THE CHRONOLOGY of VALENS' DEALINGS with PERSIA and ARMENIA, 364–378CE Noel Lenski the Best Chronology of Rome's Dealings W

THE CHRONOLOGY OF VALENS’ DEALINGS WITH PERSIA AND ARMENIA, 364–378CE

Noel Lenski

Abstract: This article reexamines the chronology of foreign aﬀairs on Rome’s eastern frontier during the reign of Valens. Questions of strategy are avoided in favor of a systematic treatment of the order and dating of events. Ammianus provides the basis for a narrative and a number of chronological indicators in passages at 27.12, 29.1, 30.1–2,and31.7. These are ﬂeshed out with passages from the Armenian Epic Histories, Themistius, and the ecclesiastical historians. When brought into synergy with the chronological indicators of the Theodosian Code, this informa- tion is made to yield a datable order of events involving Persia, Armenia, Iberia, and the Saracens between 364 and 378. The best chronology of Rome’s dealings with Persia, Armenia and Iberia during the reign of Valens was established by Otto Seeck in 1906.1 Seeck based his conclusions on two series of winters listed in Ammianus’ narrative, the only narrative for the period to give us sound chronological indicators. Seeck combined his results from Ammianus with his chronological analysis of the Codex Theodosianus to fashion a largely convincing narrative for east Roman foreign policy during Valens’ reign in his Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt.2 Most schol-

1 Otto Seeck, ‘Zur Chronologie und Quellenkritik des Ammianus’, Hermes 41 (1906) 481–539,at520–521, 523, 525. Important chronological observations were made already at J. Marquart, ‘Untersuchungen zur Geschichte von Eran’, Philologus 55 (1896) 213– 244,at219–227. Marquart himself drew extensively on the work of Henry F. Clinton, Fasti Romani (Oxford 1845) 460–492. The present article recreates the basis for the chronology used in chapter 4 of my Failure of Empire: Valens and the Roman State in the Fourth Century AD (Berkeley/Los Angeles/London 2002), which does not deal with questions of chronology in detail. It is drawn from appendix 2 of my 1995 Princeton dissertation, which it heavily revises and expands. The two Armenian sources used throughout, the Buzandaran Patmut’iwnk’ (Epic Histories, hereinafter BP), and the histories of Moses Khorenats’i (hereinafter MX) are quoted in the translations of Nina Garsoïan (tr. and comm.), The Epic Histories attributed to P’awstos Buzand (Buzandaran Patmut’iwnk’) (Cambridge, Mass. 1989) and Robert W. Thomson (tr. and comm.), Moses Khorenats’i History of the Armenians (Cambridge, Mass. 1978). 2 Otto Seeck, Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt,vol.5 (4th ed.; Stuttgart 1921) 58–69 with 448–453.Ondifficulties of chronology in Ammianus more generally and on Ammianus’ tendency to date military campaigns by sequences of winters, very much in 96 noel lenski ars have since followed Seeck’s chronology which is without question the fundamental work on the problem,3 but many have not, especially because everyone since Seeck has treated chronology as secondary to larger arguments about foreign policy. The result is that a number of schemes have appeared, most of them less reliable than Seeck’s, though some contain important insights.4 Moreover, as we shall see, Seeck did not give full weight to sources other than Ammianus and the Codex. Thus, his scheme contains some important errors and remains unnec- essarily vague on a number of issues. Because the chronology has not the Greek historiographic tradition, see Timothy D. Barnes, Ammianus Marcellinus and the Representation of Historical Reality (Ithaca/London 1998) 43–53, 181–182. 3 Seeck is followed by G. Köhler, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Kaisers Valens (Diss. Jena 1925) 70–94; A. Solari, ‘Il non intervento nel conflitto tra la Persia e Valente’, RFIC 60 (1932) 352–358; Ernst Stein, J.R. Palanque, Histoire du bas-empire.vol.1: De l’état romain à l’état byzantin (284–476) (Paris 1959) 186–187 with 205–206; Wolfgang Seyfarth, Ammianus Marcellinus. Römische Geschichte,Teil4 (Berlin 1971) 322–324, 336–337, 348–350; André Piganiol, L’empire chrétien, 325–395 (rev. ed.; Paris 1972) 175–177; Roger C. Blockley, Ammianus Marcellinus. A Study of his Historiography and Political Thought (Brussels 1975) 62– 72; Alexander Demandt, Die Spätantike. Römische Geschichte von Diocletian bis Justinian, 284– 565 n. Chr., HdAW III.6 (Munich 1989) 119. Cf. Marie-Anne Marié, Ammien Marcellin. Histoire, Tome V, Livres XXVI–XXVIII (Paris 1984) 270–273. 4 Norman H. Baynes, ‘Rome and Armenia in the Fourth Century’, English Historical Review 25 (1910) 625–643, repr. in: Idem, Byzantine Studies and Other Essays (London 1955) 186–208,at636–642 establishes his own chronology based on the much less reliable narrative of BP. P. Pascal Asdourian, Die politischen Beziehungen zwischen Armenien und Rom von 190 v. Chr. bis 428 n. Chr.(Venice1911) 155–162 offers a chronology which comes closest to the one presented here, though he offers no explanations for the dates he assigns. A. Nagl, ‘Valens 3’, RE 2.7.2 (1948) 2097–2137,at2113–2117 combines elements from Seeck and Baynes. René Grousset, Histoire de l’Arménie des origines à 1071 (Paris 1973) 140–156 works with an extremely impressionistic chronology, also with no explanations for dates. R.H. Hewsen, ‘The Successors of Tiridates the Great: A Contribution to the History of Armenia in the Fourth Century’, Revue des Études Arméniennes n.s. 13 (1978–1979) 99–126 generates a chronology for the Armenian royal line that is directly relevant, basing his findings primarily on Moses Khorenats’i. Roger C. Blockley, ‘The Division of Armenia between the Romans and the Persians at the End of the Fourth Century AD’, Historia 36 (1987) 222–234,at225–229,andIdem,East Roman Foreign Policy. Formation and Conduct from Diocletian to Anastasius (Leeds 1992) 30–39 generally follows Seeck for the early years but establishes his own chronology using some input from Baynes, ‘Rome and Armenia’, for the last years of the reign. Bernhard Gutmann, Studien zur römischen Aussenpolitik in der Spätantike (364–395 n. Chr.) (Bonn 1991) 170–183 uses Seeck as a basis but relies heavily on Blockley, ‘The Division of Armenia’, and East Roman Foreign Policy for his chronology. Geoffrey Greatrex, ‘The Background and Aftermath of the Partition of Armenia in A.D. 387’, AHB 14 (2000) 35–48,andin turn Geoffrey Greatrex, Samuel N.C. Lieu, The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars,PartIIAD363–630, A Narrative Sourcebook (London 2002) 21–28 offer a chronology that combines elements from Baynes, ‘Rome and Armenia’, Blockley, ‘The Division of Armenia’ and Idem, East Roman Foreign Policy.