Crisis of the 3rd Century&Growing Dangers of Trade

[Nathan Ross]

What is your take on Gallienus?

Fascinating character. He got a massively bad press from many of the Roman historians - the Historia Augusta and Aurelius Victor in particular - who painted him a cross-dressing degenerate. But he has been rehabilitated recently, and convincingly I think.

I haven't read either Bray or de Blois (the two major recent biographers), but there's an article by David S Michaels in Ancient Warfare II.6 - 'Unsung Saviour of Rome: the reign of the emperor Gallienus' that provides a very good summary and opinion.

Michaels reminds us that Gallienus ruled for 15 years, which in the third century was a major accomplishment, and not the kind of thing an ineffectual fop would have been able to pull off. He also seems to have undertaken some major military reforms (whether you believe in his 'mobile cavalry force' or not, he seems to have expanded his father's overhaul of the officer corps if nothing else) and fought pretty effectively on all fronts to hold the central empire together at its very darkest hour.

[Robert Vermaat]

I think the Aurelius Victor account is more truthful. Historia Augusta is known to make some things up, so Aurelius Victor is probably the way to go.

Why? Even if we think that the HA made some things up (which is an assumption of course) how do we say that Aurelius Victor did not? Almost every source for this period has material which is unsupported and can't be judged to be correct or not. And even when several authors have different accounts of the same event, it's a matter of interpretation for us to say who is more right.

In this case I do go with Victor though, because I'm not sure what the HA means with 'following their custom of always desiring a change of government'.

[Robert Vermaat]

Regarding "booty"...I have read that it was often the only real "take home" pay soldiers received, especially in times of crisis. Not all usurpation were caused by"greed"; many were due to the inability of the central government to timely respond to external threats. ..."self help" so to speak.

Agreed. In this case I doubt that Postumus was greedy. it was Gallieneus' son Saloninus who demanded all the booty for himself. No doubt Postumus was 'caught between a rock and a hard place', being confronted with troops on the edge of mutiny. Either he planned to take the throne and saw the opportunity, or he had to choose between a mutinous army and a disrecpectful commander.
In my opinion he was probably not the calculating usurper but a disgruntled local who saw the wealth of the province bleding away without the necessary safekeeping in return. The usurpation was a big change to the region, which turned away from Italy to look at NorthWest affairs first - the focus shifted. In fact this change foreshadowed, i think, the later Frankish Empire, and turned Italy into a side affair.