Tom Servo

It's hard to tell with Aemilian, The army seems to have pushed him into that role since they deemed him more capable of Gallus in dealing with the Goths. Zonaras seems to be the main source for him. If you still have the book handy, does he mention whether Aemilian was actually confirmed by the Senate? As far as usurpers go, there was no shortage of those in the 3rd century. Gallienus seems to be the winner on that front. There's a list here, and Gibbon claims there were 19.

There's a paper here in which the author researched varying sources for the account of Carinus' (Numerian's brother) death. Honestly, I only ever learned the bare bones of eastern Roman history after the 4th century. This endeavor has shown me just how sloppy ecclesiastical historians were in later years.

I think I have it figured out. It boils down to this: Numerian appears to be the only emperor Malalas knows of from the second half of the 3rd Century, so he makes Numerian the cause of everything. Malalas makes these claims about Babylas: he barred an emperor from attending church service he was executed by an emperor an emperor went to war with Shapur and was captured at Carrhae If we go by those facts, he's talking about at least three different emperors, all of whom predate Numerian by quite some time. Carus was born in 224, so it's likely Numerian wasn't born until 242 at the earliest. According to Eusebius, Babylas died in 253. Numerian would have been a young boy at that point. The emperor who attended church service would have probably been Philip, who ruled from 244-249. Decius (249-251) led persecutions against Christians beginning in 250. Babylas was imprisoned at that point, but if his date of death is correct, he would have died during the reign of Gallus (251-253). The emperor who was captured at Carrhae is easy. It's Valerian, another big persecutor of Christians. He led a campaign against Shapur in 260, fared badly and was captured either in Edessa or Carrhae.

Sorry, I meant the 200 years between Numerian's reign and Malalas writing about it.

Here's the relevant part from Eusebius, Chapter 34: From Chapter 36: From Chapter 39: I found some interesting notes in Margaret A. Schatkin's translation of John Chrysostom's Apologist. On page 62, she mentions a general named Numerius (not the guy accused of embezzlement under Julian) who persecuted Christians on Decius' orders. While I doubt Numerius was mistaken for an emperor, someone looking at a fragmentary (and long) list of emperors from 200 years before could have gotten the names mixed up at some point.

Thanks for the kind words. Who was the emperor you meant? Also, many thanks for the pointers. This started as a nagging question, and now it looks to be a very interesting research project!

Philip? Chrysostom claims that he attended services, and that Babylas made him sit with the penitents. That may have had something to do with Decius' antagonism towards Christianity. Decius threw Babylas in prison, and he died there in the 250's. Now it comes together. Carus and his sons wouldn't really be on the radar until they became emperors, and that would be 30 years after Babylas' death. It looks as if Malalas has Numerian confused with Philip.

So, it's possible Heather was right and accounts of his poisoning are wrong? If so, it would seem that the "official" story could be a fabrication of Diocletian's supporters to support his killing of a potential rival. The answers I've gotten so far in this thread have been fascinating. Thanks!

That's what I gathered about him. If his account were the correct one, then Numerian wasn't poisoned by Aper (or at least Aper wasn't accused). If so, the mainstream story that Diocles killed Aper in retribution after taking the purple would false as well. It's a seemingly small discrepancy that actually affects quite a bit. I'm wondering why Heather would use a source that conflicts with mainstream interpretation, and without any comment on the choice.

I'll open by saying I'm something of a layman, not having done any real research on the subject since the early 1990's. I'm reading through Peter Heather's Fall of the Roman Empire, and I came across an odd contradiction. I've read that Numerian died of an eye disease on the Persian front, which might have been poisoning by Aper. The Epitome De Caesaribus backs this up. However, Heather claims Numerian was captured by Shapur, killed, and his skin made into a bag. Heather's source is Dodgeon's Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars, and Dodgeon appears to be quoting Malalas: I know there are real concerns about Malalas' work. Is there any credibility to his account?