From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I was under the impression that it was Valerian who was staunchly anti christian and that Gallienus being a smart man as he was realised it was to clever to piss of a minority even to use them as scape goat and relaxed some of the persecuting edicts.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 20:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC).


"and then as the sole Roman Emperor from 260 to 268."

Right! This is one of the most ominous blunders I read on Wikipedia. Gallienus NEVER was sole emperor. His whole rule was one big catastrophical calamity. One usurper after another. He lost nearly half of his empire to Postumus and another main part to Palmyra. This should be made clear right in the intro and take THE main place in the article without silly euphemisms and redefinitions on Gallic Empire or Gallienus usurpers. johanthon 15:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Johanthon you are completely missing the point. Gallienus was recognized as co-emporer for a time with his father and then as sole emporer. The term "sole emperor" is used in literature to distinguish the two different periods. This is done in every source of roman literature i have on the period. Lets also remember that the others were usurpers to the title, pretenders, not recognized by the senate. Every reign in roman imperial history dealt with rebellion and attempted seizure of royal sovereignty. Ingenuus, Macrianus, Quietus, Balista, Domitianus of Gaul, Regallianus, Zenobia, Celsus, Odenathus, Trebellianus, Piso, the Gallic secessionists and possibly many more whose names are lost to history all usurped the throne only to have met crushing defeats by the forces of Gallienus. And while for a time Postumus was the de facto ruler of the western roman empire after the death of Saloninus he was never recognized by Rome as emporer. Infact Postumus ended up with his own senate, consuls, and praetorian guard completely seperate from that of Rome. That is why he ruled over what is called the Gallic empire and not the Roman empire. While much territory was lost Gallienus was in little position to do much about it. Gallienus was battling several usurpers out east and could not avenge his brothers death. The fragmentation of the empire, while aggravated by Gallienus luxerious life style, was a good deal a product of the times. I think a balanced outlook on his reign that has other focal points besides the loss of territory is best(much of which was brought back under control within the decade). Lets not forget that he was also successful in repelling wave after wave of barbarian invaders as well as finally defeating Postumus after a prolonged period which saw the two in battlefields on three different occasions. -Dylan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odin1 (talkcontribs) 13:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The senate of Rome? You mean that silly-old-wives-debating-club-without-any-power? Do you mean that senate of Rome? And do you think these idle man were of any importance? In that case I foresee that this article will remain disputed for a very long time.
BTW1: Wikipedia is not about what literature writes. It is about presenting a well understandable article that contains all relevant facts in an ordentical way. Wikipedia itself states that readers of the article should be able to find it's claims in the primary sources and not a single primary source I know disputes that Postumus ruled the western half of the Empire and was recognized at such by it's citizens.
BTW2:I didn't know that there was any literature on Gallienus that didn't spent most of its word on his dramatical position. So why wikipedia should differ with presenting such an unbalanced outlook? johanthon 10:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Gallienus was the emperor of the western roman empire, whenever theres a usurper they dont split the leadership, most usurpers dont gain territory, some dont even form armies, Gallienus was the sole emperor 260 - 268 ad GET THAT THROUGH YOUR SKULL the gallic empire is considered a seeprate enttitty, a breakaway empire that might have laid claim to the rest of the roman empire but Gallienus was still recognised as the official emperor. And please stop being so emotional about it its a good article and impartial.

Meaningless sentences[edit]

These may have been changed maliciously but certain phrases seem meaningless.

"Gallienus has been dealt with well by ancient historians, partly due to the secession of Gaul and his ability to get it back."

He didn't get Gaul back, Aurelian did.

Also in an earlier part there is mention of Gallienus not preserving Roman history and sense of nationhood then there are several passages about how he promoted the Hellenistic aspects of Roman culture, what is meant by this?

Urselius 15:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That got vandalized. The correct version stated that ancient historians treated him poorly and modern historians now see him as more positive. It's sad this kind of vandalism can go unfixed for so long. (talk) 02:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
What left of vandalism has been addressed. However, I still think that the article has too few references to belong to B-class category Dipa1965 (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup needed[edit]

Article includes unproven or even fictional facts (a 3rd century Hun invasion!). Also needed more citing of primary and secondary sources. Dipa1965 (talk) 06:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Finished some sections but it is still grossly incomplete. I need a few more days to finish it. Dipa1965 (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Just finished the 'Life' section. I think a re-write of Policy is needed, because of inappropriate language and a number of important omissions and unsupported facts. It would not be an easy task, though. --Dipa1965 (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is still rough in many places, particularly Invasion of the Alamanni Grindl (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Even though I am the main contributor of that entity, I agree with you. It needs some copy-editing.--Dipa1965 (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Family, death date[edit]

@user Dgarq:

  • Other Wikipedia articles, like Cornelia Salonina, should not be used for justifying an edit. Both John Bray and Alaric Watson (I have both of their books) do not mention but three sons: Valerianus, Saloninus, Marinianus. The existence of a third son and a daughter MUST be supported by a reliable secondary source.
  • As with most of the events of the second half of 3rd century, it is extremely difficult for any modern historian to determine the month during which Gallienus died, let alone the exact day. Please find yourself a reliable source before inserting the "22 March" theory. It would be a much better practice than inserting a bogus date and demand others to find a reference for it.

--Dipa1965 (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Whereabouts of Gallienus during the years he was joint-emperor with Valerian[edit]

The present text tends to follow the chronology established by Alfoldi et al in the 1930s. This has G spending his first years as co-emperor dealing with attacks by the Franks and Alamanni into the Gallic provinces. This meant that his seat-of-government (sedes imperii) in these years was Cologne and it was not until the end of the joint-reign that he transferred his main attention to the Danube. However, I think that some reference should be made to the alternative time-line for this period proposed by Christol inter alia. This is, roughly:

1. 254 G establishes seat-of-government in Pannonia Inferior where he could control the main roads to Italy and also deal with incursions by Gothic peoples across the lower Danube into Moesia and Thracia. (This makes sense as a recently discovered extract from Dexippus's Getica suggests that when G arrived in the Balkans, the Goths were raiding into those regions and even threatening Greece. It seems unlikely that in those circumstances G would have concentrated his main effort in the Rhineland.)

2. 256 raids by the Alamanni and Franks into Gaul cause him to transfer his seat of government - and his field-army - to Cologne where he also established a mint to pay the army. He was joined in Cologne by Valerian - who was on his way back from the eastern provinces - and Valerian Junior was made a third Augustus with responsibility for the Balkan provinces. As Valerian Junior was very young, he was placed under the tutorship of Ingenuus.

3. 257 G and Valerian go to Rome where they celebrate triumphs over the Germans and the Persians (Valerian had had some modest successes in Syria);

4. 257 Valerian returns east while G returns to Cologne the Germans having renewed hostilities beyond the Alps. He was still there when Ingenuus mounted his attempted putsch in the Balkans. It is significant that G sent Aureolus to suppress this rebellion as it suggests that, at the time, he himself was still heavily involved against the Germans in the Rhineland; However

5. Following victory over the Alamanni at Milan (259), G is able to turn his attention to the Balkans and Dacia - although the failure of the Regalianus rebellion is attributed to an invasion by the Roxolani rather than the activity if G and the field-army) leaving Saloninus as Caesar in Cologne under the tutorship of Silvanus/Albanus. He was probably in the Balkans when Postumus turned on Saloninus and established the Gallic empire.

Subject to any comments from other contributors I propose to revise the existing text to take account of this possible scenario while recognising that it is, at best, an hypothesis, and that, given the evidence available, there can be no definitive account of Gallienus' reign. (I shall, of course, provide as full a scholarly apparatus as is possible).PeterJBS (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)PeterJBS (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gallienus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)