius and had simply got worse

Cassius Dio and Herodian express the same sentiment - everything was better when Marcus was still emperor. The problem is that I find it hard to believe that the fall of Rome started as early as 180, before the Empire reached its greatest extent (apart from those few months when Trajan believed he was master of Iraq) and before the people reached their greatest wealth (to judge from the number of inscriptions, the Severan age was Empire's golden age).

[Nicholas Gaukroger]

The structural causes of decline can start to exist before they become obvious I guess.

FWIW I believe that the Antonine Constitution had an effect - by increasing the number of those within the empire who were citizens it reduced the number who previously would have worked to achieve it and impress by public works, etc. A (partially) egalitarian move perhaps (whatever the motive) but maybe a blow to the underlying social structure of the empire?

[SigniferOne]

Nevertheless, the cultural decline was present since the 250s if not earlier, so long before Aurelian.

Contemporaries certainly thought it had started with the death of Marcus Aurelius and had simply got worse

Cassius Dio and Herodian express the same sentiment - everything was better when Marcus was still emperor. The problem is that I find it hard to believe that the fall of Rome started as early as 180, before the Empire reached its greatest extent (apart from those few months when Trajan believed he was master of Iraq) and before the people reached their greatest wealth (to judge from the number of inscriptions, the Severan age was Empire's golden age).

I don't think that the empire started crumbling as early as 180. That sort of belief stems from Romantics. I've read some histories which state that Rome started falling after Hadrian. Some people say that it was Trajan. Then again others believe Augustus was "the last straw"; in short there's no shortage of ridiculous opinions. Herodian and Dio believe that the world was better under Marcus, which is probably true, but there wasn't a collapse on the scale of the whole civilization falling over, until the reign of Severus Severus. I once read a very pertinent and astute judgment that Severus functionally began the fall of the entire civilization by the fact that he was the first autocratic emperor. The ultimate collapse of the whole civilization is traceable to the utter social breakdown of the 3rd century, isn't it? And who else but Severus is the most proximate cause of that by himself being a model for all the rest to follow. He was a Marius-like brutish soldier, with some pretense to liberal education but more so in contempt to it, attempting a 'reform' with his limited abilities and ruining what was left standing. Once he dismissed the Senate with sheer contempt and changed the Roman constitution towards absolute monarchy, a Diocletian was right around the corner to make that promise completed. And Romans really did not do well with absolute monarchs, so once we see absolutist emperors the entire fabric of the society, its idealistic art and literature, almost immediately collapses, and by the time of Diocletian you get just scraps of what Roman art and literature used to be.

[D B Campbell]

... there's no shortage of ridiculous opinions.

I don't know if they're "ridiculous". Just different perspectives. The eminent historian A.J. Toynbee (a philhellene) thought the history of Rome was one long decline.

[Jona Lendering]

Toynbee (a philhellene) thought the history of Rome was one long decline.

... essentially repeating Winckelmann's ideas that everything Greek was fine, and that everything before and after was less, so that our only hope was imitation of Greece. We may smile about it now, but in the eighteenth century, this was a bold attempt to explain what history meant to us. Winckelmann is one of the scholars I really admire.

[L C Cinna]

Well well well...3rd century crisis, my fav topic...so much to write, so little time.

Just on a short note:

Like someone already said, it doesn't seem like Gallienus much inreased the number of cavalry. He simply concentrated a lot of the cavalry forces available and regrouped them. Looking at the beginning of his reign until about 262 he's constantly on the march from one area of crisis to the next. there are also indications from extensive movement of legionary detachments throughout the empire, but especially concentrating on the Rhine and Danube. After his victories against the Alemanni and Franks he moved to the Danube which was hard pressed at that time (archeology has shown several traces of destruction in the area of Hungary for example: see Fitz, Jenö: Ingenuus et Regalien: Latomus 1966).

He usually took a core army with him wherever he went, consisting of vexillations and cavalry (the cavalry being one of the main elements as the bigger number of infantry were added at the place of the conflict).

Detachements of I Minervia appear in the Danubian area between his reign and the 270ies/80ies (the 2 stones are not exactly datable yet). Probably they went there with him as at the same time british troops appear along the Rhine in higher numbers, probably brought there to refill the gaps caused when he took troops to fight Ingenuus and Regalianus at the Danube.

Milan was an important base but i think it'd be too much to see it as THE base for his new "cavalry army" as has been suggested before by some scholars. It was indeed an important strategic position after the loss of the Gallic Empire to Postumus (including Raetia which secured the entrance into Italy) but it should rather be seen as a stronghold from which he could operate towards the Danubian frontier (although things had become a bit more quiet there, especially after a contract with the Marcomanni who now guarded parts of the northern danubian boarder) should problems occure, on the other hand protect Italy as well from Postumus. Milan was probably his base of operations when he prepared to retake the Alpine passes and Raetia (which he managed to do) and for his unfortunate attack into Gallia. At the same time however, he seems to have a 2nd "field army" operating on the lower Danube for most of his reign. This already starts in 260 when, after defeating Ingenuus, Gallienus returns to Italy to fight the Alemannic incursion (units which seem certain in joining him there are parts of Pathica and the Praetorians) while Aureolus (the guy often refered to as his cavalry commander) operates along the lower Danube and Thrace. Aureolus must have had a considerable force under his command with the mission to restrenghten the areas which had rebelled under Ingenuus, leading the defeated Ingenian troops back and defeating the Macriani (who had lead a big part of the army Valerian had used for his war against the Persians into Greece). After defeating the Alemanni Gallienus turns towards the Danube again to pacify the area and keep the Sarmatians away.

So we have at least 2 fully operational field armies in this area between 259 and 262. He didn't create a single cavalry force but rather collected as much cavalry as possible, gave those forces a nominal basis at Mediolanum where they could meet up to regroup in times of peace and split those cavalry forces (and several selected vexillations) to form field armies which would march quickly to an area of conflict, join the local infantry forces and form an effective army.

There's also that one thing I came across several times in different history books, namely that in 268 when Aureolus rebelled in Milan, he was commander of the cavalry (which he really seems to have been nominally) and that it was the "new cavalry army" rebelling. This seems not very likely imho as Gallienus was leading a major war against the Goths at that time (final victory at Naissus) and it is very unlikely that he left the majority of his newly formed (and freely available) forces which had accompanied him so far at home. Aureolus was probably left there with a much smaller mixed army to guard Italy and Raetia in the absence of the Emperor, that's why he didn't offer battle when Gallienus arrived (besides that Gallienus must have been a very very able commander being never beaten in battle [although he had once to reatreat from Gaul after being severly injured by an arrow]). instead Aureolus joined Postumus and asked him for help, which he never sent.

I'll go into more detail when I have more time...

[Sean Manning]

The structural causes of decline can start to exist before they become obvious I guess.

FWIW I believe that the Antonine Constitution had an effect - by increasing the number of those within the empire who were citizens it reduced the number who previously would have worked to achieve it and impress by public works, etc. A (partially) egalitarian move perhaps (whatever the motive) but maybe a blow to the underlying social structure of the empire?

Except that rich citizens were supposed to do public works, too. They could also campaign for office, and that cost even more money. It might have affected things lower on the social scale, I guess, but the lower classes would probably be pleased to gain the rights of a Roman citizen.

This is a very interesting thread, guys. I don't know enough about the third-century crisis to have much to add.

[Jona Lendering]

Just on a short note:

... he says, and introduced a very long, and excellent reply. Thanks.