By Nicholas Morris
Eutropius wrote the Breviarium in the first instance for the emperor Valens, who took power over the eastern half of the Roman Empire in 364 CE, named co-emperor by his brother Valentinian I, who ruled in the West. The brothers were born to an Illyrian family in the province of Pannonia Secunda, and had served in military posts in various parts of the Empire. Valens, like many army officers and influential provincials of this period, lacked a strong understanding of Roman history. He tasked Eutropius with writing an account of the last thousand years of history that would be “simple, succinct and readable” enough for the emperor and his administration to perform their duties adequately (Bird 2011: xix).
Eutropius was not an inexperienced bureaucrat. Prior service under the emperors Constantius II (337–361), Julian (361–363), and Jovian (363–364) (according to the reconstruction by Bird 2011: ix–xiii) meant that Eutropius had a good understanding of the empire’s problems. He likely saw writing the Breviarium as an opportunity to influence the actions of Valens and his administration, prodding them towards solutions to the problems Eutropius himself thought needed solving. The two most important issues to which Eutropius draws the emperor’s attention were Roman relations with their Persian neighbors and the relationship between the imperial throne and the senatorial aristocracy.
The Sassanid (or Sassanian) dynasty in Persia was one of the most powerful opponents the later Roman Empire faced. Led by their sovereign Ardashir, they toppled their Parthian overlords in the mid-220s CE and took control of Persia. The Sassanids’ goal of reconquering all the land once held by their Achaemenid forebears brought them into sustained conflict with the Roman Empire for the next century and a half.
In an ill-fated campaign against the Sassanids in 363 CE, the Roman emperor Julian died in battle and his bodyguard Jovian was hailed as the new emperor by their troops (Brev. 10.16–17). Pressed into an unfavorable position, Jovian opted to make peace with the Sassanids rather than to prolong an untenable war. The resulting treaty ended up being particularly disadvantageous for the Romans, who were forced to concede “the great fortresses of Nisibis, Singara and Castra Maurorum in Mesopotamia and the five provinces and fifteen fortresses beyond the Tigris” (Bird 2011: xviii). The neighboring kingdom of Armenia became a battleground between the two superpowers when the Sassanids tried to oust the pro-Roman client kings and to install their own puppet rulers there (Bird 2011: xix). Even though Jovian had put a stop to a potentially disastrous war, Eutropius saw the treaty as a humiliating disgrace for the empire (Brev. 10.17).
Eutropius, as one of the treaty’s opponents, believed that Rome should launch a punitive campaign against Persia to reconquer their relinquished lands. With Jovian’s death just seven months after his accession to power and the subsequent rise of Valens, Eutropius may have recognized a chance to leave an imprint on the new emperor with the contents of his Breviarium.
Eutropius gives special attention to the wars that Rome waged against the various eastern kingdoms, particularly against the Parthians and the Armenians. Before the Romans ever set foot in the East, however, they fought three destructive wars against the famed maritime power of Carthage, and describing these fit well in Eutropius’ hawkish rhetoric. The Second Punic War, to which Eutropius devotes most of Book Three, represents a prime instance of Roman valor and tenacity, as they struggled against Hannibal Barca, who proved to be a significant challenge for the Romans to overcome. Eutropius’ purpose may well be to show Valens that the Roman people had faced worse odds even before they first encountered the eastern kingdoms, and that if they could succeed against the likes of Hannibal and Carthage, they could do the same against Shapur and Persia.
Eutropius chronicles Rome’s first steps into the East with their victories against the Seleucid Empire shortly after the turn of the second century BCE. He recounts all three Mithridatic Wars (Brev. 5.4–5.9, 6.6–6.12), as well as the disastrous defeat of Marcus Crassus at Carrhae in 53 BCE (Brev. 6.18) and the subsequent revenge campaign under Augustus and Agrippa (Brev. 7.9). Parthia is not mentioned again until their invasion of the East under Nero’s watch, when the Parthians sent the defeated Roman legions under the yoke, a humiliating punishment (Brev. 7.14).
The success of the emperor-general Trajan played a significant part in Eutropius’ articulation of his ideals. Like many in his time, Eutropius viewed Trajan very favorably. He praises Trajan’s successful campaigns against the Parthian Empire and his subsequent institution of three provinces in Mesopotamia and Armenia (Brev. 8.3). Under Trajan, the empire’s eastern reach stretched as far as the Persian Gulf. Eutropius’ admiration for Trajan matches his disgust for Trajan’s successor Hadrian, who ordered the removal of troops from the new Eastern provinces on account of insufficient resources (Brev. 8.6).
After Trajan’s reign, Eutropius does not focus as much on Parthia’s activities. But he returns to his discussion of the East during the Crisis of the Third Century (235–284 CE). The emperors Alexander Severus and Gordian III launched successful military expeditions against the Sassanids, who by now had supplanted the Parthians as the regional superpower; both men were later assassinated by their own soldiers (Brev. 8.23, 9.2). (From Gordian onwards, Eutropius increasingly uses the name “Parthians” in reference to the Persians, even though the former dynasty had been long overthrown.) This same fortune did not extend to Valerian, who was captured in battle by Shapur I and “grew old in ignominious servitude” (Brev. 9.7). Eutropius declines to go into detail in his discussion of this tragedy. Under Valerian’s son Gallienus the Persians again began to menace Roman Syria, but Eutropius notes that the East was saved under the client king Odenathus of Palmyra, who successfully staved off Shapur’s devastating assault. Palmyra would eventually secede from Rome under Zenobia, but would be reclaimed later by Aurelian (Brev. 9.8, 9.10, 9.13).
Eutropius details the eastern campaigns of later emperors in Books Nine and Ten. Carus managed to penetrate as far as the Sassanid capital of Ctesiphon before being killed by a lightning strike (Brev. 9.18). Galerius suffered initial setbacks while defending against an invasion by the Persian king Narses but emerged victorious in the end (Brev. 9.24–9.25). Constantine had reportedly been planning a counterattack against the Persians before his sudden death. His son Constantius II “suffered many serious setbacks at the hands of the Persians” (Brev. 10.10). Eutropius ends his history with the tale of Julian’s failed invasion of Persia and Jovian’s “necessary but shameful peace” (Brev. 10.17).
Eutropius clarifies his intense opposition to the treaty because of its explicit surrender of Roman territory to the enemy, something that he asserts had never happened with previous generations of Romans, who preferred to keep fighting rather than admit defeat. This treaty would have been more endurable had Jovian shown an intention to recapture the lost territory. Eutropius claims that the late emperor had an “insufficient concern for his reputation” (Brev. 10.17).
In Valens, Eutropius saw a general most qualified to march against the Persians and reclaim the territory Jovian had surrendered. His focus, therefore, on Rome’s numerous encounters with Persia illustrates a near-unbroken string of Roman successes in the East, a record blemished by Jovian’s actions. Here Eutropius had an opportunity to encourage Valens to write his own name on the list of generals successful against the Sassanids.
In addition to his focus on the Eastern empire, Eutropius also focuses on relationships between the emperors and the senatorial aristocracy. By the 360s the Senate as an institution had existed for over a millennium. Founded by Romulus as an advisory body for the kings, the Senate had retained that role in the nascent Republic. With Caesar’s civil war and the subsequent accession of Augustus in 27 BCE, the Senate lost a good deal of its power, but retained its prestige as a hallowed institution of Rome.
Although true power lay with the emperors, the Senate’s nominal position and authority remained unchallenged, with emperors frequently making a show of deference to senatorial authority to show that they, too, were bound by convention and custom. It also became a common practice for the Senate to formally ratify the accession of the emperors, as though they wanted to prove that they still had an important role to play in the new imperial administration.
But the crisis of the third century, which began with the death of Alexander Severus in 235 CE, would bring the senate’s authority crumbling down. Maximinus Thrax was the first emperor to rule without senatorial approval, having power conferred upon him by the legions (Brev. 9.1). This practice would continue for the next five decades until the Crisis was brought to a halt with the accession of the emperor Diocletian, whose rejection of the premise of senatorial authority paved the way for a more authoritarian style of rule.
As a member of the senatorial class by virtue of his office-holding background, Eutropius tried to justify the importance of that class to the emperor. Valens’ brother and co-emperor Valentinian despised the senatorial elite, preferring to fill key administrative posts in Rome with associates or tried and trusted professionals. Conflicts over such issues led to many trials and even executions of senators. Eutropius, though a favorite of Valens, used the Breviarium to impress upon the emperor the importance of the Senate in Roman politics (Bird 2011: xxv-xxvi). He paints the Senate as a hallowed institution, wisely entrusted with its power throughout the centuries, and focusing little on its flaws.
As a supporter of senatorial power, Eutropius is very selective in his portrayal of populist reformers in Late Republican politics. He completely omits a discussion of the brothers Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus, tribunes of the plebs who sought redistribution of Rome’s extensive public land holdings to benefit landless citizens. Bird argues that Eutropius’ omission of the Gracchi from his chronicle was entirely intentional, as the Gracchi brothers and their exploits had been well-documented in later sources to which Eutropius would certainly have had access (Bird 2011: xxvii).
Eutropius does mention other important populists such as Gaius Marius and Julius Caesar, but he treats their characters with relative disdain while uplifting the likes of Sulla and Pompey, the self-styled champions of the Senate (Brev. 4.27–5.9, 6.12–6.25). Marius, one of the most influential men of his day, is relegated to the role of an insignificant and annoying antagonist, whose military reforms, a crucial step in the evolution of the Roman army, are not mentioned in Eutropius’ writing. By comparison, Sulla’s exploits in the East against Mithridates are explored in detail, more so than Marius’ equally important commands in the Jugurthine and Cimbric Wars.
Eutropius appears to have somewhat more respect for Caesar. He includes the famous anecdote of Caesar’s grief at the death of his rival Pompey, as well as his praise of Caesar as being one of the two great generals at the Battle of Pharsalus (Brev. 6.21). Even so, Eutropius laments the division between Caesar and Pompey as a travesty for the Republic, claiming that the vast number of Roman troops under their combined command would have been better directed against external enemies rather than internal ones. In Eutropius’ eyes, the civil war was a useless and futile endeavor, best avoided if Caesar had simply laid down his command at the Senate’s behest.
Furthermore, Eutropius seeks to influence the way Valens would treat the senatorial class by attempting to draw a clear correlation between an emperor’s successful rule and the quality of his relations with the Senate. The “good” emperors, such as Titus and Trajan, were merciful and generous, and refused to treat the senatorial elite with anything less than respect and deference (Brev. 7.21–7.22, 8.4–8.5). They accordingly enjoyed long and prosperous reigns unless disease or death in battle cut their reigns short.
The “bad” emperors, on the other hand, such as Nero, Domitian, and Commodus, regularly ignored the Senate’s advice and frequently condemned its members to death (Brev. 7.15, 7.23, 8.15). They were thus the subjects of many plots. And ultimately, they were the victims of assassination attempts.
Eutropius’ selection of the historical events reflects his intention to influence the actions of Valens both in his dealings with the senatorial aristocracy and in his approach to the East. By focusing mostly on the positive actions of the Senate, Eutropius hopes to counteract the potential influence of Valens’ brother Valentinian and secure his own status within the social hierarchy of the Roman Empire. And by praising the emperors, who had successful campaigns in the East, Eutropius hopes to convince Valens to add his name to the list of emperors who have led successful campaigns against Persia.