Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Goths and Romans 332–489$

Peter Heather

Print publication date: 1994

Print ISBN-13: 9780198205357

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: October 2011

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198205357.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: null; date: 17 October 2018

(p.334) Appendix B Goths in Pannonia c.380–408

(p.334) Appendix B Goths in Pannonia c.380–408

Source:
Goths and Romans 332–489
Publisher:
Oxford University Press

It has become a commonplace of modern historical reconstruction that in 380 Gratian made a separate peace with the Greuthungi of Alatheus and Saphrax, settling them in Pannonia.1 Passages from Zosimus and the Getica provide the primary evidence, and the subsequent history of these Goths has been traced down to 408 when Athaulf (considered the successor of Alatheus and Saphrax) led a force of Huns and Goths from Pannonia to join Alaric in Italy. But Jordanes and Zosimus do not prove that a settlement took place, the evidence for any subsequent history is quite inconclusive, and there is a good alternative explanation for Athaulf’s presence in Pannonia in 408.

The Settlement

(a) Zosimus

Zosimus 4. 34. 2–5 reports that when Vitalianus became commander in Illyricum, Gaul was threatened by two Germanic groups from beyond the Rhine (sic): one led by Alatheus and Saphrax, the other by Fritigern. Gratian was forced to allow them, once they had left Gaul, to cross the Danube and occupy Pannonia and Upper Moesia. They were intending to go to Epirus and attack Greece, but first provided themselves with forage. They also deposed Athanaric, head of the ‘Scythian’ royal family, so that no one should interfere with their plans. Athanaric fled to the emperor Theodosius, who had just recovered from a dangerous illness and welcomed him warmly, giving him, when he died shortly afterwards, a lavish funeral. The ‘Scythian barbarians’ were so amazed that they returned home, ceasing to trouble the Romans. The followers of Athanaric guarded the river (Danube) to prevent further attacks.

There is genuine information here, but the problems are obvious:

  1. (p.335) 1. In the opening lines the threat posed by the Goths to the Danube has been confused with separate attacks across the Rhine. The Goths were confined to the Balkans; Alamanni made the incursions over the Rhine.2

  2. 2. Fritigern, Alatheus, and Saphrax crossed the Danube in 376, not winter 380/1, when Athanaric fled to Theodosius.3

  3. 3. Athanaric had led the Tervingi before 376, but a majority of the people then rejected his authority (AM 31. 3. 8). He fled to Theodosius in 380/1 when he was rejected even by those who had followed him after 376 (P. 337)

  4. 4. Zosimus has a bizarre chain of cause and effect, whereby the magnificence of Theodosius’ funeral arrangements for Athanaric cause the rest of the ‘Scythians’ to go ‘home’. These ‘Scythians’ seem to be the Goths mentioned earlier in the passage as planning to attack Epirus and Greece, namely those of Fritigern, Alatheus, and Saphrax. It cannot refer to Athanaric’s Goths, who remain to guard the Danube.4 Athanaric’s funeral in January 381 is thus made the cause of a peace with different Goths, concluded some eighteen months later in October 382.5

  5. 5. The Goths of Athanaric did remain south of the Danube, but so did those of Fritigern, Alatheus, and Saphrax. Their return ‘home’ is fiction.6

The passage is obviously confused,7 but simultaneous attacks on Rhine and Danube, Athanaric’s flight to Theodosius and subsequent death, and a peace with Goths whereby they remained in the Empire are all genuine events; it is their combination here which has created fantasy.

Two confusions are obvious. Attacks over the Rhine have been conflated with those over the Danube, and Theodosius’ reception of Athanaric in January 381 has been linked to the peace of 382. Less obviously, the Danube crossing of Fritigern, Alatheus, and Saphrax in 376 seems to have been confused with Athanaric’s crossing in 380/1. The report here that Fritigern, Alatheus, and Saphrax crossed the Danube has been seen as the author’s invention, a way of getting them from Gaul to their rightful place in the Balkans.8 But the passage links their crossing (p.336) to a plot to oust Athanaric from his position as ‘King of the Scythians’. This recalls very strongly the circumstances of 376, when Athanaric lost the confidence of his subjects, and they decided instead to follow Fritigern across the Danube (AM 31. 3. 4 ff.). Another genuine event has thus been misplaced.9 In sum, the chapter summarizes many of the salient events of the Gothic war: attacks on the Rhine, the Danube crossing of 376, Athanaric’s crossing in 381, and the final peace of 382. The events themselves are genuine enough, but their interaction has been misunderstood.

This perhaps allows us to say something about the information that Gratian allowed some Goths to occupy Pannonia. Part of the material to which it is attached (that Gratian allowed the Goths to leave the Rhine and cross the Danube) is confused. But since the occupation of Pannonia and Upper Moesia is neither contradicted by another source, nor inherently implausible, we can provisionally accept it; all the other information in this chapter seems genuine enough. Zosimus’ wording, however, is ambiguous (4. 34. 2),

[The Goths] reduced the Emperor Gratian to the necessity of allowing them (ϵ΄νδου̑ναι σϕίσιν)…to occupy [καταλαβϵι̑ν] Pannonia and Upper Moesia.

Depending on the force of Appendix B Goths in Pannonia c.380–408 and Appendix B Goths in Pannonia c.380–408 this could describe either a formal concession sanctioned by treaty, or an event which Gratian was forced to allow in the sense that he could not prevent it. The latter would imply no formal arrangement. It should be noted, however, that Gratian’s action affected Upper Moesia as much as Pannonia, and that Fritigern was involved along with Alatheus and Saphrax. There is little here to suggest a separate peace, even if Pannonia was occupied at some point during the war.

(b) Jordanes

Jordanes, Getica 27. 140–28. 142 has traditionally been used to clarify Zosimus. It reports that the Goths were at first anxious when Theodosius was appointed emperor, but, on his falling sick, took new heart. Alatheus and Saphrax attacked Pannonia, and Fritigern moved towards Thessaly, Epirus, and Achaea. Gratian, however, relieved the situation, conquering the Goths, not by arms but by friendship. When he recovered, Theodosius was pleased with this arrangement, and gave his consent, inviting Athanaric, Fritigern’s successor as king of the Goths, to visit him in Constantinople.

(p.337) Jordanes’ and Zosimus’ accounts of the Gothic incursions seem to be complementary. Fritigern’s group alone, it would appear, attacked south, while Alatheus and Saphrax raided Pannonia. We can also date them. Both Jordanes and Zosimus place them before Athanaric’s reception in Constantinople, and associate them with Theodosius’ illness. Athanaric fled to Constantinople in winter 380/1. Theodosius’ illness cannot be precisely dated, but probably occurred while he was still at Thessalonica (Socrates, HE 5. 6; Sozomen, HE 7. 4), which would place it before mid-November 380.10 The attacks thus occupied, in all likelihood, the campaigning season of 380.

Jordanes has also been used here to prove that Alatheus and Saphrax’s occupation of Pannonia was formally recognized by Gratian. According to this scheme, the attack on Pannonia was followed by the treaty with Gratian described by Jordanes, which is in turn associated with the occupation of Pannonia in Zosimus.11 This approach ignores serious problems:

  1. 1. The Getica is quite wrong in making Athanaric into Fritigern’s successor. He did not make a goodwill visit to Constantinople, but fled there. Jordanes’ late report cannot be preferred to Ammianus’ contemporary account (AM 27. 5. 10), and there is no indication that Athanaric was accepted back by those who had rejected him for Fritigern in 376.

  2. 2. The passage contains Jordanes’ entire account of the Gothic war from Theodosius’ elevation (19 January 379) to October 382, when peace was made. For a period of over three and a half years, therefore, the Getica reports basically one event: the separate attacks of the two Gothic groups. So much has been omitted that the significance of what has been included is hard to judge.

  3. 3. This is particularly true of the peace treaty between Goths and Gratian. According to Jordanes’ understanding, this treaty, made during Theodosius’ illness, was between Gratian and all the Goths, not just Alatheus and Saphrax. Before the treaty, all the Goths are in rebellion, and afterwards all at peace. The Getica is describing a treaty which ended the entire Gothic war, and which it is thus natural to equate with the peace of 382.

To make the Getica support a separate peace between Gratian and some Goths, it must be supposed that Jordanes has confused such a treaty with the second that brought most of the Goths into line in 382. Two arguments might be advanced. The treaty mentioned by Jordanes is (p.338) dated by Theodosius’ illness to c.380, and Gratian is given the major role. Neither is conclusive.

As we have seen, the Getica’s account of the Gothic war is sparse, selective, and in part mistaken. The juxtaposition of Theodosius’ illness in autumn 380 with a peace-treaty could easily represent another mistake, especially since the Getica views this as ending the whole war. Themistius’ oration 15, of 19 January 381,12 suggests that this is indeed the case. Much of it is devoted to non-military affairs, but the war receives some coverage. We hear of Theodosius and Gratian resting between campaigns (p. 269. 15 ff.), and preparing for a war which will expel the ‘Scythians’ (p. 283. 11 ff. esp. p. 285. 15 ff.). There is not the slightest hint here that a major development—such as a peace-treaty with one of the two Gothic groups—had yet occurred. Themistius was Theodosius’ propagandist rather than Gratian’s, and might not have mentioned an action of the western emperor, but this does not seem sufficient explanation. Early in his reign, Theodosius was dependent on Gratian’s goodwill, a fact reflected in Theodosius’ propaganda from this period, where Gratian receives significant coverage. Themistius’ oration 15, for instance, builds an elaborate metaphor of Gratian and Theodosius as twin steersmen of the ship of state (p. 280. 27 ff.), and gives Gratian full credit for having identified Theodosius’ imperial virtues (p. 273. 10 ff.). This changed when the Goths ceased to pose a mortal threat (p. 173), but in 381 Theodosius could not have afforded to alienate Gratian by publicly ignoring a major achievement. Jordanes’ equation of a peace, any peace, with Theodosius’ illness in autumn 380 thus seems mistaken.

Arguments from the role given to Gratian are also inconclusive. Our only substantial accounts of the 382 treaty come from the eastern Empire, which has led modern scholarship to view the peace as Theodosius’ creation. This, however, is a distortion. Gratian spent part of every campaigning season in the Balkans between 378 and 382, and it was primarily his troops who forced the Goths to make peace (cf. p. 172).

More positive evidence, finally, that the Getica is describing the peace of 382 is provided by Cassiodorus’ Chronicle. In Jordanes, peace with the Goths is immediately followed by Athanaric’s visit to Constantinople (27. 141 ff.), a combination which has reinforced the idea that the Getica’s peace occurred before January 381. In common with at least one other western chronicler, however, Cassiodorus misdates Athanaric’s visit to 382.13 This is relevant because all our evidence suggests that Jordanes closely followed Cassiodorus’ now lost Gothic History (Ch. 2). To judge by his Chronicle, Cassiodorus in his history (and Jordanes by imitation) conceived of Athanaric as entering Constantinople not in winter 380/1, (p.339) but in 382. The peace placed by the Getica (and presumably by Cassiodorus) immediately before the visit, therefore, is meant to be nothing other than the famous one of 382.

Jordanes and Zosimus can clarify our understanding of the separate attacks, and date them to 380, but they do not document a Gothic settlement in Pannonia. Without support from Jordanes, who is actually referring to the peace of 382, Zosimus’ words can only remain ambiguous.

A passage in Ammianus may provide further evidence for the fate of Alatheus and Saphrax in Pannonia. At the start of his account of Hadrianople, Ammianus reports some ominous Greek verses discovered at Chalcedon,

  • Then countless hordes of men spread far and wide
  • With warlike arms shall cross clear Istrus’ stream
  • To ravage Scythia’s field and Mysia’s land,
  • But mad with hope then they Pannonia raid,
  • There battle and life’s end their course shall check.14

Appendix B Goths in Pannonia c.380–408

Appendix B Goths in Pannonia c.380–408

Ammianus was writing well after the event (as late as the 390s) and would only have included ‘correct’ omens, so that this passage must be an accurate, if brief, characterization of the war. The verses might suggest that the tribes who crossed the Danube in 376, though successful elsewhere in the Balkans, were defeated in Pannonia, but the text is not secure. The MS reading is ΔHPEIN, so that many have read Appendix B Goths in Pannonia c.380–408 for Appendix B Goths in Pannonia c.380–408, in which case the passage records merely that the raiders did further damage in Pannonia.15 Socrates reports another version of the oracle where the last line certainly refers to the raiders’ defeat, but uses a different form of words, and the place of defeat is Thrace and not Pannonia.16 It is unclear, therefore, whether we should (with Rolfe) emend Ammianus on the basis of Socrates. People who entertain mad hopes do often come to grief, and the Goths were in Thrace when peace was made in 382, so that Socrates’ and Ammianus’ versions could both make sense, but the argument is obviously far from conclusive.

If, however, we choose the nominative Appendix B Goths in Pannonia c.380–408 for Ammianus on the basis of Socrates, then Gratian may have substantially checked the raid of (p.340) Alatheus and Saphrax, survivors perhaps being settled on Gratian’s terms (cf. p. 153). They might also have fled to Fritigern, with whom they had previously operated. A substantial defeat might also explain why Alatheus and Saphrax disappear from our sources after 380, but this is just a guess. Whatever the case, a settlement of Greuthungi in Pannonia is nothing more than a possibility. That Alatheus and Saphrax attacked Pannonia seems clear enough, but we have no good evidence that the attack was followed by a treaty. We must look again, therefore, at evidence for the subsequent history of the group supposedly settled in Pannonia.

Subsequent History

(a) The 380s

In the early 380s, Alans played a major role in Gratian’s army. According to the texts, the favour he showed them was a prime cause of the mutiny which brought Maximus to the throne.17 We also hear of Huns and Alans as a major military component of the regime of Valentinian II.18 Neither of these episodes concerns Goths, and none of the groups is linked to Pannonia in any way. They have nevertheless been cited as illustrating the subsequent activities of the Pannonian settlers, because Alatheus and Saphrax are thought to have led a mixed Goth–Hun–Alan confederation. But, as we have seen, the evidence for the existence of this mixed group as any kind of lasting political entity is unconvincing (p. 145). And since these episodes mention neither Goths nor Pannonia, they provide no evidence that Alatheus and Saphrax were settled there. It is much more tempting to associate at least the Alans with numerous laeti known to have been settled in Italy (Not. Dig., Occ. 42).19

In the mid-380s, Goths are mentioned by Ambrose in his account of his conflict with the empress Justina over the Portian basilica in the city of Milan. The empress held non-Nicene beliefs, and, in denouncing her as an Arian, Ambrose refers to Arian Goths in the imperial bodyguard. These Goths have been cited as evidence for Gratian’s settlement, but the Goths here are regular troops, which does not suggest that a large, (p.341) ethnically distinct Gothic force was a major component of Valentinian II’s regime, in the way that Huns and Alans were (cf. the episodes cited above).20 The Goths known to Ambrose could have been recruited individually from a group settled in Pannonia, but they are not linked specifically to Pannonia, and there are many other ways for them to have entered the imperial army.

(b) Pacatus

After Theodosius’ success against Maximus, Pacatus delivered a panegyric which refers to Pannonia (Pan. Lat. 12(2). 32. 4: trans. Nixon, 42),

There marched under Roman leaders and banners the onetime enemies of Rome, and they followed standards which they had once opposed, and filled with soldiers the cities of Pannonia which they had not long ago emptied by hostile plundering. The Goth, the Hun and the Alan responded to their names…

This has been taken to show that those who once attacked Pannonia (the Goths of Alatheus and Saphrax) had been settled there, and were now filling its cities peacefully.

Since the enemy is specified as ‘Gothus ille et Hunus et Halanus’, the reference is certainly to the Gothic war, a further confirmation that Pannonia was attacked in the course of it. In their full context, however, the words ‘filled with soldiers (miles impleverat) the cities of Pannonia’ do not refer to a permanent settlement. Pacatus is here describing the actual war against Maximus, making a double contrast between the actions of the foreigners in the past and their activities on campaign. They now follow the standards which they opposed, and now fill the cities which their hostility once emptied. This strongly suggests that the influx of barbarian troops into Pannonian cities was part of Theodosius’ military moves against Maximus, and not a permanent arrangement. Theodosius’ forces did indeed advance through Pannonia to attack Maximus, battle taking place on the River Sava.21 The natural meaning of Pacatus’ words, that the influx of barbarian troops was the direct result of the campaign’s manœuvres, thus corresponds perfectly with what else is known of the action. They carry no implication that Pannonia was the normal station of these foreign troops.22

(p.342) (c) Amantius (of Jovia?)

The funerary inscription of a bishop Amantius was found outside Aquileia in 1771:23

  • † egregius fidei sanctus mitisq. | sacerdos,
  • dignus quern cuper|et ple(p)s aliena suum, |
  • dign(u)s ita geminis ducibus | consortia sacra
  • parti|cipare fidei, consilio regere |
  • hoc iacet in tumulo, proprium cui | nomen Amanti
  • venturi meriti | prescia causa dedit.
  • bis denis | binis populis presedit in annis:|
  • si non migrasset, laus erat ista | minor.
  • depos. sb d. vm idus Aprilis | ind. xi.
  • dp. Ambrosius diac. kal. Decemb. | Mariano et Asclepiodoto
  • uu. cc. conss. I ind. VII.

Ambrose the deacon was thus buried on 1 December 423, and Bishop Amantius on 6 April of an earlier eleventh indiction, the two previous being 413 and 398. Aspects of the bishop’s career seem clear. An Aquileian who seems to have gone elsewhere, he presided over his diocese for twenty years—378–98, or 393–413—and during that period had close relations with a foreign people and its two leaders.24

In the 1920s, Egger argued that the two leaders (geminis ducibus) could only be Alatheus and Saphrax, suggesting that this in turn strengthened an earlier hypothesis that the Amantius mentioned here should be identified with a bishop of Jovia of the same name.25 A city of Jovia existed beside the River Drava in Pannonia Superior, and its bishop Amantius took part in the Council of Aquileia in 381 (Ambrose, Ep. 10). Chronological and geographical coincidences thus set up a chain of identification. That the gemini duces were Alatheus and Saphrax made it probable that the Amantius in the inscription was Amantius of Jovia, and this in turn located where precisely in Pannonia Alatheus and Saphrax had been settled (around Jovia). But these identifications are dependent upon too many hypotheses to be convincing.

Egger identified Alatheus and Saphrax with the gemini duces because of two coincidences; in both cases, two leaders were mentioned, and the Goths maintained a permanent Pannonian settlement between the years 379/80 and 408, which more or less corresponds to the years of Amantius’ activity (choosing, of course, the earlier set of possible dates). This chronological coincidence is unconvincing. First, the later dates (393–413) seem more likely to be correct. Amantius’ associate, Ambrose, (p.343) was buried in 423, so that the earlier dating (378–98) would have Amantius die twenty-five years before him. This does not preclude a close association, but the later dates (having Ambrose buried ten years after Amantius) are much less problematic.26 They of course would provide no chronological coincidence between Amantius’ activity and a supposed Pannonian settlement.

Equally important, the dates for the Pannonian settlement, which Egger thought secure, are not. The 379/380 date for the original settlement is established from Jordanes and Zosimus, who, as we have seen, prove nothing of the sort. The 408 date refers to the moment when Athaulf led a mixed force of Goths and Huns from Pannonia, but Athaulf had probably not been in permanent occupation of Pannonia before then (see below), and nothing substantial fills in the intervening thirty years. Egger failed to notice a further problem. By 408 (if, as he does, we take Athaulf as the successor of Alatheus and Saphrax), the Pannonian Greuthungi did not have the kind of dual leadership mentioned in the inscription; only Athaulf led the move to Italy. It is striking that Amantius deals with two duces, the kind of leadership provided by Alatheus and Saphrax, but such dual leadership is a well-known phenomenon.27 After c .375, many foreign groups, about whom often little is known, entered the Empire.28 The middle Danube region saw more than one settlement of barbarians in the period of Amantius’ activity, and dual leadership is not so unusual a feature as to make the identification with Alatheus and Saphrax compelling.

Athaulf

Athaulf commanded a force of Huns and Goths in Pannonia in 408. How long he had been there is not specified; we are told only that he was Alaric’s brother-in-law, and that his force was substantial. Athaulf thus springs into the narrative fully formed, and we are left to draw our own conclusions about his origins.29 As the established view would argue, this makes it possible that Athaulf had in some way succeeded Alatheus and Saphrax as the leader of Greuthungi settled in Pannonia in 380. But when we first encounter him, Athaulf’s command already seems to be an integral part of Alaric’s force. He was Alaric’s brother-in-law, Alaric (p.344) ‘sent for’ him (Appendix B Goths in Pannonia c.380–408), as though there could be no doubt that he would come to Italy, and, in Italy, he was Alaric’s second in command, an indication that he was already Alaric’s designated successor.30 Just before entering Italy, moreover, Alaric had himself occupied Noricum, in the north-west Balkans next to Pannonia. He had previously been encamped around Epirus and stopped in Noricum while attempting to force Ravenna to pay his troops (Zosimus 5. 29 ff.). It is more in tune with this evidence to suggest that Athaulf’s occupation of Pannonia had taken place at the same time as Alaric’s move into Noricum. Both would then have led parts of an integrated force moving north from Epirus into lands bordering Italy, Alaric carrying on over the Alps while Athaulf remained behind. In the aftermath of Stilicho’s fall, Alaric clearly envisaged, at one point, settling his followers in the north-west Balkans (id. 5. 50. 3). Thus Athaulf perhaps stayed behind to secure the area on which the Goths had designs, until it became apparent that more ambitious enterprises could be attempted. If not absolutely conclusive, this argument certainly takes more account of the available evidence than the traditional view.

It is difficult at this distance, and with fragmentary texts, to prove categorically that something did not happen. But the texts held to document Gratian’s settlement of Goths in Pannonia do not generate a convincing picture of its establishment and subsequent history.31 Jordanes and Zosimus document no settlement, and nothing fills in the intervening thirty years before we find Athaulf’s Goths in Pannonia. Since Athaulf would already seem to have been fully integrated into Alaric’s command, and Alaric himself had recently been in the area, there is little reason to suppose that Athaulf’s Goths had been in Pannonia for more than a few months, let alone three decades. It remains possible that Gratian settled Goths in Pannonia, but it is much more likely that he did not.

Notes:

(1) e.g. Seeck, Geschichte, v. 141 ff.; Schmidt, 259–60; Stein, i. 193; Piganiol, L’Empire chrétien, 232 ff.; Várady, Das letzte Jahrhundert, 19 ff.; Chrysos, 138–40; Wolfram, 132; Demougeot, ii. 148–9 and ‘Modalités’, 145 ff.; (more cautiously) Cesa, ‘Romani e barbari’, 77 ff.; Liebeschuetz, Barbarians and Bishops, 27 n. 12.

(2) AM 31. 10; Ausonius, Grat. act. 2; Socrates, HE 5. 6; Sozomen, HE 7. 2.

(3) Athanaric entered Constantinople on n Jan. 381 and died on 25 Jan.: Cons. Const., s.a. 381 (CM i. 243).

(4) Cf. Schmidt, 418 n. 2; but see also Paschoud, ii. 2. 409 n. 168; cf. Cesa, ‘Romani e barbari’, 86–7.

(5) Cesa, ‘Romani e barbari’, 84–6. Orosius 7. 34. 6–7 makes a similar mistake; cf. Schmidt, 419 n. 3.

(6) Demougeot, ii. 149 if., and ‘Modalités’, 152–3 believes that the Goths ‘went home’ in 380 before returning in 382 when another treaty was made. This places too much trust in a confused passage. See also p. 148.

(7) Cf. Paschoud, ii. 2. 406 n. 166.

(8) ibid.

(9) Paschoud does not make this connection, which undermines his suggestion (ii. 2. 408–9 n. 166; cf. Wolfram, 73, 123; Cesa, ‘Romani e barbari’, 83–4) that the proximorum factio who drove out Athanaric in 380 (AM 27. 5. 10) should be equated with the chiefs mentioned by Zosimus. These men were south of the Danube and had been since 376, Athanaric was north of it; cf. p. 137.

(10) Socrates dates the illness shortly after Theodosius’ arrival in Thessalonica (winter 379/80), Sozomen seems to put it later, and Zosimus associates it with Athanaric’s flight (winter 380/1). See Stein, i. 193 n. 12; Paschoud, ii. 2. 399–400.

(11) Methodology explicit in Piganiol, L’Empire chrétien, 232 n. 3.

(12) Dagron, ‘Thémistios’, 23.

(13) Chronicle 1138 (CM ii. 153); cf. Prosper s.a. 382 (CM i. 461).

(14) AM 31. 1. 5, the translation of J. C. Rolfe (Loeb).

(15) Cf. the text and German translation of Seyfarth and the Penguin translation of Hamilton, ‘Next on Paeonia turn their mad careers/To spread there likewise nought but death and strife.’

(16) Socrates, HE 4. 8. 6: Appendix B Goths in Pannonia c.380–408 Appendix B Goths in Pannonia c.380–408.

(17) Aur. Vict. Epit. 47. 6–7; Zosimus 4. 35. 2 ff.; cf. McLynn, ‘Ambrose’, 221 ff.

(18) Ambrose, Ep. 24; cf. McLynn, ‘Ambrose’, 228 ff.

(19) But the Huns and Alans may have come from beyond the frontier; Stilicho used the Huns of Uldin north of the Danube against Radagaisus (Orosius 7. 37. 12; cf. Sozomen, HE 9. 5). Demougeot, ‘Modalités’, 144 ff. cites the Alans of the 380s to show that Gratian simply made the followers of Alatheus and Saphrax part of the regular army, but since there is no evidence that they led a mixed tribal confederation, the argument has little force.

(20) Ambrose, Ep. 20, Sermo contra Auxentium 2. Ambrose does not suggest that a large block of Gothic allied troops was involved, and some Goths came over to his side (Ep. 20. 20 ff.). Other sources (Augustine, Conf. 9. 7. 15–16; Paulinus, V. Amb. 12 ff.; Rufinus, HE 11. 15 ff.) do not mention Goths.

(21) Zosimus 4. 45. 4; Orosius 7. 35; Ambrose, Ep. 40.

(22) As far as we know, only Alatheus and Saphrax attacked Pannonia (p. 152), but it is important not to be over-precise when analysing a text such as Pacatus’ panegyric. It seems likely that Pacatus is signalling that all those involved in the Gothic war had fought against Maximus.

(23) ILCV 1061 Diehl (= CIL v. 1623).

(24) Egger, ‘Historisch-epigraphische Studien’, 329 ff.; cf. Thompson, ‘Northern Barbarians’, 65 ff.

(25) Egger, 333 ff.; cf. Fiebiger, Inschriftensammlung, 25 n. 34.

(26) Cf. Nagy, ‘Last Century of Pannonia’, 331.

(27) Cf. Thompson, ‘Northern Barbarians’, 66 n. 3.

(28) The Notitia Dignitatum records Marcomanni in Pannonia I (Occ. 34. 24), unspecified foreigners in Raetia (Occ. 35. 31–2) and Alans and Sarmatians under the magister peditum (Occ. 42).

(29) Zosimus 5. 37. 1 ff. This again probably reflects Zosimus’ unsatisfactory editing of Olympiodorus; cf. p. 78.

(30) When Alaric became magister militum, Athaulf became comes domesticorum: Sozomen, HE 9. 8.

(31) Várady, Das letzte Jahrhundert added extra episodes to the history of the Pannonian settlement, which have been rightly rejected even by those who accept that there was a settlement: Nagy, ‘Last Century of Pannonia’, passim; Harmatta, ‘Last Century of Pannonia’, 361–9; Mócsy, review of Varady, 347–60. Várady suggested that: (i) the Greuthungi first entered Pannonia in 376 (cf. Nagy, 300, 308 ff.); (ii) a first foedus was made early in 379 (Nagy, 319–20); (iii) there were Pannonian revolts in 392 and 395 (Nagy, 323 ff.); (iv) in 399 a new foedus split up the ‘Drei Völker’ confederation; the Huns remained in Pannonia, the Alans moved to Valeria, and the Goths to Italy (Nagy, 330 ff; Mócsy, 354–5).