著者

Millar Fergus G.B. 井上 文則

出版者

史学研究会 (京都大学文学部内)

雑誌

史林 (ISSN:03869369)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.83, no.3, pp.499-517, 2000-05

---

個人情報保護のため削除部分あり

著者

井上 文則

出版者

京都大学大学院文学研究科

雑誌

西洋古代史研究 = Acta academiae antiquitatis Kiotoensis (ISSN:13468405)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.15, pp.1-18, 2015-12-18

著者

井上 文則

出版者

京都大学大学院文学研究科

雑誌

西洋古代史研究 (ISSN:13468405)

巻号頁・発行日

no.10, pp.43-52, 2010

著者

井上 文則

出版者

史学研究会 (京都大学文学部内)

雑誌

史林 (ISSN:03869369)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.87, no.4, pp.518-543, 2004-07

---

個人情報保護のため削除部分あり

著者

井上 文則

出版者

京都大学大学院文学研究科

雑誌

西洋古代史研究 = Acta academiae antiquitatis Kiotoensis (ISSN:13468405)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.10, pp.43-52, 2010-12-22

著者

井上 文則

出版者

京都大学大学院文学研究科

雑誌

西洋古代史研究 (ISSN:13468405)

巻号頁・発行日

no.4, pp.19-35, 2004

著者

井上 文則

出版者

京都大学大学院文学研究科

雑誌

西洋古代史研究 = Acta academiae antiquitatis Kiotoensis (ISSN:13468405)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.13, pp.1-23, 2013-12-10

---

3世紀においてゴート人は, ローマ帝国に繰り返し侵入し, 251 年には時の皇帝デキウスを敗死させるなどの深刻な事態を帝国にもたらした. この時期のゴート人の侵入を巡っては, その侵攻が何時, 何度あったのか, といった基本的な事実についてすら論争があるが, 本稿では特に3世紀におけるゴート人の侵攻の性格は, いったいどのようなものであったのか, さらにはそもそも当時のゴート人とはどのような集団であったのかという問題を考察の中心に据えて議論を行い, 併せてこの時期の侵入がゴート, ローマの双方にもった歴史的意義について考察を加えた. 考察の結果, ゴート人は, 通説が考えてきたようなバルト海南岸からの移住民ではなく, フランク人やアレマンニ人同様, 黒海北岸の地で3 世紀に新たに形成された民族であったこと, また, その侵入は単なる略奪を目的としたものであったとはいえ, 3 世紀の一連の侵入を通してゴート人が形成されていったことが明らかになった. ゴート人の侵入を促したのは, ササン朝の攻撃を受けて混乱するローマ帝国であったのであり, この意味では帝国の混乱がゴート人の形成, 強大化に寄与したのであった. ただし, 3世紀においては未だ, ゴート人は黒海北岸における支配的な集団ではなく, ローマ帝国への侵入に際しても, 侵入者の一部を構成していたにすぎないと考えられることも指摘した.

著者

井上 文則

出版者

日本西洋古典学会

雑誌

西洋古典学研究 (ISSN:04479114)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.52, pp.84-94, 2004-03-05 (Released:2017-05-23)

---

In 1903 E Ritterling put forward a new theory the emperor Gallienus created four independent cavalry corps, all under the control of one commander Aureolus This theory was developed by A Alfoldi who used coins as a historical source to argue that these four independent cavalry corps were converted into the central cavalry corps stationed at Milan Alfoldi's argument was generally accepted However, H G Simon recently rebutted it and denied the existence of such corps on the grounds that the main Greek sources concerning Gallienus' reform of cavalry are unreliable In this paper, I examine Gallienus' supposed reform of cavalry to clarify the military system of the Roman Empire in the mid-third century First, I attempt to reconstruct the career of Aureolus who is key to understanding cavalry reform According to the Greek sources, Aureolus was commander of the central cavalry corps at the time of his rebellion against Gallienus But there are many inconsistencies in the Greek sources and further the Latin historian Aurelius Victor said that Aureolus was commanding the army in Raetia when he revolted In Simon's view, the Latin source is more reliable and he reinterprets the Greek sources to reconcile them with the Latin source Since his interpretation seems unconvincing, I here propose another solution to this problem I argue that Aureolus was the commander of the central cavalry corps at the time of Gallienus' war against Postumus in 265, not in 268 and that after concluding the war Aureolus remained in Raetia to defend the invasion of Postumus into Italy I observe that there is no evidence for the existence of the central cavalry corps except the title of Aureolus Rather it is recognized that independent cavalry corps, such as the Dalmatian cavalry corps, played a prominent part in many battles Moreover there were some independent cavalry corps not included into the central cavalry corps, though it is commonly said that they are all created to form it Form these observations, I suggest that Gallienus originally intended to create the independent cavalry corps and the central cavalry corps was temporarily formed from the independent cavalry corps which happened to be under the direct command of the emperor To understand the real significance of the independent cavalry corps, it is necessary to consider to the phenomenon that prior to the cavalry reform, Roman legion, which mainly consisted of infantry, divided into the vexillatio for independent use By creating a new cavalry unit corresponding with vexillatio, Gallienus probably intended to form mobile field forces, containing both cavalry and infantry I can find it not only under the direct command of the emperor but also deployed by other military commanders elsewhere It seems probable that such military condition in the mid-third century shaped Diocletian's later policy to divide the Roman Empire into four parts

著者

井上 文則

出版者

岩波書店

雑誌

思想 (ISSN:03862755)

巻号頁・発行日

no.1078, pp.7-25, 2014-02

著者

井上 文則

出版者

日本西洋古典学会

雑誌

西洋古典学研究 (ISSN:04479114)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.52, pp.84-94, 2004

---

In 1903 E Ritterling put forward a new theory the emperor Gallienus created four independent cavalry corps, all under the control of one commander Aureolus This theory was developed by A Alfoldi who used coins as a historical source to argue that these four independent cavalry corps were converted into the central cavalry corps stationed at Milan Alfoldi's argument was generally accepted However, H G Simon recently rebutted it and denied the existence of such corps on the grounds that the main Greek sources concerning Gallienus' reform of cavalry are unreliable In this paper, I examine Gallienus' supposed reform of cavalry to clarify the military system of the Roman Empire in the mid-third century First, I attempt to reconstruct the career of Aureolus who is key to understanding cavalry reform According to the Greek sources, Aureolus was commander of the central cavalry corps at the time of his rebellion against Gallienus But there are many inconsistencies in the Greek sources and further the Latin historian Aurelius Victor said that Aureolus was commanding the army in Raetia when he revolted In Simon's view, the Latin source is more reliable and he reinterprets the Greek sources to reconcile them with the Latin source Since his interpretation seems unconvincing, I here propose another solution to this problem I argue that Aureolus was the commander of the central cavalry corps at the time of Gallienus' war against Postumus in 265, not in 268 and that after concluding the war Aureolus remained in Raetia to defend the invasion of Postumus into Italy I observe that there is no evidence for the existence of the central cavalry corps except the title of Aureolus Rather it is recognized that independent cavalry corps, such as the Dalmatian cavalry corps, played a prominent part in many battles Moreover there were some independent cavalry corps not included into the central cavalry corps, though it is commonly said that they are all created to form it Form these observations, I suggest that Gallienus originally intended to create the independent cavalry corps and the central cavalry corps was temporarily formed from the independent cavalry corps which happened to be under the direct command of the emperor To understand the real significance of the independent cavalry corps, it is necessary to consider to the phenomenon that prior to the cavalry reform, Roman legion, which mainly consisted of infantry, divided into the vexillatio for independent use By creating a new cavalry unit corresponding with vexillatio, Gallienus probably intended to form mobile field forces, containing both cavalry and infantry I can find it not only under the direct command of the emperor but also deployed by other military commanders elsewhere It seems probable that such military condition in the mid-third century shaped Diocletian's later policy to divide the Roman Empire into four parts

著者

井上 文則

出版者

日本西洋史学会

雑誌

西洋史学 (ISSN:03869253)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.202, pp.1, 2001 (Released:2022-04-01)

著者

ミラー ファーガス 井上 文則

出版者

史学研究会 (京都大学文学部内)

雑誌

史林 (ISSN:03869369)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.83, no.3, pp.499-517, 2000-05-01

---

個人情報保護のため削除部分あり

著者

井上 文則

出版者

史学研究会 (京都大学大学院文学研究科内)

雑誌

史林 (ISSN:03869369)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.90, no.5, pp.733-748, 2007-09-01

---

In this article, I try to reconstruct the career of Odaenathus, the famous ruler of Palmyra who actually governed the Roman East in the mid-third century. According to inscriptional evidence, he was called hypatikos in Greek in the years 257/258 and then mtqnn'dy mdnh'klh in Palmyrene during the period of the emperor Gallienus' sole reign (260-268). What does hypatikos mean in terms of Roman institutions of government? The same question applies to mtqnn'dy mdnh'klh. Recently, D. S. Potter has attempted to provide answers to these questions. Concerning hypatikos, he proposed that it meant that Odaenatus was given the title ornamenta consularia. Most scholars, such as M. Gawlikowski and F. Millar, have thought that hypatikos meant consular governor and consequently Odaenathus was the governor of the Roman province Syria Phoenice. Of these two theories, I support the latter because I believe the emperor Valerian (235-260) adopted two new policies to defend the Empire effectively: firstly, the appointment of able persons, regardless of social status, to posts that had traditionally been reserved for senators and secondly, the division of responsibility for defensive measures to collective bodies like the Tetrarchy. In the context of these new policies, Odaenathus must have taken responsibility to defend the Syrian frontiers as a governor from 256, when Valerian left Syria for Asia Minor in response to the attack of the Borani. Next, in regard to mtqnn'dy mdnh'klh, Potter considered it to mean corrector, which was a government post bestowed by Gallienus. On the other hand, some scholars consider it the equivalent of the Roman title restitutor that Gallienus conferred on Odaenathus. Which is the correct interpretation on mtqnn'dy mdnh'klh? The latter is a more appealing explanation, but I cannot fully agree with that theory. For the Palmyrenes, mtqnn'dy mdnh'klh was merely a symbolic title, referring to the supreme ruler of the East, tike mlk mlk' (king of kings). It is likely that Odaenathus arbitrarily adopted this title and that it was not officially conferred by Gallienus. Therefore, mtqnn'dy mdnh'klh is not related to the position of Odaenathus in the Roman institutional framework. To reconstruct the career of Odaenathus after his term as governor, we must rely on Zonaras, the Byzantine annalist of the 12th century. Zonaras says that Odaenathus was first appointed strategos of the East by Gallienus in 260 and then strategos of the Entire East in 261. From this evidence, we can deduce the fact that Gallienus conferred the military command over the Eastern provinces on Odaenathus by expanding the areas under his control in stages. In sum, Odaenathus was first appointed governor of the Roman province Syria Phoenice by Valerian in 257/258, then strategos of the East by Gallienus in 260, and finally strategos of the Entire East in 261. We find a similar case in M. Cornelius Octavianus. When he was the governor of the Roman province Mauretania Caesariensis in the reign of Valerian, he was conferred military command over the whole of northern Africa as dux Per African Numidiam Mauretaniamque to suppress the insurrection in Africa.

著者

南川高志 井上文則編

出版者

山川出版社

巻号頁・発行日

2021

著者

井上 文則

出版者

京都大学大学院文学研究科

雑誌

西洋古代史研究 = Acta academiae antiquitatis kiotoensis = The Kyoto journal of ancient history (ISSN:13468405)

巻号頁・発行日

no.18, pp.43-55, 2018

著者

井上 文則

出版者

京都大学大学院文学研究科

雑誌

西洋古代史研究 = Acta academiae antiquitatis kiotoensis = The Kyoto journal of ancient history (ISSN:13468405)

巻号頁・発行日

no.13, pp.1-23, 2013

---

3世紀においてゴート人は, ローマ帝国に繰り返し侵入し, 251 年には時の皇帝デキウスを敗死させるなどの深刻な事態を帝国にもたらした. この時期のゴート人の侵入を巡っては, その侵攻が何時, 何度あったのか, といった基本的な事実についてすら論争があるが, 本稿では特に3世紀におけるゴート人の侵攻の性格は, いったいどのようなものであったのか, さらにはそもそも当時のゴート人とはどのような集団であったのかという問題を考察の中心に据えて議論を行い, 併せてこの時期の侵入がゴート, ローマの双方にもった歴史的意義について考察を加えた. 考察の結果, ゴート人は, 通説が考えてきたようなバルト海南岸からの移住民ではなく, フランク人やアレマンニ人同様, 黒海北岸の地で3 世紀に新たに形成された民族であったこと, また, その侵入は単なる略奪を目的としたものであったとはいえ, 3 世紀の一連の侵入を通してゴート人が形成されていったことが明らかになった. ゴート人の侵入を促したのは, ササン朝の攻撃を受けて混乱するローマ帝国であったのであり, この意味では帝国の混乱がゴート人の形成, 強大化に寄与したのであった. ただし, 3世紀においては未だ, ゴート人は黒海北岸における支配的な集団ではなく, ローマ帝国への侵入に際しても, 侵入者の一部を構成していたにすぎないと考えられることも指摘した.In the third century, the Roman Empire was repeatedly invaded by the Goths. In 251, the Emperor Decius was defeated and killed in Abrittus by the Gothic king Cniva; from the late 250's on, the Goths again and again attacked the cities of Asia Minor from the sea; and in 268 the Goths carried out a large scale invasion, reaching as far as the Aegean Sea. According to A. Alföldi and P. Heather, the Goths appeared in the Black Sea region during the third century, having migrated from the Baltic Sea region. Through the impetus of these migrations, the Goths invaded the Roman Empire through a series of raids. In this article, by examining each of these invasions individually, the author draws the following conclusions: Firstly, that the Goths were not newcomers in the Black Sea region but formed in that region, similarly to the Franks and Alammani, and that they raided the Empire not through the impetus of migrations but by taking advantage of the military crisis caused by the Sassanids. It is no coincidence that the Sassanid civil war in the 270s began when the Gothic invasions ended. Secondly, that during the third century, the Goths were no more than one of many invaders of the Roman Empire. It was probably not until the fourth century that the Goths became the dominant power in the Black Sea region, and we must be cautious not to adopt a Goths-centric view.

著者

井上 文則

出版者

京都大学大学院文学研究科

雑誌

西洋古代史研究 = Acta academiae antiquitatis Kiotoensis (ISSN:13468405)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.18, pp.43-55, 2018-12-18

著者

井上 文則

出版者

京都大学大学院文学研究科

雑誌

西洋古代史研究 = Acta academiae antiquitatis kiotoensis = The Kyoto journal of ancient history (ISSN:13468405)

巻号頁・発行日

no.15, pp.1-18, 2015

著者

井上 文則

出版者

史学研究会

雑誌

史林 (ISSN:03869369)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.87, no.4, pp.518-543, 2004-07

著者

栗原 麻子 桑山 由文 井上 文則 小林 功 山内 暁子 佐野 光宣 中尾 恭三 南雲 泰輔

出版者

大阪大学

雑誌

基盤研究(B)

巻号頁・発行日

2006

---

ギリシア、ローマそしてビザンツにおける宗教・政治儀礼と政治体制との関係性を共通のテーマとして、個別・具体的な事例研究をおこなった。政治史的な事実と宗教儀礼とを結びつける際の危うさ踏まえたうえで、法と儀礼の相互関連性、パン・ヘレニックな祭祀拡大におけるポリス社会の関与、ビザンツ皇帝の即位における都市民衆の儀礼的関与といった具体的な個別事例について、シンポジウムで公開し、比較・検討をおこなった。