I. PHILIP THE ARAB

1. Accession

• Marcus Julius Phillipus – of Syrian origin
• Succession not clear – end of Herodian’s narrative
• Not the obvious successor to Gordian III
• Timethiseus had Philip and brother Julius Priscus on staff
• Promoted Priscus to praetorian prefecture with self
• When Timethiseus died Priscus promoted Philip
• Example of imperial role passing to lesser men 

2. Reign

• Deification of Gordian III
• Mechanisms for stability and power sharing 
• Nature of events in 3^rd century meant that rule by a single individual was no longer viable 
• Makes son Caesar
• Makes brother-in-law Severianus vice Caesaris in balkans
• Makes brother governor Mesopotamia and Corrector totius orientis
• Collects eastern tribute and acts as deputy emperor
• New post; important for what follows
• Problem of sharing power: if give significant imperium to another individual, essentially created a potential threat to own power
• Recognises necessity of sharing power but keeps it within his own family 
• Attempt to solve problem of increasingly fragmented empire facing threats on multiple frontiers
• Symptom of the 3^rd century 
• Twin rule knitted into the initial framework of imperial rule – cf. Augustus and Agrippa
• Doesn’t neglect Rome (cf. Maximinus)
• There from 244 and celebrates millennium in 248
• Later Christian sources (Eusebius) remember Philip as the first Christian emperor

3. War

• Major concern again = Sapor
• Philip makes a treaty
• Gives away Armenia
• Agrees to payment of 500,000 aurei – in gold, silver debased? 
• Major concession; Persia and Rome argued over border surrounding Euphrates for long time
• Priscus’ role in the east is to raise the 500,000 
• Philip breaks the treaty 
• Narrative hard to reconstruct
• Is it a reaction to Sapor’s aggression?
• Or simply that war is better than payment – hard to raise funds
• Also stops tribute to Gothic tribes in north 
• Produces a brutal reaction
• Also fighting on northern frontier

II. DECIUS 249-251

1. Accession

• During the millennial year of 248 – trouble east and west
• Usurper Jotapianus in Syria – suppressed/killed
• Rioting in Alexandria 
• Goths invade Lower Moesia
• Troops declare Marinus Pacatianus emperor
• Philip sends Decius, a Danubian senator
• Ends revolt… but his troops proclaim him emperor instead 
• Sept 249: Philip launches attack against Decius & loses 

2. Image

• Image problem (like all usuprers – series of solutions)
• Changes his name
• Blatant attempt to buy into image of Rome’s optimus princeps; takes name of Trajan
• Born C. Messius Quintus Decius Valerinus
• Changes to C. Messius Quintius Traianus Decius
• Emphasises Dacian origins
• Associates self with past ‘good emperors’
• Series of coins issued: Augustus, Vespasian, Titus, Nerva, Trajan, Antoninus Pius, Commodus, Septimius Severus, Severus Alexander
• Missing: Claudius, Pertinax, Gordians I, II and III
• List of good/bad emperors clearly up for debate
• Indication of changing memory 
• Philip’s name erased from inscriptions
• Origins of story from Philips’ revolt? 

III. CHRISTIANITY

1. Christianity on the Radar

• Christianity’s gradual rise makes it noticeable movement
• Later sources see Philip as the first Christian emperor
• Moving im imperial circles under Severans?
• And Decius as (first?) empire-wide persecutor
• Certainly, Decius issued edict re religion
• Actual edict didn’t surivce

2. An Edict of Universal Sacrifice 

• We have records of effect edict – libelli
• Record act and statement of sacrifice, names and signatures of official witnesses
• No Christian names… and some very un-christian behaviour (Christians should refuse to sacrifice)
• Seems to have been for all citizens; edict of universal sacrifice cf. Caracalla’s edict of universal citizenship 
• What was the intention?
• Persecution – to expose Christians?
• Attempts to self-legitimisation?
• Response to unease of millennium
• Extension of Caracalla’s edict o religious sphere – centralisation 
• About harmony of empire? Consistency of worship 
• Note vagueness of ‘ancestral gods’ 
• Response to empire’s difficulties?
• Christians fell on wrong side of history
• Local exploitation of new avenues in Roman law
• Fear of persecution is own local community
• Local communities taking advantage of new legal mechanisms
• Scraps of non-Christian evidence seem to suggest a different narrative