The Carpi or Carpiani were an ancient people that resided, between not later than ca. AD 140 and until at least AD 318, in the eastern region of modern Moldavia.
The ethnic affiliation of the Carpi remains disputed, as there is no direct evidence in the surviving ancient literary sources. A strong body of modern scholarly opinion considers that the Carpi were a tribe of the Dacian nation. Other scholars have linked the Carpi to a variety of ethnic groups, including Sarmatians, Thracians, Germans, and Celts.
About a century after their earliest mention by Ptolemy, during which their relations with Rome appear to have been peaceful, the Carpi emerged in ca. 238 as among Rome's most persistent enemies. In the period 250-270 AD, the Carpi were an important component of a loose coalition of transdanubian barbarian tribes that included also Germanic and Sarmatian elements. These were responsible for a series of large and devastating invasions of the Balkan regions of the empire which nearly caused its disintegration.
In the period 270-318, the Roman "military emperors" acted to remove the Carpi threat to the empire's borders. Crushing multiple defeats[citation needed] were inflicted on the Carpi in 273, 297, 298-308 and in 317. After each, massive numbers of Carpi[citation needed] were forcibly transferred by the Roman military to the Roman province of Pannonia (modern western Hungary) as part of the emperors' policy of repopulating the devastated Danubian provinces with surrendered barbarian tribes. Since Carpi are not longer mentioned in documents after 318, it is possible that the Carpi were largely removed from the Carpathian region by ca. 318; or, if any remained, it is possible that they mingled with other peoples resident or immigrating into Moldavia, such as the Sarmatians or Goths.
Contents |
The Greco-Romans called this people the Carpi or Carpiani.[1] Probably the earliest mention of them, under the name Καρπιανοί (Carpiani in Latin) is in the Geographia of the 2nd-century Greek geographer Ptolemy, composed ca. AD 140.[2][3]
The name Carpi or Carpiani may derive from the same root as the name of the Carpathian mountain range that they occupied, also first mentioned by Ptolemy under the name Καρπάτης - Karpátes.[4] The root may be the putative Proto-Indo-European word *ker/sker, meaning "peak" or "cliff" (cf. Albanian karpë "rock", Romanian (ş)carpă "precipice", and Latin scarpa).[5] Scholars who support this derivation are divided between those who believe the Carpi gave their name to the mountain range (i.e. the name means "mountains of the Carpi")[6][7] and those who claim the reverse. In the latter case, Carpiani could mean simply "people of the Carpathians".[8] But the similarity between the two names may be coincidence, and they may derive from different roots. For example, it has been suggested that the name may derive from the Slavic root-word krepu meaning "strong" or "brave".[9] Also, it had been suggested that Carpathian Mountains may derive from the Sanskrit root “kar” 'cut' that would give the meaning of ‘rugged mountains’.[10]
Some scholars consider that the following peoples recorded in ancient sources are the same as the Karpiani in Ptolemy: the Kallipidai mentioned in the Histories of Herodotus (composed around 430 BC) as residing in the region of the river Borysthenes (Dnieper);[11][12] the Karpídai around the mouth of the river Tyras (Dniester) recorded in a fragment of Pseudo-Scymnus (composed ca. 90 BC);[12][13]and the Harpii, located near the Danube delta, mentioned by Ptolemy himself.[12][14] If so, their locations could imply that the Carpi had very gradually migrated westwards in the period 400 BC - AD 140, a view championed by Kahrstedt.[15] These names' common element carp- appears frequently in Dacian and Thracian place- and personal names.[10][16] But there is no consensus that these groups are actually one and the same as the Carpi. Bichir suggests that they were Thraco-Dacian tribes distantly related to the Carpi.[17]
During the period when they are attested by classical sources (ca. AD 140-300), the Carpi are believed by many scholars, on the basis of Ptolemy, to have occupied a region between the river Hierasus (Siret) and the river Porata (Prut) (i.e. the eastern part of the former principality of Moldavia).[18] This was just outside "Dacia proper", as defined by Ptolemy, whose eastern border was the Hierasus.[19] Ptolemy does not include the Carpi in his list of tribes resident in Dacia proper, even though this region, according to his own definition, comprised the whole Carpathian range.[20] East of this river lay Sarmatia Europaea, a vast region stretching as far as the Crimea, predominantly, but by no means exclusively, populated by Sarmatian tribes.[21]
According to Ptolemy, the Carpi's neighbours were: to the North, the Costoboci; to the South, in the Wallachian plain, the Roxolani Sarmatians; and to the East of the Prut, the Bastarnae (a Celto-Germanic or possibly Sarmatian group) and other Sarmatian tribes.[22] To the West, the Carpathian mountains between the Siret and the border of the Roman province were probably populated by the "Free Dacians" i.e. those Dacians residing outside Roman Dacia. However, it is not possible to reliably define the territories of these groups due to the imprecision of the ancient geographical sources. Also, it is likely that in many areas, ethnic groups overlapped and the ethnic map was a patchwork of dispersed sub-groups. The Sarmatians and Bastarnae are attested, in both literature and archaeology, all over Moldavia and Bessarabia.[23][24][25]
There is no dispute among scholars that some Decebalic-era Dacian settlements in Moldavia (mostly West of the Siret, with a few on the East bank (including Piroboridava, identified with Poiana-Tecuci), were abandoned by 106, most likely, according to Bichir, as a result of the Roman conquest of Dacia.[26] From this time, Bichir identifies two distinct cultures in Moldavia, existing side-by-side. A sedentary culture, labelled "Daco-Carpic" by Bichir, which started around 106 and disappeared around 318;[27] and a smaller culture displaying the characteristics usually associated with nomadic peoples from the Eurasian steppes, labelled "Sarmatian" by Bichir.[24]
By 1976, 117 sedentary settlements had been identified, the great majority (89) located West of the Siret (thus inside Dacia's borders as defined by Ptolemy).[28] The inhabitants lived in both surface-dwellings and sunken-floor huts. The single-roomed surface-dwellings were made of wattle and beaten-earth, usually of rectangular or square form, varying from 9 sq m to 30 sq m in size. Each contained a clay hearth placed at the centre of the dwelling. The more numerous sunken-earth huts are usually of oval or round shape.[29] The sedentary people generally cremated their dead, both adults and children, according to Bichir: all 43 purely "Daco-Carpic" (sedentary) cemeteries were cremation-only. The ashes from the cremation were, in the great majority of cases, buried inside urns.[30] Some graves contained grave-goods, but no weapons (except for a single dagger). Mundane goods include: knives, keys, belt-buckles; valuable goods include Sarmatian-style mirrors, silver ear-rings, gold pendants and beads.[31] Pottery found in sedentary sites includes hand-made "porous" type, grey wheel-made ware, red-fired pottery and imported Roman ware. Bichir describes the first two as continuing Dacian La Tène pottery, and points to the presence of the so-called "Dacian cup", a cup of distinctive design, as evidence of a Dacian base to this culture. However, he admits that the pottery also shows Roman and Sarmatian influence.[32] The sedentary folk appear to have been generally illiterate, as no "Daco-Carpic" inscription has ever been found during the very intensive excavations carried out in the region. The sedentary culture did not issue its own coinage. However, Roman coinage circulated "intensely" in the Carpi's territory, according to Bichir.[33] This is based on the large numbers of coin-hoards found in Moldavia (90) and ca. 100 isolated coins. However, the circulation of Roman coins seems to have virtually ceased after 218, as no coin-hoards and only 7 isolated coins have been found dating to later than Caracalla (ruled AD 211-218).[34]
Nomadic-culture graves are predominantly inhumation-type, found in 38 places in Moldavia by 1976.[28] These are predominantly found on the plains, rarely on the Carpathian foothills (i.e. East of the Siret), either singly or in small groups of 2-13 graves, including men. women and children. The great majority of nomadic-culture graves are flat (non-tumular), in contrast to nomadic barrow-graves found from the Dniester region eastwards. However, some secondary barrow-burials (i.e. using pre-existing barrows) have been found, mostly dating from 200 onwards.The nomadic graves always contain grave-goods, often including weapons, and mirrors engraved with tamgas (ritual/tribal symbols associated with nomadic steppe cultures).[35]
6 cemeteries in Bichir's list contain both cremation and inhumation graves. At the Poieneşti site (the only one fully investigated by 1976), 6 adults and 17 children were buried (compared with 62 cremated). Of these, 2 adults and 7 children were found to have artificially elongated crania. This custom, achieved by tightly binding an infant's skull during its early growth phase, is associated with steppe nomads. Bichir identifies the adults as nomads and the children as the progeny of mixed nomad-sedentary marriages.[24]
On the basis of relative numbers of sedentary/nomadic graves, Bichir concludes that the sedentary folk constituted the great majority of the population of Moldavia. In the mixed cemeteries documented by Bichir, nomadic graves constitute ca. 28% of the total.[24]
After 318, according to Bichir, the "Daco-Carpic" culture was in Moldavia replaced by the Sîntana-de-Mureş "variant" of the Chernyakhov culture common to much of the North-Pontic region of SE Europe in the period 200-400.[27]
The people of the nomadic culture present in Moldavia have been identified by Bichir as ethnic Sarmatians.
There is no direct evidence in surviving Roman imperial era sources, literary or epigraphic, regarding the ethnicity of the sedentary population of Moldavia.
According to traditional Romanian historiography, as well as to several non-Romanian scholars, the Carpi were a people of Dacian tongue and culture[36] Heather, who supports this view, suggests that the Carpi name was adopted as the collective name of the Free Dacian tribes when they achieved a degree of political unification in the early 3rd century.[37]
However, there is a significant number of scholars who dispute that the Carpi were ethnic Dacians, and have identified them variously as Sarmatians, Thracians, Germans, Celts, or even proto-Slavs.[38] This is because the region between the rivers Siret and Dniester was of great ethnic diversity during the Roman imperial era. In addition to Scytho-Sarmatian tribes (Roxolani, Agathyrsi), the ancient sources attest Germans (Taifali, Scirii, Bastarnae); Celts (some Bastarnae sub-groups, Taurisci, Anartes); Thracians ( Biessi and Thraces identified by Ptolemy between the Danube and Dniester); and Dacians (Tyragetae).[39] Also, some modern authors surmise the existence of ethnic groups formed in loco from mixed origins (but mostly with an indigenous Dacian/Sarmatian base- e.g. the Goths).[40][41]
Apart from a single name of doubtful meaning and validity in a Byzantine chronicle (see paragraph below), the evidence used to support the Dacian ethnicity of the Carpi is archaeological: namely, the discovery of pottery and other artefacts identified as "Dacian-style" by archaeologists such as Bichir at sites in the region of Moldavia seen as occupied by the Carpi in the period AD 100-300 (e.g. at Poieneşti, near Vaslui) as well as in burial rites.[42] In particular, Bichir points to a cup of unusual design and "corded" decoration of pots as characteristically Dacian .[43] However, determination of the Carpi's ethnicity by the typology, or by the relative quantity, of finds has been questioned by Niculescu.[Note 1] Batty concurs that the presence of "Dacian-style" artefacts attests the material level of the indigenes but does not prove their ethnicity.[44] These objections reflect modern archaeological theory, which considers that material cultures, as defined by archaeologists, are not a reliable guide to ethnicity.[45][46][Note 2]
Zosimus, a Byzantine chronicler writing around AD 500, records an invasion of Rome's Danubian provinces in 381 by a barbarian coalition of Huns, Scirii and Karpodakai ("Carpo-Dacians").[55] The latter term has been taken by some scholars as "proof" of the Carpi's Dacian ethnicity.[42] But this is the only literary evidence linking the Carpi name to that of the Dacians, and Zosimus is regarded by numerous modern scholars as an unreliable chronicler. One historian accords Zosimus "an unsurpassable claim to be regarded as the worst of all the extant Greek historians of the Roman Empire...it would be tedious to catalogue all the instances where this historian has falsely transcribed names, not to mention his confusion of events...".[56][57] In any case, the term is ambiguous. It has also been interpreted as the "Carpi and the Dacians" or "the Carpi mixed with the Dacians". According to the eminent classical scholar Kahrstedt, the term does not refer to the Carpi at all, but to Free Dacians who occupied the territory of the Carpi after the latter were deported by the Romans. He argues that, in ancient Greek, the first part of the term could only have a geographical meaning: i.e. Karpodakai means "the Dacians from the land of the Carpi". In the same vein, it has also been interpreted as "the Dacians of the Carpathians".[15] (Compare Tyragetae, supposedly meaning "the Getae from the Tyras region"). It is possible that the entire Carpi people were transferred to the Roman empire by 318, which is supported by literary[58] and archaeological evidence: Bichir notes that the culture which he calls "Daco-Carpic" terminated in around 318.[42] If so, then Zosimus' Karpodakai could not be referring to the Carpi.
A possible argument against the Carpi's proposed Dacian ethnicity is that Roman emperors did not use the long-established cognomen ex virtute (victory-title) Dacicus Maximus (literally: "the greatest Dacian") for victories over the Carpi, but instead adopted the separate title Carpicus Maximus. This was introduced by Philip the Arab in 247, the first Roman emperor to defeat the Carpi in person.[59] Such titles were ethnographic, not geographical (i.e. Dacicus meant "victorious over the Dacians", not "victorious in Dacia")[60] The existence of a separate victory-title for the Carpi may imply that the Romans did not consider the Carpi to be Dacians. The same argument applies against a Sarmatian or Germanic identity for the Carpi, as Sarmaticus and Germanicus were also established titles in Philip's time.
However, Roman emperors used at first the general title Germanicus Maximus, but later more specific ones, such as Francicus and Alamannicus, for Germanic federations of tribes which become more individualized in time, so it is possible that Carpicus refers to a part of the "Free Dacian" tribes which, as Heather says, achieved a degree of political unification and became more clearly individualized in the early 3rd century.
The following table is mainly based on data presented by Bichir in the Appendix to his work:
| Emperor | Dacicus (Maximus) (date) |
Carpicus (Maximus) (date) |
Specimen inscription* |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trajan | 106 | AE (1927) 151 [1] | |
| Hadrian | 118 | CIL II.464 [2] | |
| Antoninus Pius | 157 | CIL VIII.20424 [3] | |
| Maximinus Thrax | 236 | AE (1905) 179 [4] | |
| Philip the Arab | 247 | Sear 2581 | |
| Trajan Decius | 249-51 | CIL II.6345 [5] | |
| Gallienus | 256/7 | CIL II.2200 [6] | |
| Aurelian | 275 | 272 | CIL XIII.8973 [7] |
| Diocletian, Galerius & colleagues | 296-305 (5 times) | AE (1959) 290 [8] | |
| Galerius | 305-11 (6th time) | CIL III.6979 [9] | |
| Constantine I | 336 | 317 | CIL VI.40776; [10] CIL VIII.8412 [11] |
Note: *Some of the titles above are attested in multiple inscriptions.
Although the Carpi are recorded as resident in the Dacian region from at least the 140's onwards, they are not mentioned in Roman accounts of several campaigns in the Dacian region in the 2nd century. For example, in Rome's vast and protracted conflict with the trans-danubian tribes, known as the Marcomannic Wars (166-80), during which Dacia province suffered at least two major invasions (167, 170), only their neighbours the Costoboci are mentioned specifically.[63] Silence on the role of the Carpi in these conflicts may imply that they were Roman allies in this period.[42]
Around AD 200 started a phase of major population movements in the European barbaricum (the region outside the borders of the empire. The cause of this dislocation is unknown, but an important factor may have been the Antonine plague (165-180), a devastating smallpox pandemic which may have killed 15-30% of the Roman empire's inhabitants.[64] The impact on the barbarian regions would have resulted in many weakened tribes and empty regions that may have induced the stronger tribes to exploit opportunities for expansion. A well-known example of the trend are the Goths. These were probably recorded by the Roman historian Tacitus, under the name Gotones, as inhabiting the area East of the Vistula river in central Poland in AD 100.[65] By 250, the Goths had moved South into western Ukraine and were frequently raiding the empire in conjunction with local tribes.[66]
It was in this context of upheaval that, in mid-3rd century, the Carpi emerged as a major barbarian threat to Rome's lower Danubian provinces.[67] They were described by Jordanes as "a race of men very eager to make war, and often hostile to the Romans".[68] A series of major incursions into the empire by the Carpi are recorded, either alone or in alliance with their neighbouring Sarmatian and/or Germanic tribes (inc. Roxolani, Bastarnae, Goths). However, the precise role of the Carpi in the coalition's incursions is not always clear, as the most comprehensive account, that of the 6th-century chronicler Zosimus, is chronologically confused and often denotes the participants under the vague term "Scythians" (meaning inhabitants of the geographical region called Scythia (i.e. roughly modern Ukraine), not ethnic Scythians).
The involvement of the Carpi in attacks by the "Free Dacians" into Roman Dacia is also uncertain. Supporters of a Dacian ethnicity for the Carpi have tended to assume that they participated in campaigns where Roman emperors claimed the title Dacicus Maximus, in addition to those resulting in a Carpicus Maximus acclamation. But all incursions in which the Carpi are specifically reported by ancient sources were into Moesia Inferior, not Dacia.[69][70][71][72][73] Following is a list of recorded incursions in which Carpi participation is specifically attested by the sources:
238: The Carpi launched their first recorded major incursion into Roman territory South of the Danube, during the brief joint rule of the adolescent Gordian III and the senators Balbinus and Pupienus Maximus.[70] This was apparently provoked by the refusal of the governor of Moesia Inferior, Tullius Menophilus, to grant the Carpi's demand for an annual subsidy to keep the peace, as was already paid to the Goths and other tribes on the lower Danube.[74] This lends support to the possibility that until this time the Carpi had been long-term allies of the Romans and were aggrieved that they were in effect penalised for their loyalty. However, the governor succeeded in driving out the Carpi in 239.[1]
245-7: During the rule of emperor Philip the Arab (244-9), the Carpi crossed the Danube and laid waste Moesia Inferior. After the theatre governors failed to repel the invasion, the emperor took personal command and launched a major counter-attack. After a prolonged struggle, the Carpi were driven back across the Danube. Pursued by the Romans into their Moldavian homeland, the main body of Carpi took refuge in a major stronghold (probably a hill-fort), where they were surrounded and besieged by Philip's forces. The Carpi outside the siege hastily gathered a force to rescue their comrades. The besieged staged a mass sortie to distract the Romans from the approach of their relief-force. But the latter was ambushed and routed by Philip's equites Maurorum (Berber light cavalry from N. Africa). The breakout was contained, forcing the Carpi to sue for peace. This was granted to them on apparently lenient terms by Philip, who was eager to conclude the campaign in time for the forthcoming celebrations of the 1,000th anniversary of the City of Rome's foundation (April 248).[69] Philip was acclaimed Carpicus Maximus.[59]
250-1: The Carpi reportedly participated in a massive transdanubian invasion of Moesia and Thrace under the leadership of the Gothic king Kniva.[75] Kniva's invasion had apparently been provoked by the termination of the Goths' annual Roman subsidy by the emperor Philip.[76] Judging by their actions, the invaders' war aims were limited to pillage: the capture of as many slaves, horses, treasure and other goods as possible to take back to their homelands across the Danube.
Kniva's host apparently included Goths, Taifali and Vandals, as well as some renegade Roman army veterans.[75] Given Zosimus' description of "Scythians", it almost certainly included Sarmatian elements such as the Roxolani. In addition, an apparently separate host of Goths and Bastarnae also entered Moesia Inferior, led by Kniva's two top lieutenants. Jordanes claims that the barbarians totaled 300,000 men, but Byzantine chroniclers often grossly inflate barbarian numbers, typically by a factor of ten (e.g. Zosimus' claim that 60,000 Alamanni fell at the Battle of Strasbourg in 357, against the 6,000 recorded by the contemporary and more reliable Ammianus Marcellinus).[77][78] Thus, 30,000 is a more plausible, though still formidable, order of magnitude for Kniva's invasion, divided into two divisions. The Carpi contingent numbered 3,000 men, according to Jordanes.[75] If so, the Carpi probably constituted roughly 10% of the total invasion host.
Facing the invasion were the Roman emperor "Trajan" Decius, an experienced general and Philip's commander on the Danube front, who had succeeded his boss after the latter was murdered by his mutinous troops in 249; and Caius Trebonianus Gallus, appointed governor of Moesia Superior in the previous year by Decius. It appears that, for the purpose of dealing with the threat, Gallus was given command of forces in the frontier-forts along the Danube, while the emperor commanded a mobile force of crack units.
After losing two encounters with the Romans in Moesia Inferior, Kniva surprised the emperor by surreptitiously moving southwards, crossing the Haemus (Balkan) mountains into Thracia, which was largely undefended. The emperor, who was left several days behind, was obliged to rush his army into Thracia by forced marches in order to catch up. At Beroe (Stara Zagora, Bulg.), Kniva launched a surprise attack on the emperor's exhausted army, inflicting a crushing defeat. Decius was obliged to withdraw the remnants of his shattered force to Moesia Inferior and to leave Thracia to be pillaged at will by the barbarians. Kniva's host stormed the city of Philippopolis (Plovdiv, Bulg.) and spent the winter of 250/1 in the province.
In the meantime, Decius rebuilt his field army in Moesia Inferior. In 251, as the barbarian host headed home towards the Danube laden with a vast quantity of plunder, they were intercepted by the emperor at Abrittus in Moesia Inferior. In a hard-fought battle, Kniva's main host was routed. The emperor then led his men across a bog in order to engage Kniva's reserve force, which guarded the barbarians' booty. But the emperor had underestimated the difficulty of the terrain: the Romans became immobilised in the mire and reportedly every one of them perished, including the emperor himself, massacred at long range by Kniva's archers or drowned.[79]
When news of this disaster reached the remaining legions on the Danube, they proclaimed their commander Gallus emperor. The latter concluded a peace with the Goths which permitted them to return home with their booty and guaranteed resumed subsidies. Although Zosimus denounces the terms as shameful, it was probably the only realistic option open to Gallus in the circumstances.[79]
But Gallus' resumption of subsidies did not have the desired effect of sustaining peace on the Danube. Hard on the heels of military catastrophe, the Roman army was crippled by the outbreak of a devastating smallpox pandemic, the so-called Plague of Cyprian (251 - ca. 270). The effects of the Cyprianic pandemic are described by Zosimus as even worse than the earlier Antonine outbreak, which probably killed 15-30% of the empire's inhabitants.[80][81] The Roman army would have suffered casualties at the high end of the range as a result of its close concentration of personnel and frequent movements between provinces, thus probably losing about a third of its effectives. Taking advantage of Roman military disarray, the transdanubian barbarians launched repeated massive invasions of imperial territory. The exact number, dates and events of these invasions are uncertain due to the confused and fragmentary nature of the sources. It is possible that there were invasions every year and that parts of the Danubian provinces were occupied by marauding war-bands of barbarians year-round during the period 251-70. From Zosimus, the following major events may be discerned:[82]
252-3: The Carpi joined Goths and 2 Sarmatian tribes (the Urugundi and the Borani) in an invasion of Roman territory, ravaging Moesia and Thrace. (Zosimus states that they then crossed into Asia Minor, but as this is inconsistent with the rest of the narrative, it is probably a confusion with the invasion of 256). Roman forces on the lower Danube were apparently unable to prevent them from marauding at will, probably due to their losses at Abrittus and the impact of the plague. Eventually, the barbarians were intercepted on their way home by the general Aemilianus, commander of the army of Pannonia. At first, his men were fearful of engaging the barbarians because of their aura of invincibility after Abrittus, but Aemilianus' leadership steadied them. At an unknown location near the Danube, the Romans launched a surprise attack and scored a crushing victory. They chased the barbarians over the river and deep into their homelands, recovering vast quantities of plunder and liberating thousands of Roman civilians who had been abducted.[83] Possibly among the latter was a C. Valerius Serapio (probably a Greek) who dedicated an (undated) altar found at Apulum (Alba Iulia) in Dacia, as thanksgiving for his rescue from the Carpi (liberatus a Carpis)[84] [12]
Aemilianus was hailed as emperor by his victorious troops and marched on Rome, where Gallus' forces killed their leader rather than fight against the Danubian army. However, only 3 months later, Aemilianus was in his turn assassinated by the same troops, who defected to Valerian I (r. 253-60), the commander of forces on the Rhine, who had marched into Italy to rescue Gallus.[85]
Valerian was proclaimed emperor and promptly elevated his son Gallienus (r. 253-68) as Augustus (co-emperor).[85] This father-and-son team presided over the most chaotic period of Roman history (253-68) before the 5th century. The empire suffered multiple and massive barbarian invasions on the Rhine, Danube and in the East; at least 11 generals launched military coups; the empire was split into three autonomous pieces; and Valerian himself was captured by the Persians and died after several years in their captivity, the first Roman emperor to suffer such a humiliation.[82]
256-7: The Carpi, with the same allies as in 253, irrupted into Moesia, ravaged Thrace and lay siege to Thessalonica in Macedonia, although unsuccessfully. Valerian and Gallienus were obliged to leave the Balkan theatre to subordinates with inadequate forces, as they were fully occupied, the former in the East fighting the Persians, the latter on the Rhine trying to stem a massive Germanic incursion. The whole of Greece was placed on invasion alert: the Athenians rebuilt their city walls for the first time since they were demolished by the Republican general Sulla in 87 BC and the Peloponnesians re-fortified the Isthmus of Corinth.[85] The barbarians were eventually routed by Gallienus' lieutenant Aureolus, who brought large numbers of prisoners to Rome.
259-60: The "Scythians, including every people of their country" (i.e. including the Carpi) launched a massive invasion over the Danube, taking advantage of the military and political chaos in the empire. It appears that the barbarians divided into 2 hosts. One invaded Greece and, despite its new walls, succeeded in storming and sacking Athens. The other group crossed Illyricum into Italy, and appeared before the walls of Rome, forcing the Roman Senate to arm the civilian population to man the ramparts, as Gallienus was fully occupied on the Rhine fighting Postumus' usurpation.[86] Recognising that there was no possibility of taking the City and sacking it, the Gothic-led host proceeded to ravage the whole of Italy. They were finally driven out by Gallienus' lieutenant Macrianus, who brought the Rhine army into Italy.[87]
Further major "Scythian" invasions took place in 265-6 and possibly the largest of all, 267-8, which was a seaborne invasion which penetrated the Aegean Sea but was terminated by the crushing Roman victory at Naissus (268). But, unlike in previous invasions, the Carpi are not mentioned specifically by Zosimus and the other chroniclers and their role is thus uncertain.[88]
The late 3rd century saw the military recovery of the empire under the iron rule of the so-called "Illyrian emperors", a tightly knit group of career-soldiers with shared origins in the Danubian provinces and regiments, whose successors (and often descendants) dominated the empire for over a century (268-379). These not only broke the transdanubian tribes on the battlefield, but also pursued a policy of large-scale resettlement of defeated tribespeople in the Danubian provinces of the empire. This was motivated by the need to re-populate the Danubian provinces, which had been ravaged by plague and barbarian invasions during the period 250-70.[Note 3]
272: The emperor Aurelian (r. 270-5) scored a major victory over the Carpi, for which he was granted the title Carpicus Maximus by the Senate.[73][90] He then resettled a large number of Carpi prisoners around Sopiana (Pécs, Hungary) in the Roman province of Pannonia.[91] This inaugurated the mass resettlement policy.
296-305: In 296, the emperor Diocletian (r. 284-305) went to war against the Carpi, the Romans' first conflict with this tribe since it was defeated by Aurelian 23 years earlier. The war ended in 297 with a crushing Roman victory.[92] Diocletian claimed the title Carpicus Maximus.[93] In 298, Diocletian handed the lower Danube command to his Caesar (deputy emperor), Galerius. In an intensive series of campaigns, Galerius inflicted 4 more defeats on the Carpi in the period 298-305. (The precise dates and details of these campaigns are unknown, although from the dating of inscriptions it can be deduced that there were major victories in 299 and 302).[94] By 305, Diocletian and his three imperial colleagues (known as the Tetrarchs), were each claiming 5 Carpicus titles.[95] (It was apparently their practice to claim victory-titles collectively, thus all four claimed Carpicus titles for the victories achieved by Galerius).
305-11: After acceding as Augustus (full emperor) in 305, Galerius is recorded as claiming the Carpicus title for a 6th time, some time during his reign.[96][97]
318: Constantine I is recorded as holding the Carpicus Maximus title in an inscription of that year.[98] This most likely represents a victory over the Carpi in 316-7, when Constantine is documented as resident in the Balkans for the first time since his appointment as Caesar in 306 (Ref: Odahl, 2004 ).
Each of these acclamations probably implied the slaying of at least 5,000 Carpi (as traditionally required for the grant of a Triumph in Rome). For the Carpi, these defeats were accompanied by mass deportations and resettlement inside the empire. According to Ammianus, Diocletian's regime continued to settle Carpi in Pannonia, and, apparently, in Scythia Minor (i.e. the coastal region of modern Romania).[99] Eutropius reports that "enormous numbers" were transferred.[100] Heather interprets these reports as implying hundreds of thousands of deportees.[101] According to Victor, the entire remaining Carpi people were transferred into the empire.[58] However, this cannot be wholly true by the end of Diocletian's rule in 305, as Victor implies, as the emperor Constantine I the Great (r. 312-37) claimed the Carpicus Maximus title in 317/8.
There are several indications that the Carpi may have been eliminated from Moldavia by 318:
Many historians dispute that the Carpi were eliminated from the Carpathian region and argue that many Carpi remained, a view accepted by Millar and Batty.[103][104] Beyond 318, specific evidence of Carpi continuity is limited to Zosimus' reference to Karpodakai joining in a barbarian invasion of the empire in the 380's. But this notice, even if historically valid, may not refer to the Carpi (see Ethno-linguistic Affiliation, above).
Even if some Carpi did remain in Moldavia, it is clear that they lost their political independence, according to Heather.[101] After the death of Constantine, the Wallachian plain and Moldavia fell under the domination of the Tervingi branch of the Gothic nation, as evidenced by the existence of a substantial Gothic kingdom in the mid 4th century.[105] Transylvania, on the other hand, appears to have been dominated in the 4th century by another probably Germanic group, the Taifali.[105] However, the Taifali in turn appear to have been under Gothic suzerainty.[106] These Germanic kingdoms were overwhelmed by the Huns, resulting in the great Gothic-led migration that culminated in the Roman disaster at the Battle of Adrianople in 378. The Carpi are nowhere mentioned in Ammianus' detailed account of these epic events, again suggesting that any remaining Carpi may have lost their distinct identity.
Batty's book: Everett L. Wheeler, in an article for the Journal of Military History, heavily criticises Batty's work, "Rome and the Nomads: The Pontic-Danubian Realm in Antiquity": "Batty (p. 250), who strangely omits discussion on the Sîntana de Muresh-Cernjachov culture, is skeptical on Romanian scholars’ identification of various ethnicities (Costoboci, Carpi, Bastarnae) with specific material cultures, although his own views lack appreciation of archaic ethnic terms in late authors for various tribes of their own day, and he uncritically accepts material in (e.g.) Pliny’s Natural History, where earlier sources are indiscriminately mixed with contemporary ethnographical descriptions...Batty’s uncritical acceptance of Ovid’s writings from Tomis as accurate ethnography (Rome and the Nomads pp. 320–38) partially finds correction in J. G. F. Hinds: Ovid and the Barbarians beyond the Lower Danube (Tristia II.191–2; Strabo Geog VII.3.17), Dacia 51 (2007): 241–45" [48][107]