The exact date of the reconquest of Gaul is not known with certainty and we also do not know what route Aurelian took when he marched to Gaul. Saunders (251ff.) offers a detailed discussion of the chronological problems. At the root of the problem is the inscription which calls Aurelian restitutor orbis1 with the dating tr p IIII (tribunician powers four years) cos III (consul three times). There is no universal agreement regarding the exact dating of these offices: some claim that tr p IIII ended in 9 December 273, while Saunders claims that the dies imperii system dated the tribunician powers IIII to the year August 273 to August 274. Saunders is correct to note that on the basis of the normal marching speed of the army the latter system is to be preferred. However, if Aurelian started his return march in July 273, then the other earlier alternatives would also become possible. Regardless, in this reconstruction I follow Saunders’ basic argument which is that the reconquest took place either in August 274 or before it. The reason for this is that it is probable that Aurelian tarried for a while in Egypt, as discussed above. However, there is one difference in our interpretation. He places the decisive battle at Durocatalaunum to have taken place in late April 274 while I prefer to place it to the summer 274, as does Watson (p.93). Saunders’ date, however, is still quite possible.
The narrative sources do not offer us much evidence regarding the route Aurelian took when he left the east. Zosimus (1.61.2) states that Aurelian returned to Rome where he celebrated a triumph.Vopiscus (HA Aurel. 32.3) implies that Aurelian marched straight to Gaul. Zosimus’s account has usually been dismissed because Vopiscus (HA Aurel. 34.2– 3), Victor (35.5), 2 Eutropius (9.13), and Jerome (263 Olympiad) state that both Zenobia and Tetricus were paraded in the triumph of Aurelian. Saunders is of the opinion that the Historia Augusta is to be preferred in this case for this reason so that Aurelian would have marched along the Danube to the Catalaunian Fields where he engaged Tetricus’s forces in combat. This would have been the most direct route and it would also have enabled Aurelian to inspect the frontier during his march. However, I agree with Watson (83, 93, 243) that it is entirely possible that Aurelian visited Rome before he marched against Tetricus in Gaul. It is also entirely possible that Aurelian would have paraded Zenobia twice before the Romans in triumph – after all he had already paraded her in triumph in the east. Watson, however, suggests that the triumph was delayed to take place only after the Gallic campaign, which is also possible, but I prefer to follow Zosimus here. Zosimus (1.61.2) also claims that it was then that Aurelian started the construction of the new temple of Sol where he placed the statues of Sol and Belos – one may assume that it would also have had a statue of Apollonius of Tyana, as implied by the previous account. Zonaras (12.27) also places Aurelian’s marriage to the daughter of Zenobia (Ulpia Severina) to take place before the Gallic campaign, which is therefore to be preferred to the possibility that it took place after it. Aurelian’s presence in Rome suggests also that he presided over the reform of coinage while there because the reformed coins had already been issued at Alexandria, even if Zosimus (1.61) states that it took place only after the Gallic campaign.
On the basis of the extant coins it has long been recognized that Aurelian married a lady called Ulpia Severina and that she received the titles Augusta and Domina to correspond with Aurelian’s Augustus and Dominus immediately after her marriage in 274. The first known coins depicting Severina as Augusta were minted at Alexandria in August 274, followed after that by the other mints still in operation in 274. The origins of this Ulpia Severina has caused plenty of speculation. Most historians consider her to be some unknown lady from the Danubian regions on the basis of the name Ulpia because the name Ulpius was popular in the Balkans thanks to its connection with the emperor Ulpius Traianus (Trajan). However, it has also been suggested that she would be related to Ulpius Crinitus of the Historia Augusta, who claimed to be a descendant of Trajan, but most of those who dismiss Historia Augusta as a source, like for example Watson, dismiss this as worthless speculation. Another theory is that she was a daughter of none other than Zenobia, because Zonaras (12.27) claims that Aurelian married Zenobia’s daughter while he married the rest of her daughters to other distinguished Romans. This is not as easy to dismiss because it does not come from the hated Historia Augusta.3 Regardless, Saunders dismisses this theory on the grounds of her nomenclatura because as a daughter of Odaenathus she should have had the nomen Septimia and not Ulpia.4 In my opinion this is inconclusive because people of the time are known to have changed their names when it became advantageous to do so and in the case of Zenobia’s daughter there certainly would have been quite pressing reasons for a change of name. And why the name Severina? One possible answer could be that Aurelian wanted to return the Roman Empire to the golden age of the Severans. In short, in my opinion we should trust what Zonaras states. There was no reason for him to lie about this. The claim also receives support from the fact that Aurelian pardoned Zenobia and her relatives.
Coins of Severina. Source: Cohen. Note the coins which bear AUG instead of AUGG, which have been used to prove that Severina acted as a dowager during the interregnum.
It is curious that Aurelian married so late in life. He was about 59 or 60. The usual suggestion is of course that Aurelian married for dynastic reasons, to procreate offspring. This he certainly did. It is unfortunate that we do not know if he was a widower or whether he kept mistresses. It is possible that as a soldier he had visited the brothels or had kept concubines with the result that he never married, but this would have been quite contrary to his character. It is also possible that Aurelian was one of those manly military men who just did not know how to behave among women, with the result that he did not feel any great desire to marry one. It would also be possible to speculate that he had not married because he was bisexual or gay, but this speculation is probably the least likely because at least the Christian sources, which had every reason to hate him, would not have kept silence about it had it been so. In short, the silence of the sources allows many different speculations, but ultimately it is clear that we just do not know anything about Aurelian’s personal life before the marriage.
According to Flavius Vopiscus (HA Aurel. 42.1–2), Aurelian had a daughter who survived him. It is usually assumed that Aurelian must have sired her with Severina, but this is by no means certain. Aurelian was 59/60 and Severina must have been in her teens or just past her teens. If the account of the Historia Augusta (Aurel. 42.1–2) is correct, then it is likelier that the daughter was the love child of some earlier relationship, because Vopiscus claims that her grandson was the proconsul Aurelianus who lived in Sicily. This is obviously not conclusive because Roman history was full of examples in which the career paths and age requirements for various posts were overlooked for political reasons. It is possible that the daughter was indeed the offspring of Severina. This receives support from the otherwise inexplicable execution of the son and/or daughter of Aurelian’s sister. This son could have expected to succeed Aurelian, and if Severina had become pregnant, this dream might have evaporated into the wind. It appears certain that Zenobia’s children survived to produce offspring as several independent sources mention the existence of her descendants in Rome, 5 and I would include Severina as one who could have given birth to these.
The sources for the reconquest are bare in their details. The Greek sources, Zosimus (1.61.2), Syncellus (AM 5764), and Zonaras (12.27), state in the briefest possible way that Aurelian reconquered Gaul from the insurgents. The Latin sources add to this some important pieces of information. Sextus Aurelius Victor (35.3–4) states that when the Germanic invaders had been driven out of Gaul, the legions had been destroyed because their general had betrayed them. This suggests a possibility that the local governor Faustinus had cooperated with the Franks. The reason for this was that Tetricus was being attacked by his soldiers because the governor (praeses) Faustinus had corrupted them. It was then because of this that Tetricus had sent a letter to Aurelian in which he begged for Aurelian’s protection. Tetricus stated that he had drawn up his army in combat formation only for the sake of appearance and that he would betray his army during the combat. Consequently, he surrendered to Aurelian immediately when he approached. Eutropius (9.13.1), Historia Augusta (Tr. 24.2–3, Aurel. 32.3–4), Jerome (263 Olympiad) and Orosius (7.23) also state that Tetricus feared his own soldiers, abandoned them and surrendered out of his own free will to Aurelian. The location of the battle, Durocatalaunum (Châlons-sur-Marne/Champagne), has been preserved by Eutropius and Panegyrici Latini (8(5)4.3). The latter mentions the massive carnage which took place at Durocatalaunum. Jordanes (Romana 290) agrees because according to him Tetricus betrayed his own army among the Catalauni.
We are now in a position to reconstruct the principal features of this war. The Germans had invaded Gaul either in 273 or 274, but had been defeated by Tetricus. However, it was then that Faustinus had raised a revolt at Trier (Victor 35.4, Polemius Silvius 521–522) with the result that Tetricus was fearful of his own men. He communicated his fears secretly to Aurelian who duly marched to Durocatalaunum in 274. It was then that Tetricus sent a second message to Aurelian which stated the above. Then when the armies were about to engage in combat, Tetricus abandoned his army with the result that Aurelian basically massacred the disordered force. It is also probable that Tetricus would have purposefully arrayed his army in such a manner that it was easy to destroy.6
Coin of Tetricus.
Source: Cohen.
Tetricus with his son.
Source: Cohen.
Aurelian duly took Tetricus and his son Tetricus II, who had been made a co-emperor by Tetricus I, prisoners to be paraded in the triumph. However, Aurelian pardoned both and even made Tetricus either corrector Lucaniae or corrector totius Italiae.7 This was in striking contrast to the treatment of Heraclammon at Tyana. Aurelian had either changed his mind about the best policy to be followed or he just wanted to reward Tetricus for the services he had given Rome by protecting Gaul against the barbarians just as he rewarded Zenobia with her life for the services she had done on behalf of Rome – or perhaps Aurelian just felt sympathy with the troubles Tetricus had with his unreliable soldiers. It is likely that this was one of the instances in which Probus influenced the policy decisions of Aurelian because as supreme commander of the protectores it is likely that Probus was in charge of clandestine operations such as these would have been. And why did Aurelian massacre the Gallic army in a situation in which the Roman Empire needed every soldier it had? In my opinion, it was because Aurelian as soldier-emperor felt that the worst offence the soldiers could make was to rebel against their commanding officer. He had no use for such soldiers and had them all killed.8
Now he had Faustinus at Trier (Augusta Trevorum) to deal with. Trier was close by so it did not take long for Aurelian to engage his next opponent after the massacre at Durocatalaunum. It has been suggested on the basis of the statement of Polemius Silvius (521–2), who claims that Faustinus was a usurper under Aurelian, that Aurelian did not face him now but later in 275 during his second Gallic campaign. This is possible, but I would suggest that there is actually no discrepancy in the sources when we remember that after the surrender of Tetricus, Faustinus would indeed have been a usurper under Aurelian. In fact, the following text of Zosimus proves this to be the case:
After these successes he easily defeated and punished Tetricus and other insurgents [it is this ‘allous epanastantas’ that proves the existence of other rebels after Tetricus had been subdued] in a manner they deserved. [Zosimus 1.61.2, my free translation based on Paschoud, Ridley and Bernard.]
Even if not mentioned by the sources, it is probable that Aurelian conducted a very short punishing expedition across the Rhine to chastise those who had previously attacked and supported Faustinus. This receives support from the text of Vopiscus (HA Probus 12.3) which states that Probus defeated the Franks in the pathless marshes. It is quite possible that this incident took place now. If so, then it is possible that Probus served under Aurelian during this campaign or that Aurelian had placed Probus in charge of the expedition. The subsequent triumph at Rome includes Franks and Germans among the captives. These must have been the allies of Faustinus, and the Celts, Franks and Germans that Postumus and Victorinus had enrolled into their army during the reign of Gallienus (HA Gall. 71, Tr. 6.1–2), and possibly also tribal warriors who would have been captured during the punishing expedition, if that is what Aurelian did. It is probable that at least some of these Germanic soldiers and units survived the massacre at Durocatalaunum and the subsequent defeat of Faustinus because these were not present in those massacres to become the auxilia palatina units of the late Roman period.
After this Aurelian restored the defensive structures in the area and fortified at least the city of Dijon. He also built a city called Aureliani, which is now known as Orléans. In addition to this, Aurelian closed the Mint of Trier so that it could not be used to obtain the support of the Rhine army in the manner Faustinus had used it. The Lugdunum (Lyon) Mint was also reopened and White suggests that it was placed under the control of Probus. The restoration of Gaul into the Roman Empire was celebrated with the titles restitutor Galliarum, restitutor libertatis and restitutor orbis. In addition to this, the inscriptions show Aurelian with the title Britannicus maximus which was usually awarded for conquest. It is clear that if Aurelian had wanted to cross the Channel he could have easily done so and it is because of this that it is possible that he did. However, there is no definite evidence for Aurelian’s presence on the island and it may be that he received the title as a result of the surrender of the island. However, in light of the evidence I would not preclude the possibility that Aurelian did conduct a campaign in person.9
After the conquest of Gaul the whole Roman Empire stood united under Aurelian. It was now the time to celebrate the achievement in grand style. Aurelian was now the restitutor orbis and pacator orbis. The titles were advertised on coins and inscriptions with good reason. The following description of the triumph in the Historia Augusta is the only one that describes the triumph of Aurelian in any great detail and is therefore included here.
The peace of the west did conclude with Aurelian the entire master of all the Roman world. Every part of it now was reduced to him; and so he took his way to the city of Rome, to celebrate a solemn triumph, at once over Zenobia and Tetricus, that is, the east and west.
It will not be amiss to know the manner of the triumph of Aurelian; for it was a very noble one. There were three chariots of state, worthy of the magnificence of the greatest kings. The first was the chariot of Odaenathus, curiously wrought and distinguished with silver, gold, and jewels. The next was an equally fine chariot which had been given to Aurelian by the King of Persia. The third was Zenobia’s chariot, which she had made for herself, in hopes to make her entrance into the city of Rome with it; nor was she mistaken. For she did so, but it was as a captive, and both her and her chariot were led in triumph. [Festus 24.1 also notes that Zenobia was led captive in front of the chariot.] There was a fourth chariot drawn by four stags supposed to be the chariot of the King of the Goths. In this chariot Aurelian rode to the capitol to sacrifice there those stags, which he had captured with the chariot and he had vowed to the most excellent and most mighty Jupiter. These chariots were preceded by twenty elephants, and two hundred tamed wild beasts of several kinds out of the countries of Libya and Palestine; all which Aurelian gave afterwards away to private citizens so that the feeding of these would not burden the privy purse. There were four tigers, and also giraffes, elks and other such animals. There were 800 pairs of gladiators. There followed the captives of the barbarian nations: Blemmyes, Axomitae [Aksumite Ethiopians], Arabes Eudaemones [Arabs from Arabia Felix/Aden], Indians, Bactrians, Hiberians [Iberians/Georgians], Saracens and Persians every one with their offerings; there were also Goths, Alans, Roxolani, Sarmatians, Franks, Suebians [Iuthungi], Vandals and Germans [presumably the Alamanni] all prisoners with their hands bound. There were also with them those men of Palmyra that were left alive, and also Egyptians because of their revolt. There were ten women captives led in the like manner, who had fought in male clothing and had been captured among the Goths when many others like them had been killed at the same time. These were called Amazons in a placard in the same manner as other placards were carried before all showing the name of each nation. Then came Tetricus, well dressed in a scarlet robe, yellow tunic, and Gallic trousers. By him marched his son, whom he had declared joint emperor with him in Gallia. And next marched Zenobia. She was adorned with jewels, and her chains were of gold, the weight of which was borne by others. The crowns of the vanquished nations were displayed and carried in the procession. Then marched the people of Rome, with all the vexilla-standards of the collegia and camps [vexilla collegiorum atque castrorum: the collegia should be translated to mean the military associations known as collegia (sing. collegium) which met in the scholae (schools, sing. schola). The vexilla of the castra would presumably mean the cavalry standards belonging to the regular cavalry.], 10 the cataphractarii milites [The cataphracts appear to have always held a special place in Roman triumphs after they had been introduced into the Roman army. The reason for this was undoubtedly their awesome appearance which was expected to make an impression on the audience. It is no wonder that modern audiences are also captivated by these.], wealth of the kings, all the army [omnis exercitus: this presumably means both the regular cavalry and infantry or just infantry because the cataphracts had marched earlier], and then the Senate, but the Senate was a little sad because senators were also led in triumph [Tetricus]… It was almost the ninth hour of the day before they reached the Capitol and very late when they arrived at the Palace. The following days were spent in the pleasures of the plays of the stage, races of the circus, wild-beast hunts, fights of the gladiators and encounters of the galleys [naval battles, naumachiae].11 [Flavius Vopiscus, Historia Augusta, Aurelianus 22.4–24.6, tr. by Bernard, 231–3 with emendations, corrections, comments and changes.]
Aurelian's Deus et Dominus coin which celebrates him as RESTITUTOR ORBIS.
Source: Cohen
Coin of Aurelian, the Invictus Augustus, with the RESTITUTOR ORBIS reverse.
Source: Cohen
Most of the historians dismiss the list of the captives included in this triumph solely on the basis that it is included in the Historia Augusta. However, as discussed above, this is the wrong way to approach this source. There should always be specific reasons for the dismissal of evidence. In this study this list is given the attention it deserves. The list is a very valuable piece of evidence because it allows us to reconstruct some of the missing pieces from the puzzle by showing what nations were allied with the enemies of Aurelian in each instance.
The Blemmyes, Axomitae [Aksumite Ethiopians], Saracens (Kinda), Arabes Eudaemones [Arabs of Aden] and Indians were probably the allies of Egyptian rebels led by Firmus. In other words, Firmus and his Palmyrene allies had the backing of most of the peoples of the Red Sea route to India. With the addition of these allies, the size of Firmus’s army was undoubtedly considerable even if it consisted primarily of masses of lightly equipped tribal warriors and citizen militia. It is probable that the Bactrians, Hiberians [Iberians/Georgians], and Persians, and probably also at least some of the Saracens (al- Hira) and Indians were captured at the time when Aurelian defeated the Persians in 272. The Palmyrenes would also have been captured during the same campaign. Of these, the case for the presence of Indians in the Persian army is not known with certainty because these may also have been present in the rebel Firmus’ army. One possibility is of course that there were Indians in both armies, because the Persians certainly possessed territories with Indians in the east. The Alans would probably have fought with the Goths so that both were captured at the same time in 271 when Aurelian defeated Cannabaudes. The ‘Amazon’ women captives are likely to have consisted of the Alans, serving under the Goths, but one cannot entirely rule out that these were really native Goths. The Sarmatians and Vandals were naturally captured when they invaded in 271. The Suebians would be the Iuthungi and possibly also the Marcomanni, while the Germans would be the Alamanni, but the list includes also some problematic names. These are the Franks and Roxolani Sarmatians (White Alans). It has been suggested that the Roxolani fought with the Carpi in 273 (see above), but it is of course possible that they would have fought with the Goths in 271 because they inhabited the area controlled by the Goths. The most problematic are the Franks. The only sensible solution to their inclusion in 274 is that Tetricus and Faustinus had employed these as allies or as elite forces later known as the auxilia palatina. This is actually very likely in light of the fact that Postumus had enrolled large numbers of these into his army. This would also explain why Tetricus had so much trouble with his soldiers and why he was so eager to betray them to Aurelian, and it would add still another reason besides disobedience to the list of reasons why Aurelian would want to massacre them.
The inclusion of the vexilla of collegia and castra is also important because it clearly refers to the military collegia which assembled in the meeting halls called schools (scholae) as I have already postulated several times and probably also to the vexilla of the regular cavalry posted in the castra (their castles/garrisons). It stands as still another proof that the scholae units were created probably by Septimius Severus at the turn of the second century AD.
It was presumably during Aurelian’s longest stay in the city of Rome that many of the policies and practices of his became evident to the population, and it is because of this that I have included a discussion of his habits and customs here.
According to the Epitome de Caesaribus (35.5), Aurelian was the first emperor to use the diadem and also used gems and gold on every piece of clothing contrary to the Roman custom. This could be interpreted as an example of Aurelian’s hostility towards the conservative senators demonstrated through clothes. It was the hated Gallienus who had previously used imperial costumes bristling with gems and gold. It could also be interpreted that Aurelian now wanted to be identified as Dominus et Deus, the titles which he used, to separate himself from the rest of the population. However, there are several problems with this. Firstly, Gallienus had already used gems on his clothing. Secondly, Jerome claims that it was Diocletian who introduced the diadem and gems into clothing. Thirdly, the image given by the Historia Augusta of Aurelian’s policy towards clothing contains some contradictory material. Vopiscus implies the exact opposite when he states that Aurelian did not use clothing made of silk and planned to forbid the use of gold on tunics and leather and the use of silver for gilding. However, what is notable about this list is that Aurelian did not carry out his plans regarding gilding, so it is possible that he was just trying to please Tacitus, the future emperor, who had advised Aurelian to adopt these policies. Furthermore, the fact that Aurelian did not wear silk does not preclude the use of the jewels and other items of luxury to make his position as emperor visible to the subjects. The refusal to use silk can also be seen merely as a measure meant to save money. Aurelian forbade men from using boots of purple, wax-colour, white, or ivy, while he allowed this for women. However, refusing to allow men to wear purple boots supports the view that Aurelian wanted to restrict this right only for the emperor. Gallienus on the other hand had been famous for using effeminate boots, and this was now forbidden to men other than the emperor. Then there is the problem of what would be the implications for the fact that Aurelian’s slaves were dressed just as they had been when Aurelian was a commoner. In my opinion this does not mean that Aurelian would not have wanted to separate himself from the commoners, but rather that he did not want his slaves to assume too important a position in relation to the free population.12
The image which arises from this is that Aurelian was a military man who was frugal with money, but who still wanted to stress his own superior position as emperor through clothing. The measures that forbade the wearing of certain types of footwear were clearly meant to separate Aurelian from his subjects as Dominus et Deus. Therefore, regardless of the circumstantial evidence preserved by the Historia Augusta, I would suggest that the Epitome is likely to be correct in its statements and that Aurelian dressed as described, at least on formal occasions and on military campaigns, to separate him from his subjects and soldiers/officers. He was a man of lowly origins who needed pomp and royal regalia to separate himself from his subjects who he wanted to look at him with awe and respect.
The above-mentioned policies, however, were not extended to cover the clothing worn by women or soldiers. Aurelian allowed matrons to dress in purple, unlike his own imperial slaves; he allowed his soldiers to have clasps of gold (previously silver); and he allowed soldiers to have tunics with one to five bands of embroidery. These measures were clearly meant to flatter the soldiers while also showing to the conservatively minded senators that matrons and soldiers were held in high esteem by the emperor. It did not matter that the matrons wore purple, because women could not become emperors.
Aurelian made plans to improve the living standards of the populace by building a public bath in the Transtiberine district and by building a forum at Ostia. One of his unfulfilled plans was to give the populace of Rome free wine – after all, his one weakness was red wine and he wanted others to share it. The plan was to buy land in Etruria for the purpose of settling the families of the slaves captured in war so they would plant the hills with vines to make wine for Romans. Aurelian had also prepared vats, casks, ships and the labour needed for this project, but the plan was opposed by the praefectus praetorio who managed to change Aurelian’s mind by saying that after that he should also give the populace chickens and geese. Aurelian settled on a watered-down version of his plan, storing wine belonging to the privy purse in the porticos of the Temple of the Sun so that the populace could buy it at subvented price. One intention would therefore have been promotion of the worship of the Sol. Aurelian distributed largesse among the populace three times (presumably when he visited the city of Rome) and on one of those occasions his gifts consisted of white tunics with long sleeves. This gift is reminiscent of the handing of the Caracallus-cloaks to the populace by Antoninus Magnus, better known as Caracalla. Aurelian was also the first emperor to hand over handkerchiefs to the populace which they waved when they wanted to show their approval. It was for good reason that the populace loved him while the senators feared him.13
According to Vopiscus, Aurelian disliked to reside in the Palace of Rome and preferred to live in the Gardens of Sallust or the Gardens of Domitia. He built a 1,000 ft long portico in the Gardens of Sallust where he and his horses exercised daily even though he was not in good health. This suggests several things. Aurelian disliked the pomp of the palace and it is therefore probable that he dressed in eastern pomp merely because it was the wise course to take. He needed splendour, ceremony and titles to stress his divine right to rule over his subjects, which included the nobles and senators. The evidence suggests that Aurelian was a soldier who liked to take physical exercise. He rode daily even though he was in poor health, and at 60 years old, with his health deteriorating, he still tried to postpone the inevitable by training as hard as he could. Perhaps it was because of this that he built a portico which offered him at least some protection against the elements in the winter of 274–5. Aurelian’s lifestyle was very Spartan. His only amusements were to watch the performances of actors and one gourmand who could eat vast amounts of food and drink red wine. The fact that Aurelian’s banquets consisted mainly of roasted meats mean that he and his men were on a high-protein diet with low carbohydrate intake. This was good for muscles, but otherwise potentially dangerous. However, the fact that Aurelian liked red wine worked to his advantage because it protected his arteries against the worst effects of the high protein diet. Notably none of the sources suggests that Aurelian had any heart problems. However, his meat-heavy diet and the fact that he used riding as his principal form of physical exercise does suggest another possibility which is that he suffered from gout. Vopiscus gives us a description of how Aurelian treated himself when he was ill. He claims that Aurelian never summoned a physician but in most cases cured himself by abstaining from food. Modern medicine would not recommend this approach, but it might have been beneficial for Aurelian for another reason which is that he did not trust his life in the hands of the doctors who could after all be working for someone else.14
On the basis of the Historia Augusta, it is possible that there was a senatorial revolt or conspiracy during Aurelian’s last stay in Rome which involved the killing of his sister’s son and/or daughter. It is not known why Aurelian would have killed his sister’s son, but the likeliest reason is that he acted as a figurehead ruler in a senatorial conspiracy. One can imagine that if the children of Aurelian’s sister were expecting to succeed Aurelian they would have felt cheated when Aurelian then married Severina, and if she then became pregnant, then the relatives could have thought that it was now or never. The killing of the daughter of the sister, if it took place, could be connected with a sexual relationship or marriage with a man of senatorial background for the possible purpose of usurpation.15
The evidence for the events of the year 275 is by far the worst we have of this period. Aurelian’s plan for the year appears to have been to force the Goths to provide soldiers for his planned invasion of Persia after which he would have marched against the main foe (see below), but before this could take place fate intervened. The year began with yet another war in Gaul and Raetia. According to the Historia Augusta (Aurel. 35.4–5), Aurelian marched to Gaul and delivered the Vindelici (of the city of Augusta Vindelicum/ Augsburg in Raetia) from a barbarian siege, after which he returned to Illyricum to begin a war against the Persians. In other words, at the time of the troubles in Gaul and Raetia, Aurelian was already in Illyricum making preparations for the forthcoming war against the Persians. Zonaras (12.27) states that after his triumph Aurelian pacified the restless Gauls for the second time. Zosimus (61.2) in his turn notes that Aurelian subdued Tetricus and other rebels after his triumph at Rome (see above) with the implication that there were presumably other insurgents in Gaul after Tetricus had surrendered.
When all of these pieces of evidence are taken together it becomes probable that there was a new revolt or invasion in Gaul either in late 274 or in early 275 and that Aurelian marched there to crush it. It is possible that this revolt was a usurpation attempt by Faustinus in Trier, because Polemius Silvanus (p.521) claims that he was a usurper under Aurelian, but it is also possible that the Faustinus incident had already taken place in 274. The latter is more likely. What appears probable is that Aurelian did indeed march first to Gaul as stated by the Historia Augusta and Zonaras and that he strengthened his army with forces usually posted in Raetia. So, my suggestion is that Aurelian marched from Illyricum through Raetia to Gaul and took most of Raetia’s garrison forces with him. When this was noticed by the neighbouring Alamanni, they exploited the opportunity, invaded, and put Augusta Vindelicum under siege. In the meantime however, Aurelian had crushed the revolt, after which he marched at the double to Vindelicum where he defeated the barbarians once again. Saunders dates this war to late winter/early spring 275, but this is probably too early in light of the fact that Aurelian was already in Illyricum making preparations for the forthcoming Persian war. My suggestion is that the campaign took place in spring/late spring.16 It was only after this that Aurelian was free to implement his own plans for the year.
The Historia Augusta (Aurel. 44.3–5) includes a claim that Aurelian consulted the Druid priestesses in Gaul and asked whether power would remain in the hands of his descendants. If there is any truth to this claim, it is clear that this must have happened after the birth of the daughter and it is therefore likelier that it took place (if it did) during the second Gallic campaign. Vopiscus claims that the Druids answered that the descendants of Claudius would inherit power and that their prediction was proven correct by the fact that Constantius was now the emperor. The inclusion of Constantius in this context makes the consulting of the priestesses very suspect, but I would add to this the fact that Aurelian was a son of a priestess and therefore a man who knew how the answers to the questions of believers were answered by priestesses. In short, it is unlikely that Aurelian would have earnestly asked such advice. There is one exception to this, which is that it is possible that Aurelian could have asked such advice in the expectation that the priestesses would publicly declare that his descendants would rule the Empire – the idea being the reinforcement of his rule in the eyes of the populace. The priestesses would not have given Aurelian the kind of answer claimed by Vopiscus. They would have known what to tell the emperor.
On the basis of the extant sources, Aurelian appears to have continued his march to the Balkans immediately after he had defeated the invaders at Vindelicum. Flavius Vopiscus (HA Aurel.35.4–5) states that Aurelian returned to Illyricum, where he had prepared an army which was large/powerful while not being too large, and then declared war on the Persians. According to Malalas (12.30) and Jordanes (Romana 291), Aurelian then began another war, but they do not state against which enemy. Zonaras (2.27) on the other hand states that when Aurelian was directing his army against the Scythians (i.e. Goths), he was killed while at Heracleia in Thrace. According to Syncellus (AM 5764), Aurelian was killed after having attacked the Scythians (Goths).
The above conflicting information regarding the target of Aurelian’s planned attack has naturally divided historians. Some are of the opinion that Aurelian’s plan was to invade Persia, while others, like Saunders (267ff.), think that Aurelian’s plan was to attack the Goths. Those who support the Persian war think that Aurelian wanted to invade either Armenia or Mesopotamia because these were in Persian hands. The former is true, but the latter was already in Roman hands. Watson and White have suggested that it is possible to reconcile the sources if one thinks that Aurelian fought a campaign against the Goths in the summer of 275, after which he planned to march against the Persians in the autumn of 275. Watson however still considers it unwise to trust the Historia Augusta in this case and states as his final conclusion that the evidence remains inconclusive because of this.17
I disagree. As already discussed, the Historia Augusta is just as relevant as a source as the other ones. The claim that Aurelian’s goal was to attack Persia is backed up by circumstantial evidence. It is probable that Aurelian’s goal was to install Trdat/Tiridates on the Armenian throne because this would have returned the situation to the state that it had been under Caracalla and before him. However, it is possible that Aurelian had even more grandiose plans; the situation for a full scale invasion of Persia was very opportune because ever since the death of Hormizd I in ca. 273 the new Persian King of Kings Bahram I had been fighting against ‘the kings of the east’.18 The period from 272 onwards until at least 287 was among the darkest in the annals of Sasanian Persia. Hormizd I (ca. 272–3) had spent his entire short reign in the east fighting against the Hephthalites/Sogdians, who had presumably exploited the transferral of forces to the west against Aurelian in 272, and then his successor Bahram I (ca. 273–6) spent most of his reign in the east, and then his successor Bahram II (ca. 276–93) did the same.19 Note also the quite apparent diplomatic activities that preceded this campaign against Persia which I mentioned in the context of Aurelian’s Egyptian campaign. The campaign against the Scythians (Goths) was done to force them to join his campaign force. This is proven by the Historia Augusta (Tacitus 13.2–3). According to this text, when Tacitus began his reign, the Goths20 informed him that they had assembled for a war against the Persians because Aurelian had commanded them to do so. There is nothing strange about this. The Romans had collected Goths for their wars against the Persians ever since the days of Septimius Severus and Caracalla.21 Gordian III and Valerian had done so, and Galerius, Constantine and Constantius II were to do so after Aurelian.22 This was one of the standard operating procedures of Roman strategy against the Persians. Gothic cavalry lancers were particularly useful and effective against Persian cavalry. Furthermore, the Romans needed to bolster the numbers of their horsemen if they wanted to be able to face the Persians on equal terms. Combined arms tactics required enough horsemen to work. The horsemen were needed not only for reconnaissance, pursuit and protection of the flanks of infantry, but also to tie up enemy cavalry in one place so that the Roman infantry would be able to reach it in combat.
It was not fated for Aurelian to invade Persia.
According to Eusebius, Jerome, Orosius, Lactantius and Syncellus, just before his death Aurelian had sent orders to begin a persecution of Christians. If this is true, and there is every reason to believe it is, then Aurelian would have come to the conclusion that there were Christian fifth columnists within Roman society who posed a potential danger to his project to unite the Romans behind Sol Invictus and its Messiah Apollonius of Tyana, and other gods whose images Aurelian used in his propaganda. The other possibility, which does not preclude the previous one, is that Aurelian considered the Christians to be common criminals who were to be punished for their failure to show him and the gods proper respect – after all Aurelian was a person who was merciless towards those whom he considered corrupt and/or criminal. In my opinion it is also possible that Aurelian considered Christianity to be a threat to military discipline because the Christian soldiers could not be motivated to fight with the same trick that Aurelian had used to motivate the soldiers at Emesa.23 Later Christian sources give a long list of names of those who became martyrs during the persecution launched by Aurelian, but modern historians have quite rightly considered these to be later fabrications because the above-mentioned sources clearly state that Aurelian died before the intended persecution began24. Regardless, it is still possible, as suggested by Alaric Watson, that some scattered persecutions were already launched during the lifetime of Aurelian but not any wide-scale persecution. I would also suggest an alternative interpretation for the lists of martyrs, which is that they did not die as a result of the intended persecution of Christians because it was never launched, but as a result of some other action taken against either criminals or other enemies, and were later converted into martyrs by Christian authorities because the killed persons were Christians. Regardless, it is still clear, as the previous research has shown, that most of the persons mentioned as martyrs for Aurelian’s reign were actually killed under other emperors like Marcus Aurelius whose name resembled Aurelianus.25
It should be noted though, that had Aurelian’s project been put into effect it would probably not have brought the ‘Christian menace’ 26 to an end because all persecutions appear to have just strengthened Christianity and the resolve of its followers. The reason for this was the cult of martyrdom and the promise of eternal life to those who died as martyrs. It was Constantine the Great who finally recognized that it was easier to join the Christians rather than fight against them.
The principal features of the assassination of the great soldier emperor Aurelian are well known and discussed by several historians, but there are still some unanswerable questions, one being the exact timing of his death. The following analysis is based on the original and secondary sources so that all of the main problems and suggestions are included. It is based on the conclusions already made, but still makes some new observations.27 This includes the naming of the units which carried out the murder.
The basic details for the death of Aurelian are as follows. Aurelian threatened to punish one of his trusted freedmen called Eros for some unknown offence. Vopiscus calls him with the name Mnestheus, but it has long been recognized that Vopiscus did so probably intentionally because this word had been derived from the Greek menutes, which meant a notarius. This man was a domesticus and notarius secretorum and he had been used as a trusted secretary and spy/informer by Aurelian. The likely reason for the threat was that this Eros had taken bribes from the officers who had been guilty of embezzlement and extortion in the provinces, because Aurelius Victor connects the murder with Aurelian’s policy of punishing soldiers who were guilty of this. Aurelian must have realized that his trusted informant had been taking bribes and that he had hidden from him the cases of corruption among the officers. Perhaps Aurelian purposely cultivated a reputation for cruelty in the manner suggested by Machiavelli (Prince, 17), but in this case Eros was able to turn this reputation against Aurelian.
Rightly fearing for his life, Eros forged letters in which Aurelian ordered the execution of several tribunes. The tribunes in question must be the tribunes of the protectores, who could actually be very high ranking individuals acting as generals as the leading figure in the plot is known to have been. This individual was the dux Mucapor, of Thracian origins. There is no doubt that the plotters consisted of the imperial bodyguards because Zosimus (1.62.2) calls these ‘tôn doruforôn’. With the exception of Paschoud, the doryforoi have been translated as praetorians, but at this time in history the men in question must have belonged to the protectores domestici.28 They included many friends of Aurelian who knew from personal experience Aurelian’s strong hatred of corruption and his quick violent temper when he faced such situations. Eros then showed the forged list to the men, which included his own name. The plot to kill Aurelian was formed hastily and without much planning because the conspirators did not have anyone to put on the throne as a successor for Aurelian. The only reason for the murder was that the men on the list feared that the quick temper of the emperor would be brought down upon them. The plot was apparently formed at Heraclea/Perinthus.
Flavius Vopiscus (HA Tac. 2.4–6) summarises the circumstances in which the murder took as follows:
Aurelian, as I have shown in the previous book, was killed by the treason of a despicable slave and stupidity of the officers (because these believe any lies if these are told to them when they are angry, being usually drunken and at best usually without good counsel), but all these persons being returned to their senses, and severely denounced for their folly by the army, the question was immediately raised, who of them, if any, should be chosen as emperor. [It is ironic that a man who loved wine was killed by a party of drunkards.] The army, which was used to set up emperors hastily, in their hatred against those [officers] present, sent to the Senate the letter, which I have already presented in the previous book [Vita of Aurelianus], in which they asked the Senate to choose the prince from among its ranks. But the Senate knew that the princes chosen by them do not always please the army and they referred the choice back to the army. This was repeated so many times that six months passed [before Tacitus was elected]. [Tr. by Bernard (252–3) with several changes and emendations by Ilkka Syvänne which are partially based on the edition/translation of Magie (298–9).]
The important point in the above discussion is that it implies that the officers were fooled to murder Aurelian when they were in a drunken state. This reference to the drinking habits of the officers and soldiers is also confirmed by so many independent sources that it must be true. It was thanks to this that Eros was able to convince the officers that they faced the danger of execution.
When Aurelian then continued his journey from Heraclea/Perinthus towards Byzantium with the purpose of crossing to Asia to begin his long planned campaign against Persia, the tribunes and the protectores with the the dux Mucapor at their head attacked and killed Aurelian at a place called Cenophrurium. Aurelian was 61 years of age at the time of his death. This is yet another instance of the imperial bodyguards murdering their emperor, but in this case the reason for it was probably the craziest ever in the annals of Roman history. The murder is described as follows by Zosimus:
During his stay at Perinthus, now called Heraclea, a conspiracy was thus formed against him. There was in the court a man named Eros, whose office was to carry out the answers of the emperor. This man had been for some fault threatened by the emperor, and put in great fear. Dreading therefore lest the emperor should realize his menaces by actions, he went to some of the guard, whom he knew to be the boldest men in the court; he told them a plausible story, and showed them a letter of his own writing, in the character of the emperor (which he long before learned to counterfeit), and persuading them first that they themselves were to be put to death, which was the meaning expressed by the letter, he endeavoured to prevail on them to murder the emperor. The deception worked. Observing Aurelianus to go out of the city with a small retinue, they ran out upon him and murdered him. He was buried on the spot with great magnificence by the army in consideration of the great services he had performed, and the dangers he had undergone for the good of the public. [Zosimus 1.62, English tr. 1814, pp.30–31.]
When the conspirators realized their horrible mistake and what Eros had done, they and the other members of the army built a tomb for the great emperor and erected a temple on the spot. Eros, the man who had caused the death of Aurelian, was tied to a stake and exposed to wild beasts. These events were then recorded in marble statues and on columns in honour of the deified Aurelian.29
According to Aurelius Victor (36.2), the dux Mucapor delivered the actual killing blow, which may mean that the other conspirators held Aurelian in place so that Mucapor could kill the emperor with greater ease. We do not know the exact timing of the murder of this great emperor. On the basis of an inscription at Rome dated 25 April 275 Aurelian was still alive roughly at that date, which serves post quam for the date of murder. Coins were minted in the name of Aurelian and Severina with the regnal year seven, which means that Aurelian was recognized at Antioch after 29 August 275. The last papyrus dated 19 October 275 refers to the seventh year of Aurelian’s reign, which implies that he was recognized as emperor in Rome roughly in mid-September. The first known papyrus to name Tacitus as emperor dates from 9 May 276. However, as stated by Saunders, the fact that inscriptions give Tacitus two tribunician powers suggests that he must have become emperor before 10 December 275.30
The problem is complicated by the fact that three Latin sources (HA Tac. 2.6; Aurelius Victor 35.9–36.1; Epitome 35.10) state that there was a six to seven month interregnum before the new emperor was chosen. On the basis of the above information this would be impossible. It has therefore been suggested that Severina acted as a sort of regent during this period to retain the loyalty of the soldiers in the absence of an emperor. Evidence for this has been the odd coins of Severina with the legend concordiae militum on the reverse, which was not used by empresses. The coins minted at Alexandria which acknowledge Severina as sole aug. (concordia aug. = only one augusta) rather than augg. (as it was during the lifetime of Aurelian) have been rightly used for the same purpose. This evidence, however, is controversial because it is entirely based on guesswork. It is still entirely possible that these coins were minted during her husband’s lifetime. On the basis of the papyri, inscription and coins, most historians are of the opinion that the interregnum was much shorter than the six/seven months claimed by the Latin sources and rather suggest that Aurelian died in about August/September 275 and that the interregnum lasted at most about two months. Saunders’ suggestion is that the length of the interregnum in the Latin sources resulted from a misunderstanding so that the six-month reign of Tacitus became the length of the interregnum.31 This is an attractive suggestion, but the evidence used to counter the six/seven month interregnum is actually not conclusive because it is possible that Aurelian continued to be officially recognized during the chaotic and exceptional situation, so it was because of this that the name of Aurelian was still found in papyri as late as 19 October 275. This would date the murder of Aurelian roughly to May/June 275 so that Severina would have served as a dowager empress after that. It is certain that there was an interregnum, but whether it was short as suggested by the inscriptions and papyri, or whether it was six or seven months long as suggested by the Latin sources, is uncertain. In sum, in light of the extant but uncertain evidence, August/September 275 remains the likeliest time for the murder of Aurelian and that the interregunum lasted not more than two or three months; but it is entirely possible that the Latin sources are actually correct. The question remains unsolvable unless new evidence surfaces, for example as a result of archaeological finds.
And what was the role of Probus in these events? Vopiscus claims that some time during his reign Aurelian appointed Probus commander of the Tenth Legion just as Claudius had previously appointed Aurelian as its commander to signal that he would be the intended successor.32 I have already pointed out in my biography of Gallienus that it is probable that this Tenth Legion was one of the late Roman elite legions, the likeliest candidates being Ioviani and Herculiani, and that the commander of these elite units would have probably been comes domesticorum peditum if the protectores were divided into infantry and cavalry as they were at the time when the Notitia Dignitatum was written at the turn of the fifth century, or that the commander was simply comes domesticorum if the protectores/domestici were not divided. The latter alternative is more likely because Vopiscus clearly states that the position was the highest in the army. The other possible titles for the commander of this unit would have been magister officiorum or magister peditum. The existence of the magister officiorum and comes domesticorum can be deduced from the sources for the reigns of Gallienus and Diocletian, and similarly the title of comes domesticorum can proven to have existed under Carus, Numerianus and Carinus because it was the title held by Diocles/Diocletian. The key point here is that Aurelian appears to have appointed Probus as the supreme commander of all of the protectores/domestici units either as magister officiorum or as comes domesticorum, and it was the members of these units that carried out the murder and were later present in Syria where Probus served as a general. Does this mean that he was one of the conspirators? In light of the evidence this seems very unlikely. None of the sources claim that Probus would have had any responsibility for the murder. Tacitus appointed Probus general, which is unlikely to have happened if he was one of the conspirators. Probus then went on to kill all of the remaining conspirators once he had become emperor. In sum, Probus was not one of the conspirators even if the murder was carried out by the officers and soldiers serving under him.