Enemies of Rome in the 3rd Century CE: The Greatest Enemy of Rome was Rome Itself
It has been said that the greatest enemy of Rome was Rome itself, and this is certainly true of the period known as the Crisis of the Third Century (also known as the Imperial Crisis, 235-284). During this time of almost 50 years, over 20 different emperors ruled in quick succession; a statistic that becomes more alarming when compared with the 26 who reigned between 27 BCE and 235 CE. These rulers – known as the 'barracks emperors' because they were supported by and largely came from the Roman army – were generally motivated by their own ambition and personal interests and so served themselves before the interests of the state.
Although a few of these emperors proved themselves worthy of rule, they could not escape the climate of the times, which rewarded direct and discernible results on the part of leadership, even if those results were not always in the people's best interest. The Crisis of the Third Century began when the Roman emperor Alexander Severus (222-235) decided to pay the German tribes for peace instead of meeting them in battle, and his troops, considering this course dishonorable, killed him. Such an action against a sitting emperor would have been considered unthinkable in the past, but it became so commonplace during this period that elevating a man to the position of emperor was almost a death sentence.
After the death of Alexander Severus, a new paradigm for a ruler became standard – of emperors relying on the goodwill of the military in general and their own commands specifically – and this would characterize the whole of the period. Emperors could no longer rule according to their vision of the best version of Rome; they now had to make policy with their popularity among the army in mind.
At this same time, when Rome was, for the most part, lacking strong leadership, suffering plague, inflation, and other domestic difficulties, external threats presented themselves in the form of so-called "barbarian tribes" and others who either sought to topple Rome or simply remove themselves from the confusion and disorder which had come to characterize the Roman Empire. Chief among Rome's enemies during this period were:
King Cniva of the Goths (and later King Cannabaudes, claimed by some scholars as the same man, circa 251-270?)
King Shapur I (240-270) of the Sassanid Persians, as well as his son, Hormizd I (270 to circa 273)
Postumus of the Gallic Empire (260-269) and those who ruled after him (Marius, Victorinus, Domitianus, and Tetricus I), most notably Tetricus I (271-274)
Zenobia of the Palmyrene Empire (267-272) and her Egyptian general Zabdas (circa 267to c. 273)
All of these rulers played a part in the crisis that beset Rome in the 3rd century. Cniva was the first barbarian king to kill a sitting emperor in battle; Shapur I was the first to capture one; Postumus was a Roman governor who decided he could do better creating his own empire, and Queen Zenobia of Palmyra did the same.
From 235 until Emperor Aurelian came to power in 270, there were very few Roman leaders capable of meeting these threats. At war with each other and surrounded by pressing challenges, most of the emperors of the 3rd century failed the state and the people they were supposed to protect and lead. Many of the problems they faced were not at all new; what made them seem so was the inability of the emperor to resolve any of them. The vast extent of the Roman Empire at this time, which made the old model of rule by one emperor obsolete, and an inability to imagine one more effective and practical, left Rome in a position of weakness, where any man promising results was elevated at the expense – and life – of his predecessor.
Due to the various emperors' failings – as well as other serious problems with the bureaucracy and general function of the Roman government – adversaries like Cniva and Shapur I, as well as former friends like Postumus and Zenobia – were able to gain significant advantages and, in the case of the latter two, even form their own empires.
Cniva (also given as Kniva) was the king of the Goths who defeated the emperor Decius at the Battle of Abritus in 251. Scholar Michael Grant observes that "in Kniva the Goths had a leader of unprecedented caliber, whose large-scale strategy created the gravest perils the empire had yet undergone" (31). Cniva may have learned his strategies through service in the Roman army or may have simply been a careful observer of his adversary. Little is known of him outside of his campaign in 251, in which he laid siege to the Roman city of Nicopolis and successfully took Philipopolis, killing over 100,000 Roman citizens and enslaving survivors.
Emperor Decius was driven from the field by Cniva once, and, when he regrouped and attacked again, Cniva had all the advantages. Cniva knew the terrain, was able to position his troops effectively, and lured Decius and his army into the marshy ground of a swamp. The Roman formations were rendered ineffective on this ground, and Cniva slaughtered most of them, including Decius and his son. Afterwards, the Romans had no choice but to allow Cniva to go on his way with his many prisoners and all the treasures of Philipopolis.
After the Battle of Abritus, Cniva is not heard from again but is associated with the later King Cannabaudes (also given as Cannabas, circa 270) of the Goths, who was killed in battle, along with 5,000 of his troops, in an engagement with Aurelian (270-275) circa 270. It would not be impossible for the same man to have led the Goths in 251 and in 270. The Battle of Naissus (268 or 269) pitted Emperor Claudius II against a Gothic force led by an unnamed king, who could have been Cniva.
Whether Cniva was the same leader as Cannabaudes, his ability to strategize and his skills in warfare were not handed down to the next generation. The identification of Cniva with Cannabaudes makes sense in that, according to reports, the Gothic king was killed along with 5,000 of his men, and the secrets of his success would thus have been lost with those soldiers who had planned and fought with him. After Cniva's successes, there are no other reports of Goths taking Roman cities by siege nor in any other manner. The later Goth commander, Fritigern (circa 380), famously avoided engagements involving cities, preferring guerrilla warfare tactics.
⇒ Enemies of Rome in the 3rd Century CE: The Greatest Enemy of Rome was Rome Itself
