Rethinking the third century CE : contemporary historiography and political narrative
This thesis challenges one of the fundamental assumptions about Rome's political upheaval in the third century CE. This period is conventionally defined by the growing political influence of the army at the expense of the Senate, after the Severan emperors made it clear that their hold on power rested on military support. The soldiers would grow bolder in asserting their position, eventually coming to overthrow emperors at will. I present a broad reassessment of the evidence for a historical model which derives from the narratives of two contemporary witnesses, Cassius Dio and Herodian. Dio is the subject of my first discussion. I address two problems. Firstly, Dio's contemporary history survives only through Byzantine epitomes and excerpts. Its irreparable alteration means that Dio's later books cannot be treated in their own terms, but have to be contextualised against the wider thematic framework of his thousand-year account. Secondly, I turn to Dio himself. Within that framework, Dio presents himself as the ideal senatorial historian. In doing so, he is able to define a uniform senatorial experience, which excludes everything else as deriving from military corruption. An analysis of Herodian follows, also
Andrews, Graham
Cassius Dio ; Herodian ; Roman history ; third century crisis ; third century ; roman historiography ; ancient historiography
Rethinking the third century CE : contemporary historiography and political narrative. This thesis challenges one of the fundamental assumptions about Rome's political upheaval in the third century CE. This period is conventionally defined by the growing political influence of the army at the expense of the Senate, after the Severan emperors made it clear that their hold on power rested on military support. The soldiers would grow bolder in asserting their position, eventually coming to overthrow emperors at will. I present a broad reassessment of the evidence for a historical model which derives from the narratives of two contemporary witnesses, Cassius Dio and Herodian. Dio is the subject of my first discussion. I address two problems. Firstly, Dio's contemporary history survives only through Byzantine epitomes and excerpts. Its irreparable alteration means that Dio's later books cannot be treated in their own terms, but have to be contextualised against the wider thematic framework of his thousand-year account. Secondly, I turn to Dio himself. Within that framework, Dio presents himself as the ideal senatorial historian. In doing so, he is able to define a uniform senatorial experience, which excludes everything else as deriving from military corruption. An analysis of Herodian follows, also
rethinking contemporary historiography political narrative challenge one_fundamental assumption rome political_upheaval period conventionally define grow political_influence army expense senate severan emperor make_clear hold power rest military support soldier would grow assert position eventually come overthrow emperor will present broad reassessment evidence historical model derive narrative contemporary witness subject first discussion address problem firstly contemporary history survives byzantine excerpt alteration mean later book treat term contextualised wider thematic framework thousand year account secondly turn himself within_framework present ideal senatorial historian able define uniform senatorial experience exclude everything else derive military corruption analysis follow also