Samaritans, Regional Coalition, and the Limits of Imperial Authority in Late Antique Palestine
By Matt Chalmers
The Samaritans, today a small minority in Israel, were an important and active part of the Mediterranean world from at least the second century BCE through the eighth century CE (for overviews see Crown 1989; Pummer 2016). Under the Emperor Zeno in 484, at least according to our main sixth-century sources (Procopius; Malalas; Chronicon Paschale) the Samaritans revolted (see Crown 1986-7; Di Segni 1998; Sivan 2008). The group rebelled twice more, under Anastasius (ca.529CE) and Justinian (556CE; see Procopius; Cyr.
The Kings as Imperial Models in the Fourth-Century Epitomators
By Jeremy Swist
The historian Livy called his work a memorial of exemplary models ( exempla ) that
individuals and states should imitate or avoid ( praef. 10). He arguably desired Augustus’
readership, and that the allusive exempla of unconstrained monarchs such as Romulus and
Tarquin would exercise a check on his own power (Petersen 1961, Simmons 2008). Within the
period of Late Antiquity we likewise find historical prose aimed at guiding, and limiting, the
exercise of imperial power through the exempla of past monarchs (Bird 1993). During the later
Vetranio and the Limits of Legitimacy in the Danubian Provinces
By Craig Caldwell
The usurpation of the general Vetranio in 350 was an outlier: it was neither a successful seizure of the purple that produced a new dynasty, nor a spectacular failure that resulted in the bloody demise of its adherents. While this would-be emperor has attracted scholarly attention as a participant in the civil wars fought and won by Constantius II in 350–53, Vetranio was a uniquely Danubian solution to the sudden apparent weakness of the Constantinian dynasty (Drinkwater 2000, Bleckmann 1994).
The Imperial Adventus: Evolving Dialogues between Emperor and City in the Third Century C.E.
By Shawn Ragan
Previous studies on what is often called ‘the third-century crisis’ (235-284 CE) have
primarily focused on the role of the military in legitimating imperial authority, which has led
many scholars, such as A.H.M. Jones, to identify the period as a “military anarchy” (Jones, 23).
Hence, emperors beginning with Maximinus Thrax, the first emperor after the end of the Severan
dynasty, are read through the lens of civil war and military upheaval. Cursory readings of the
literary evidence would seem to support this interpretation. This focus on the military has also