CHAPTER 5

Introduction

As was suggested in the introduction to chapter four, this chapter should begin with the words Per hos dies interea (4.12), which introduce ’ refusal to admit the within the borders of the empire. The Thervingi, who had earlier received permission to cross the , were at the mercy of the Roman generals, Lupicinus in particular, who exploited their lack of provisions and forced them to pay extortionate prices for food. This prompted them to consider rebellion against the Romans, whereupon Lupicinus ordered them to move further inland, calling upon Roman troops to keep the situation under control (§1–2). While these soldiers were busy supervising the Thervingi, the Greuthungi in their turn saw their way clear to cross the Danube and to pitch camp on the south bank of the river (§3). Lupicinus invited and Alavivus, leaders of the Thervingi, to a banquet within the walls of Marcianopolis, but forbade their kinsmen, who wanted to buy provisions, to enter the city. This led to skirmishes between the inhabitants of Marcianopolis and the , in the course of which a large number of Roman soldiers lost their lives. When this was reported to Lupicinus in the banquet hall, he gave orders that the Gothic body-guards, who were waiting outside for their leaders, should be killed (§4–6). At this critical moment Fritigern claimed that the only way to prevent a massacre was to allow him to calm his people down. To achieve this he was permitted to leave the city and join his people. But from this moment on he proceeded to lead them into war against the Romans. The Goths roamed the Thracian diocese ravaging the countryside and murdering the inhabitants (§7–9). Lupicinus, after hasty and ill-considered preparations, decided to make a stand against the Goths near Marcianopolis. The Romans, however, were no match for their frenzied opponents. Many o cers and men met their death and standards fell into the hands of the barbarians. Only a few managed to escape. One of them was the general Lupicinus, who behaved like a coward and ed from the battle  eld (§9). The second half of this chapter (§11–17) consists of a short, but very important digression. It is one of the few passages in which Ammianus gives his reader an insight into his thoughts about the future of Rome. 82 commentary

Without in any way belittling the gravity of the Gothic invasion, which was to culminate in the defeat at Adrianople, he protests against those who, because of their ignorance of history, think that this was the worst disaster ever to have befallen the empire. He reminds his audience of earlier invasions, from which Rome, after initial losses, had recovered, and which had led to the near or total annihilation of the invaders, in chronological order Cimbrians and , and , and Goths. The message of the digression is clear: history proves that Rome can overcome the worst defeats, but only if its citizens mend their decadent ways and are willing to unite in the cause of defending their country. As Lenski, 1997 has argued, this digression is not Ammianus’ spontaneous reaction to the Gothic invasion, but rather a considered response to the diferent views of other authors, both pagans and Christians, about the causes of and possible remedies for the defeat at Adrianople. Ammianus’ efort to put Rome’s present plight in a historical perspective is reminiscent of the approach taken twenty years later by Orosius at the prompting of Augustine. Both Ammianus and Orosius point to the historical facts, which show that there are plenty of precedents for the dangerous situation in which the empire found itself after Adrianople in 378 and the capture of Rome in 410. But whereas Orosius’ agenda in defending the Christians against their pagan adversaries and predicting a glorious future for a Christian empire is clear, Ammianus does not ofer any rosy illusions, but gives his readers a stern warning not to give in to despair, but to return to their ancient values and unite in the battle for the future of the urbs aeterna.

5.1 At vero Thervingi iam dudum transire permissi prope ripas etiam tum vaga- bantur For the combination at vero see TLL II 1009.50–1010.19 and Kroon, 1995, 311–312 and 365. It is a favourite expression of Cicero, who uses it 74 times. In the Res Gestae it occurs only here and in 29.6.18 at vero ubi tem- pestas mollivit (p. 248). In both cases at vero marks a contrast, here between the Greuthungi, who were refused admittance within the empire (31.4.13), and the Thervingi, who had iam dudum been allowed to cross the Danube (31.4.5). The latter, although the emperor had granted them permission to settle in parts of Thrace (ibid.), were still roaming close to the river banks, but etiam tum ‘still (at that time)’ prepares the reader for the disastrous events to come. See for the personal passive permissi ad 20.2.5 (p. 19).

dupliciimpedimentoastricti,quodducumdissimulationeperniciosanec victui congruis sunt adiuti et tenebantur consulto nefandis nundinandi commerciis The two reasons why the situation of the Thervingi proved to be a dead