Books by Byron Waldron
Edinburgh University Press 2022; https://edinburghuniversitypress.com/book-dynastic-politics-in-the-age-of-diocletian-ad-284-311.html, 2022
Papers by Byron Waldron
The Dyarchy, the Tetrarchy, and Group Minds
Studies in Late Antiquity, 2026
Filia or Priuigna? On the Paternity of Theodora, Wife of Constantius I
Hermathena, 2025
Shapur I, Odaenathus and Kushanshahr: A Eurasian Perspective on Geopolitics in the Mid-Third Century
Antiquité Tardive, 2025
Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, 2024
In J. Kreiner & G. Wrightson (eds), Ancient Warfare, Volume II: Introducing Current Research (Cambridge Scholars Press), 2024
In studying the Roman-Sasanian wars of the third century AD, one is left to work with precious fe... more In studying the Roman-Sasanian wars of the third century AD, one is left to work with precious few details. This is especially true of the campaigns of Gordian III and Galerius, which took place in the early 240s and late 290s respectively. However, in their reconstructions of both of these campaigns, scholars have neglected non-Roman historical traditions that help us to better understand the events that took place. In this article, I aim to integrate these traditions into current reconstructions of the campaigns of Gordian and Galerius. I defend the historical value of these traditions and discuss how they change our understanding of the campaigns. Ultimately, this article proposes that future scholarship on the Roman-Sasanian wars fully employs the many non-Roman historical traditions in order to challenge existing Romano-centric narratives. 1
In F. Carlà-Uhink & C. Rollinger (eds), The Tetrarchy as Ideology: Reconfigurations and Representations of an Imperial Power (Franz Steiner Verlag), 2023
I've uploaded the cover, table of contents and first page of my chapter. Please DM me if you'd li... more I've uploaded the cover, table of contents and first page of my chapter. Please DM me if you'd like an offprint.
Journal of Late Antiquity, 2021
In the imperial succession of 305, the persecuting emperors Diocletian and Maximian abdicated, an... more In the imperial succession of 305, the persecuting emperors Diocletian and Maximian abdicated, and the sons of the reigning emperors were prevented from succeeding to imperial power. The Christian author Lactantius describes this event in chapters 17 to 19 of De Mortibus Persecutorum (henceforth DMP), a work that ostensibly narrates the decline in power and deaths of persecutors to demonstrate God’s uirtus and maiestas. However, DMP is remarkable for the fact that it combines sustained invective against its subjects, the persecutors, with a detailed history of events from 303 to 313. This article considers DMP as a work of invective history and focusses on the account of the succession to demonstrate how Lactantius’s vituperative characterizations, historical narrative and thesis of divine judgement complement one another. It argues that the succession creates a sophisticated and subversive juncture for his characterizations. Lactantius’s Galerius is a power-hungry barbarian, his Maximinus a perfidious barbarian, and, subverting a topos, his Diocletian is an impotent coward. Over the course of chapters 17 through 19, their combined personalities create the circumstances that will govern their collective loss of power, their deaths and the damnatio memoriae of their regime.
Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 2020
The consulships offer insights into the collapse of the Diocletianic imperial college and the ris... more The consulships offer insights into the collapse of the Diocletianic imperial college and the rise of Constantine. For the year 308 modern reconstructions have Constantine accept the consular appointments of Galerius: Diocletian X, Galerius VII. However, contrary to scholarly consensus, a close reading of the consular fasti reveals that there was disagreement among the sources over whether Diocletian or rather Maximian was regarded as consul for the tenth time in Constantine’s territories. This article aims to demonstrate the existence of this disagreement, to argue that in 308 Constantine did indeed regard Maximian as consul, and to consider how this changes our understanding of the period.
Seleucid Strategies for the Establishment and Maintenance of their Kingdom in the 3rd Century BC
Ancient History: Resources for Teachers, 2017
Coleman-Hilton Scholarship (University of Sydney): Collegiality, Dynasty and Abdication: Political Change and the Tetrarchy
Papers of the British School at Rome, 2015
Lucullus, the East and the Third Mithridatic War
Classicum, 2014
Athens, Chios and the Delian League
Classicum, 2013
Encyclopaedia Articles by Byron Waldron
Caesar, Nobilissima Femina, Quinquennalia/Decennalia/Vicennalia
In I. T. Cinemre & C. Pilevneli (eds), Institutions and Concepts in Late Antiquity (224-651) (Turkish Historical Society), 2025
Book Reviews by Byron Waldron
The Classical Review, 2025
C. seeks to demonstrate that modern academic theories presenting Gallienus as a cavalry reformer ... more C. seeks to demonstrate that modern academic theories presenting Gallienus as a cavalry reformer are based on insufficient evidence. In doing so, he follows in the footsteps of a long-neglected article by M. Springer ('Die angebliche Heeresreform des Kaisers Gallienus', in: Krise -Krisenbewuβtsein -Krisenbewältigung [1988], pp. 97-100). But unlike Springer's piece, C.'s book details the history of scholarship on this issue. This review focuses on the arguments that seem most pertinent to the question of whether we accept or reject the idea that Gallienus made changes to the cavalry, however we envision those changes. Chapter 1 discusses scholarship on Gallienus in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and Chapter 2 focuses on Hermann Schiller, who in 1883 became the first to suggest that Gallienus made a change to the cavalry. Schiller noted a passage of Cedrenus, which derives from the Byzantine historian Symeon Logothetes. According to Symeon (80.3), Gallienus 'first established cavalry units (ἱππικὰ τάγματα). For the soldiers of the Romans were generally infantry'. C. suggests that Symeon misinterpreted an earlier account describing Gallienus' efforts in favour of the equestrian order (ἱππικόν τάγμα), noting that Byzantine authors usually use καθίστημι to mean 'ordain'/'appoint' to an office. This is an intriguing idea that should be carefully considered, but Symeon on three other occasions uses καθίστημι to mean 'make' or 'establish as' (42.17, 44.10, 49.2), and I find 'ordained the equestrian order' an awkward alternative. Chapter 3 critiques the ideas of Emil Ritterling and Alfred von Domaszewski, who discussed this topic in the 1900s. In 1903 Ritterling noticed that Dalmatian cavalry are first securely attested and became a prominent military unit during the reign of Gallienus: they were participants in his assassination (e.g. Zos. 1.40.2), distinguished themselves in Claudius' Gothic war (HA, Claud. 11.9; Zos. 1.43.2) and participated in Aurelian's Palmyrene war (Zos. 1.52.3). The 48 units attested in the Notitia Dignitatum are likely relevant, but C. expresses reasonable reservations about Ritterling's attempt to use the Notitia to make more specific conclusions about Gallienus' cavalry. Chapter 4 considers the ideas of Léon Homo, who in 1913 revealed the biases of Latin accounts against Gallienus and promoted an image of him as a reformer. C. rejects the Greek claim (Zos. 1.40.1; Zon. 12.25) that the general Aureolus was 'commander of all the cavalry' and was stationed in or had seized Milan when he rebelled against Gallienus in 268. C. notes that Aurelius Victor (HAb 33.17) instead has Aureolus commanding legions in Raetia, and he suggests that the Greek authors have duplicated Aureolus' cavalry command at the battle of Mursa in 260, narrated by Zonaras (12.24). However, as regards this battle, Zonaras does not speak of 'all the cavalry' (Gallienus led the Mauri), and the Historia Augusta (Aur. 18.1) likewise claims that Aurelian, during Claudius' reign and before becoming emperor, commanded all the cavalry. Neither Aureolus' command over all the cavalry nor Aurelian's are associated with a specific battle (cf. p. 152). Aureolus may have held this and the Raetian command at different times, leading to confusion in the sources, but it is possible that they overlapped, as Milan was located on one of the roads connecting Raetia and Italy, and Gallienus was absent, fighting the Goths in the Balkans (cf. Marcus Aurelius' praetentura Italiae et Alpium [ILS 8977]; L. de Blois, Image and Reality of
Bryn Mawr Classical Review, 2024
It is hard to overestimate the importance of this volume. The painted marble reliefs of Nicomedia... more It is hard to overestimate the importance of this volume. The painted marble reliefs of Nicomedia, excavated in the Çukurbağ neighbourhood of İzmit, are the best-preserved examples of polychrome relief sculpture in Roman art, and they represent Nicomedia when it was arguably the most powerful city in the Roman empire, the favourite city of Diocletian. Nicomedia is hidden beneath modern İzmit, and the sixty-six relief panels (and other finds) were uncovered
The Classical Review, 2022
In late 310 CE the emperor Constantine was looking to reinforce his imperial legitimacy within an... more In late 310 CE the emperor Constantine was looking to reinforce his imperial legitimacy within an unstable political climate of 'Tetrarchs' and 'usurpers'. His father-in-law Maximian, the very emperor who had made Constantine Augustus, had usurped against him earlier that year. The revolt was soon crushed, and Maximian was made to commit suicide, but the episode had forced Constantine to reconsider the representation of his rule. Perhaps only weeks later, an anonymous orator from Autun delivered a panegyric before the emperor at his court in Trier, Panegyrici Latini VI(7). This speech provides a window into political and literary culture at a turning point in Constantine's reign. It is thus very welcome that, nearly 30 years after the publication of C.E.V. Nixon's historical commentary on the panegyric (C.E.V. Nixon and B.S. Rodgers, In Praise of Later Roman Emperors: the Panegyrici Latini [1994], pp. 211-53), W. has provided scholars with a literary commentary as part of the collaborative Panegyrici Latini Project. The volume also includes the Latin text of R.A.B. Mynors with a shortened and emended apparatus criticus and a translation by W. on the facing pages. The book is indispensable, not least because it offers a rich framework of analysis. W. examines the speech in the context of its time and place of delivery, but she also investigates its relationship to the other Panegyrici Latini and its role within the Panegirici Diuersorum VII and Panegyrici Latini XII corpora. The introduction is divided into two parts. Part 1, on the Panegyrici Latini, provides excellent overviews and discussions on the manuscript and commentary traditions, the history and purposes of the corpora, the genre of panegyric, language and style, and intertextuality (pp. 1-35). Throughout, W. repeatedly connects her broader points to passages in VI(7). Part 2 focuses on VI(7) and outlines its historical context, time and place, speaker and audience, and structure (pp. 35-63). Concerning audience, W. notes that, while the primary function of VI(7) was to express loyalty and seek benefits in a ceremonial setting, 'the orator's secondary audience, those who would later read and study the panegyric at their leisure, was more likely to appreciate its literary qualities' (p. 59). Part 2 also includes a series of discussions on the panegyric's representation of key themes: Constantine's relationships with Maximian and Constantius (and how these representations compare with earlier speeches), the emperor as seuerus and mitis, the emperor's association with Augustus and Apollo, and the speech's thematic links with later panegyrics. In this way, W. brings to the reader's attention topics and issues that are revisited in the commentary. W. considers VI(7) to be a 'people's panegyric', since 'the information directed towards the emperor is of greater significance than that which emanates from him' (p. 26). That said, the orator's announcement that Claudius Gothicus is an ancestor of Constantine, apparently a new claim at the time of delivery (2.1-2) as well as his handling of Maximian's usurpation may suggest imperial briefing (pp. 24-6, 38-9, 234). The text and translation follow the introduction. W.'s translation is engaging and captures the tone and mood of the rhetoric while not being overly literal. Then comes the brilliantly detailed commentary, which provides analyses of speech structure, chapter THE CLASSICAL REVIEW
The Classical Review, 2020
Melbourne Historical Journal, 2014
Web Articles by Byron Waldron
Iphicrates – Meet Athens’ Greatest Commander
Military History Now, https://militaryhistorynow.com/2025/04/14/iphicrates-meet-athens-greatest-commander/, 2025
Uploads
Books by Byron Waldron
Papers by Byron Waldron
Encyclopaedia Articles by Byron Waldron
Book Reviews by Byron Waldron
Web Articles by Byron Waldron