AMMIANUS on the REVOLT of FIRMUS1 Jan Willem Drijvers

AMMIANUS ON THE REVOLT OF FIRMUS1

Jan Willem Drijvers

Abstract: This article presents a (re-)evaluation of Ammianus’ account of the Firmus revolt and the revolt itself. It is argued that Ammianus’ report leaves to be desired with respect to the completeness concerning geographical and chronological information. An explanation is given for the length of the account, which was also meant by Ammianus to evoke the Iugurthine war and the Tacfarinas revolt to connect his own work to the writings of Sallust and Tacitus. In his narrative of the suppression of the revolt Ammianus’ critical innuendoes indicate that Theodosius the Elder was not a spotless heroic ﬁgure.

I. Introduction

After the death of Julian and the short reign of Jovian the rule of the empire was taken over by Valentinian and Valens. Ammianus was not particularly impressed by the rule of these Pannonian emperors. Although he praised them, in particular Valentinian, for the way in which they conducted military affairs, they were not his sort of people. He thought them boorish, greedy and savagely cruel by nature, and their reigns rotten. They showed no self-control and did not restrain their powers as (good) rulers should do. The arrogance of the military increased to the detriment of the commonwealth under their rule. The emperors were lenient in punishing officials who abused their positions. But foremost amongst Ammianus’ criticisms of Valentinian and Valens was the lack of justice from which their reigns suffered. Lawsuits were conducted unfairly, punishments were disproportionately harsh, people were convicted without having been given a trial and those who needed to be punished in the eyes of Ammianus could rely on the leniency of the emperors.2

1 I would like to thank the participants at the Wassenaar workshop for their com- ments on an earlier version of this article. Special thanks are due to Jan den Boeft, Sigrid Mratschek, and to David Hunt, who was so kind as to correct my English. 2 E.g.D.A.Pauw,Karaktertekening by Ammianus Marcellinus (Oegstgeest 1972;Diss. Leiden) 138–166; John F. Matthews, The Roman Empire of Ammianus (London 1989) passim. 130 jan willem drijvers

Barbarian invasions and warfare characterized the reigns of Valen- tinian and Valens. There were troubles at the frontiers with Alamanni, Saxones, Quadi, Goths, Huns and Alans. There was a conﬂict with Persia over Armenia, and there were raids by Isaurians and troubles in Britain. Both emperors were also confronted with revolts and usurpa- tions, among which that of Procopius in 365 was deﬁnitely the most serious. Another uprising took place in the 370s in Mauretania Cae- sariensis, the so-called Firmus revolt, named after its leader. Ammianus is the principal source for this rebellion against Roman authority. This article focuses on that revolt and on Ammianus’ presentation of it.

II. Ammianus’ account (29.5)

The Firmus revolt occurred against the background of troubles in Africa since the middle of the 360s and the mismanagement of affairs and exploitation of the provinces by the comes Africae Romanus over which even Iustitia herself had wept.3 According to Ammianus Firmus started his revolt out of fear that he would be condemned and executed because of the murder of his brother Zammac.4 The latter had been secretly killed by Firmus after their father Nubel had died leaving both legitimate sons and offspring by concubines. Zammac had been favoured by Romanus, and his death induced the comes Africae to attack Firmus at court. Romanus who had many friends at the imperial court, in particular the magister officiorum Remigius, managed to conceal the arguments which Firmus brought forward in his defence. Apparently Firmussawnootherwaytosavehisownskinthantorevolt.The uprising was taken seriously and Valentinian sent Theodosius the Elder, magister equitum and one of his best generals, to Africa to deal with it. The greater part of Ammianus’ account reports about Theodo-

3 28.6.1: aerumnas, quas, ut arbitror, Iustitia quoque ipsa deﬂevit. 4 29.5.3. Most editions have condemnatus. Only Clark (Berlin 1910–1915)hasindem- natus, meaning that Firmus feared that he would be executed without a trial. Clark follows a conjecture by A. Kellerbauer, ‘Kritische Kleinigkeiten’, Bayerische Blätter für das Gymnasial-Schulwesen 9 (1873) 127–141,at136–137: ‘Firmus befürchtete weniger eine Verurteiling als vielmehr Meuchelmord ohne vorgängiges Urteil; ausserdem vgl. man 15, 2,5. 5, 15. 26,6,3.’ The parallels in 15.2.5, 15.5.15 and 26.6.3 are decisive and indem- natus should be preferred over condemnatus.