¹ Text as edited by Clark, C. U. (1915)Google Scholar, but without the unnecessary lacuna posited after Thracias et. See also n. 28. Translation adapted from that by Rolfe, J. C. in the Loeb Classical Library (revised edn., 1963).Google Scholar

² Frere, S., Britannia; a History of Roman Britain (2nd edn., 1974), p. 391Google Scholar; cf. Breeze, D. J. and Dobson, B., Hadrian's Wall (1976), p. 220Google Scholar (‘in 364’). Mócsy, A., Pannonia and Upper Moesia: a History of the Middle Danubt Provinces of the Roman Empire (1974), p. 291.Google Scholar

³ 27.3.1, ‘hoc tempore vel paulo ante’ sc. summer 366. (The actual date was some time before Oct. 364, see PLRB s.v. Terentius 1.)

⁴ 14.11.14; 15.3.10; 15.7.7; 18.6.20; 25.8.9; 29.6.3. 18.9.1; 27.8.5; 30.5.14, to which 14.11.14 and 25.8.9 could be added. I am grateful to Dr. R. I. Ireland for access to his concordance of Ammianus, s.v. tempore.

⁵ As Seeck, O. pointed out long ago (Hermes 41 (1906), 517Google Scholar). He is followed by Seyfarth, W. in his translation with commentary, vol. iv (1971), 21Google Scholar with n. 39 (p. 307). Neither scholar thought the point needed arguing. 31.10.19, after agood beginning, the emperor Gratian neglected his duties at a time when even Marcus Aurelius would have found things difficult (‘eo tempore quo etiam si imperium Marcus regeret Antoninus …’).

⁶ 26.5.6, ‘omnisque hie annus dispendiis gravibus rem Romanam adflixit’.

⁷ Alamanns: 26.5.7, 9–14, and 27.1–2. Procopius: 26.5.8, and 26.6–10, cf. 27.2.10 (his head arrives in Gaul). For the interweaving of the two narratives, see Baynes, N. H., The Chronology of the Campaigns of Valentinian’, JRS 18 (1928), 222–4Google Scholar = Byzantine Studies (1960), pp. 317–20,Google Scholar whose chronology is adopted here.

⁸ 26.10.3, cf. 27.4.1, 5.1, 31.3.4. Zosimus' (Eunapius') ‘ten thousand’ (4.7.2) is a literary round figure.

⁹ 27.5.1, ‘tyranno dederat adminicula’. 26.6.11, cf. 22.7.8 (regarded as unreliable in 362) and 27.5.2 (Procopius' claim to legitimac a Gothic ‘excusationem vanissimam’).

¹⁰ 28.6.4, ‘Ioviano etiam turn imperante’, cf. 27.9.1, ‘Africam vero, iam inde ab exordio Valentiniani imperii, exurebat barbarica rabies …’ (from the context it is clear this is Tripolitania). One of the delegates who complained of the third invasion died at Trier (29.6.20), which did not become Valentinian's capital until Sept./Oct. 367. For the chronology, see Demandt, A., ‘Die tripolitanischen Wirren unter Valentinian I’, Byzantion 38 (1968), 333–63.Google Scholar

¹¹ 27.12.13, the troops being commanded by the magister peditum Arinthaeus, who had taken part in peace negotiations with the Goths (27.5.9).

¹² Klein, W., Studien zu Ammianus Marcellinus, Klio Beiheft 13 (1914), 26–7.Google Scholar Compare 26.4.6 (quoted on p. 470) with 27.12.1, ‘rex vero Persidis … calcata fide sub Ioviano pactorum, iniectabat Armeniae manum, ut earn velut placitorum abolita firmitate, dicioni iungeret suae.’

¹⁵ Valens' movements: 26.6.11, sets out for Syria; 26.7.2, about to leave Cappadocian Caesarea for Antioch. His eventual entry into Antioch (29.1.4) implies his journey east in 370: for the evidence, see Mommsen, T. (ed.), Tbeodosian Code (2nd edn., 1954), vol. i. 1, p. 249.Google Scholar

¹⁴ 27.12.1, ‘cum suis paulisper nobis visus amicus’. Here, and at 26.4.6, Ammianus implies that Persia broke the treaty by in vading Armenia, but from his own summary of its terms (25.7.12, confirmed by Zosimus 3.31.2, Libanius or. 24.9, and Faustus (see n. 15) 4.21) and other references to them (27.12.10, 15, 18, and 29.1.2), it is clear he knew that Rome was excluded from helping the Armenians. See Baynes, (see n. 15), pp. 197–8.Google Scholar Arinthaeus' mission (see n. 11) was to prevent a second Persian invasion, ‘si [Armenios] exagitare procinctu gemino temptaverint Persae’ (27.12.13).

¹⁵ Faustus of Buzanta (‘Byzantium’) 4.21–49, translated into French by Emine, J.-B., in Langlois, V. (ed.), Collection des bistoriens anciens et modemes de l'Armenie (1872) [FHG v.2], pp. 258–66.Google Scholar See above all Baynes, N. H., ‘Rome and Armenia in the Fourth Century’, EHR 25 (1910), 625–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar = Byzantine Studies (1960), pp. 186–208, esp. 198.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Austorians: see n. 10. Alamanns: 27.2.10. There was a raid in 368 (27.10.1), after which they were excluded until 378 (31.10, cf. Zosimus 4.12.1). Peace treaty: 30.3.5. Persians: Baynes (see n. 15), esp. pp. 206–7.

¹⁷ 16.10.20, 17.12. 29.6, 30.3, 30.5.

¹⁸ 29.6.1, ‘Quadorum natio diu inexcita’. 17.12.8–16.

¹⁹ ps., -Augustine, Quaestiones veteris et novi testamentiGoogle Scholar (CSEL 50 (1908)Google Scholar), quaestio 115.49 (p. 334)Google Scholar, ‘quid dicemus de Pannonia, quae sic erasa est, ut remedium habere non possit?’ Apart from this, we know only that the quaestio was written after the reign of Julian (ibid. 12). On its elusive author see Souter, A., A Study of Ambrosiaster (1905), esp. pp. 166–74 (writing during 370s).Google Scholar

²⁰ Cbron. (ed. Fotheringham, J. K. (1923) pp. 328, 329Google Scholar), a. 372, ‘Probus praefectus Illyrici iniquissimis tributorum exactionibus ante provincias quas regebat quam a barbaris vastarentur erasit’; a. 375. ‘quia superiori anno Sarmatae Pannonias vastaverant, idem consules permansere’.

²¹ Zosimus 4.16.4, dated after the transfe of troops to Africa (372/3). Libanius, or. 24.12, dated by the irony of the of Illyricum being consul at the time. The allusi is not to the praetorian prefect of Illyricum, Italy, and Africa (368–75), Petronius Probus (cos. 371), as believed by PLRE s.v. Probus 5 (p. 737) and Norman, A. F., Loeb Classical Library, Libanius, i (1969), 500 n.Google Scholar, but to the magister militum (365–75)Google Scholar Equitius (cos. 374), whose name appears on all the Danubian military building inscriptions of Valentinian's reign. See PLRE s.v. Equitius 2. He was the only magister militum of Illyricum, just as Probus was its only prefect, to be honoured by Valentinian with the consulship.

²² If there had been one, some mention might have been expected from Jerome, whose origins gave him a special interest in the area; or from Libanius, whose thesis would have been reinforced by a disaster which followed the death of Julian more closely. The supporting arguments adduced by Mócsy (see n. 2), p. 291, are inconclusive. ‘Recent’ Sarmatian settlers seen by Ausonius in the Hunsrück in c. 370 (Mosella, 9) could well be prisoners from the campaigns of Constantius II (thus Wightman, E. M., Roman Trier and the Treveri (1970), p. 66Google Scholar). Barbarian incursions certainly might be prompted by the death of an emperor with whom a treaty had been made—but not necessarily. And if so, why not when Constantius II died (361)?

²³ Amm. Marc. 20.1.

²⁴ 27.8.5, ‘Picti… itidemque Attacotti … et Scotti, per diversa vagantes, multa populabantur. Gallicanos vero tractus Franci et Saxones, isdem confines, quo quisque erumpere potuit, terra vel mari, praedis acerbis incendiisque, et captivorum funeribus omnium, violabant.’ Ammianus' language indicates part of Gaul: cf. 27.2.11, there were minor battles in Gaul apart from the defeat of Alamann invaders, ‘multa narratu minus digna … proelia, per tractus varios Galliarum.’ The Saxon invasion of northern Gaul in 370 may have been seaborne: 28.5.1, ‘erupit… Saxonum multitude, et Oceani difficultatibus permeatis Romanum limitem gradu petebat intento’, cf. 30.7.8 (a reference to the same raid), ‘Saxonas … delatosque tunc <ad maritimos> tractus.’ ad maritimos is Gelenius supplement of a lacuna in V, with or without the warrant of the lost manuscript M. It recalls (whether legitimately or not) the title of an officer killed in the barbarian conspiracy, the comes maritimi tractus (27.8.1). He is commonly identified with the comes litoris Saxonici per Britanniam first attested in the Notitia Dignitatum (Occ. 28) in c. 395—Ammianus commonly uses a ‘literary’ periphrasis of official titles and terminology. S. Johnson has suggested (The Roman Forts of the Saxon Shore (1976), p. 144Google Scholar) from the Notitia's description of two Gallic coastal forts as being ‘in litore Saxonico’ (Occ. 37.2 = 14; 38.3 = 7) that in 367 the comes litoris Saxonici was still responsible for both Channel coasts. (In 370 the Saxons were first opposed by a regional comes in northern Gaul (28.5.1), but unfortunately his full title is not given). This would help resolve the apparent discrepancy between 26.4.5 and 27.8.5 (see pp. 474 f.), by implying that Saxon raids fell indifferently on both Britain and Gaul. See further, n. 32.

²⁵ 27.8, 28.3. The best account is by Frere, S., Britannia (1974), pp. 391 ff.Google Scholar For the chronology adopted here, see Britannia 5 (1974), 303–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁶ 26.5.8 with CTh 11.1.13 (18 Oct. 365, dat. Parisiis).

²⁷ Ammianus' term ‘barbarica conspiratio’ 27.8.1) perhaps should not be pressed: thus:. Richmond, A., Roman and Native in North Britain (1961), p. 121,Google Scholar ‘a secret plan for concerted action among the barbarians’; Frere, S., Britannia (1974), p. 391,Google Scholar ‘united alarming of the foes of Roman Britain’. The Quadi and Sarmatians concerted their in vasions (17.12.8, 29.6.8), but they had been and-neighbours for centuries. How did the war-bands of Ireland, Scotland, and north west Germany communicate, let alone legotiate? ‘Conspiratio’ is no more than a iramatic way of saying the attacks occurred it the same time: cf. 16.3.3, (Franks and Alamanns) ‘conspiratas gentes in noxam ftomani nominis’; 26.6.11, ‘gentem Gothorum … conspirantem in unum’.

²⁸ See Clark's apparatus criticus ad loc. The list had become recti saxonesque et secuti et ata citti uritanos.

²⁹ 28.5.1, quoted in n. 24.

³⁰ 27.8.7, ‘adortus est vagantes hostium vastatorias manus’. Rolfe (see n. 1) translates he preceding words ‘egressus tendensque ad Lundinium’ by ‘he began his march and came to London’, but quite apart from the real neaning of tendens (of uncompleted action), it is clear that London was reached (and elieved from siege) after this initial campaign-which therefore must be located between Richborough and London.

³¹ See above, n. 24.

³² A fragmentary inscription found near Stobi (AE 1931, 53,Google Scholar published with commentary by Egger, R., ‘Der erste Theodosius’, Byzantion 5 (1929–1930), 9–32Google Scholar = idem, Römische Antike und friibes Cbristentum (2nd edn., 1967), i. 126–43Google Scholar) describes Theodosius as ‘terror of Saxony’, An anonymous Latin trans lation of Josephus' Jewish War, once attributed to Ambrose and written by a contemporary, refers to Roman defeats of Scots and Saxons (described as pirates protected by marshes) in the context of Britain. This passage was inserted by the author into his translation of Josephus' speech to the defenders of Jerusalem (BJ 5.362 ff.), and probably refers to Theodosius' victories of 367/8. Hegesippi qui dicitur Historiae libri V (CSEL 66 (1932 and 1960)), 5.15.1 (pp. 319–20)Google Scholar, ‘quid vobis cum victoribus universae terrae, quibus secreta oceani et extrema Indiae patent? quid adtexam Brittanias interfuso mari a toto orbe divisas, sed a Romanis in orbem terrarum redactas? tremit hos Scothia, quae terris nihil debet, tremit Saxonia inaccessa paludibu; et inviis saepta regionibus, quae licet furta bell videatur audere, et ipsa frequenter captiva Romanis accessit triumphis. validissimum genus hominum perhibetur et praestans ceteris piraticis tamen myoparonibus, non viribus nititur, fugae potius quam bello paratum.’ Panegyrics of Theodosius' son the emperor, and of his grandson Honorius, also connect his defeat of the Saxons with the British campaign. Pan. Lat. 12(2).5.2, ‘attritam pedestribus proeliis Britanniam referam? Saxo consumptus bellis navalibus offeretur. redactum ad paludes suas Scotum loquar?’ (cf. ibid. 4, Saxonicus suggested as one of his titles). Claudian, de IV cons. Hon. 24–40, summarizes Theodosius’ career, esp. 31, ‘maduerunt Saxone fusol Orcades; incaluit Pictorum sanguine Thyle’. (Cf. Epith. 219, ‘Mauro vel Saxone victis’.)

³³ 29.5.2, ‘discordias excitavit et bella’.

³⁴ 29.5. For the social and geographical background to the revolt and its suppression, see Matthews, J., ‘Mauretania in Ammianus and the Notitia’, in Goodburn, R. and Bartholomew, P. (eds.), Aspects of the Notitia Dignitatum (1976), pp. 157–88.Google Scholar For the chronology see Demandt, A., ‘Die Feldziige des alteren Theodosius’, Hermes 100 (1972), 81–113,Google Scholar at 94 ff. He prefers a date of 370 for the outbreak of the revolt (ibid. 100) because Remigius was still magister officiorum shortly before (29.5.2). He argues from Amm. Marc. 28.1.12, 41, and 30.2.10, that Remigius was succeeded by Leo before Maximinus became praetorian prefect (July/August 371), that is, spring 371. (Other references: PLRE s.v. Leo 1 and Maximinus 7). But the argument is not conclusive: the passages from Ammianus prove only that Leo (then a notarius) was recalled to the imperial court before his friend Maximinus; and that he succeeded Remigius. The two events were not necessarily simul-taneous: as PLRE reasonably says, Leo was ‘presumably promoted soon afterwards’. In any case, we do not know what interval elapsed between Remigius' interception of Firmus' complaints (29.5.2) and Firmus' realization (ibid. 3): an official letter from the court in Gaul might take three months (CTh 11.1.13, 365–6) or even six (CTh 8.7.12, 372) to reach even Carthage. Demandt suggests that there was almost a three-years interval before Theodosius arrived with an army, during which the comes Africae Romanus vainly tried to contain the revolt. This is not stated by Ammianus (no admirer of Romanus who indeed implies otherwise, by saying that Theodosius was sent to crush the revolt befon it grew too strong, (29.5.4) ‘[lacuna] hostis implacabilis incrementis virium adulesceret abolendum’. But even ithe revolt be dated to 370, my argument is unaffected that Ammianus cannot have referred it to c. 365.

³⁵ Amm. Marc. 31, esp. 31.8.9, ‘barbari tamen, velut diffractis caveis bestiae, per Thraciarum amplitudines fusius incitati …’ (Thraciarum being a reasonable emendation of the spatiarum (etc.) of the manuscripts dependent on V, which is itself defective here).

³⁶ 30.7.5–10. Valens, like Constantius II (21.16, esp. 15), is not credited with military achievements in his ‘obituary’ (31.14), no doubt because, such as they were, they were eclipsed by his part in Rome's greatest military disaster since Cannae.

³⁷ 28.5.1–7, cf. 30.7.8.

³⁸ 28.5.1, ‘saepe nostrorum funeribus pasta’; ibid. 7, ‘manum latronum exitialem tandem copia data consumptam’.

³⁹ 28.2.12.

⁴⁰ Cbron. a. 373 [sic], ‘Saxones caesi Deusone in regione Francorum’, reworked by Orosius, 7.32.10.

⁴¹ An inscription of Dec. 369 credits Valentinian with the title Francicus Maximus (ILS 771). Pan. Lat. 12(2).5.2 credits the comes Theodosius with activity on the Rhine or. Waal. Demandt (see n. 34), 82–4, from this suggests that one of the minor campaigns of 366 (Amm. Marc. 27.2.11) was a defeat of the Franks by Theodosius. But there is no sound evidence, and Francicus is absent from the titles (Saxonicus, Sarmaticus, Alamannicus) offered to Theodosius by the panegyrist (ibid. 5.4).

⁴³ 26.5.1, ‘acta igitur tranquiilius hieme …’. The division by chapters is of course not Ammianus' own, but that of his great editor (1636) Valesius.

⁴³ 26.5.15. See Baynes (see n. 7).

⁴⁴ 27.9.3, ‘gestorum autem per eas regiones seriem plenam, et Ruricii praesidis legatorumque mortem, et cetera luctuosa, cum adegerit ratio, diligentius explicabo.’

⁴⁵ Another such promise occurs at 28.1.57, where (‘ut postea tempestive dicetur’) the executions of Maximums and his successors as vicarius urbis Romae in the reign of Gratian are briefly mentioned. This promise, for reasons unknown, was not kept.

⁴⁶ 16.1, esp. 3, ‘ad laudativam paene materiam pertinebit’, and 5 (his career).

⁴⁷ 25.4.25–7. But neither this summary nor that in 16.1.5 is anything like as detailed as that in 30.7.5–10. In some ways a closer parallel with 26.4.5–6 for the reign of Julian occurs at 22.7.10, a list of the exotic delegations received by him.

⁴⁸ Histories 1.2, ‘turbatum Illyricum, Galliae nutantes, perdomita Britannia et statim missa, coortae in nos Sarmatarum ac Sueborum gentes, nobilitatus cladibus mutuis Dacus, mota prope etiam Parthorum arma falsi Neronis ludibrium.’ Ammianus did Tacitus the compliment of beginning where the Histories ended, and adapted a few of his phrases, but any extensive influence remains to be proved.

⁴⁹ Piganiol, A., in what remains the best history of the fourth century (L'Empire Chrétien (2nd. edn., 1972), 170)Google Scholar, translates Amm. Marc. 26.4.5, and comments ‘Ce sont sans doute ces dangers qui ont déterminé Valentinien à accepter le part age du pouvoir.’ Some, but not all, of these dangers were apparent in 364; the logic of dividing the imperial power was based on wider and older premisses than what might have been happening in that year.