¹ For an introduction to the origin and development of Arianism in the fourth century with extensive references, see Fliche, A. and Martin, V., Histoire de l’église (Paris 1947) III 69–296. For a general description of the introduction of Arianism to Germanic tribes and a comparative study of the heresy's role in various tribes, see Giesecke, H.-E., Die Ostgermanen und der Arianismus (Leipzig 1939); the Vandals are discussed, 167-199. For Africa in general, see Julien, C. A., Histoire de l’Afrique du Nord (2nd ed. revised by C. Courtois; Paris 1951–52). This work contains an extensive, but not complete, bibliography arranged by periods. A recent useful and significant addition to scholarship on Roman Africa up to the Vandal conquest is P. Romanelli's Storia delle province romane dell’Africa (Rome 1959) which unfortunately is largely limited to political history. For more recent bibliography on Africa, see the section ‘Periode vandale et byzantine’ of new books and reviews which appears annually in Libyca. The best single work on the Vandals is unquestionably C. Courtois, Les Vandales et l’Afrique (Paris 1955) which contains references to all relevant secondary material; Schmidt, L., Geschichte der Wandalen (2nd ed. Berlin 1942) is still useful. See also: F. Miltner, ‘Vandalen,’ RE 8A.1 (1955) 298-335. The date of the Vandals’ conversion to Arianism is uncertain, but they had become Arians before they reached Africa.Google Scholar

There are several works on Justinian's reconquest of Africa. A perceptive article by J. von Pflugk-Harttung still deserves consultation: ‘Belisar's Vandalen-krieg,’ Historische Zeitschrift 41 (1889) 69-96. C. Diehl has written the basic work: L’Afrique byzantine (Paris 1896). Still useful and readable is Bury, J. B., History of the Later Roman Empire (2nd ed. London 1923) II 124-139. Stein, E., Histoire du Bas-Empire (Amsterdam-Brussels-Paris 1949) II 311-328, 547-560, is an indispensable manual. C. Courtois does not claim to present a chronological narrative of the conquest, but does provide a few helpful details and observations, Vandales 353. For general observations on Justinian's motives and the ultimate historical significance of the reconquest: Romanelli, P., ‘La riconquista africana di Giustiniano,’ Africa romana (Milan 1935) 123-140, and Saumagne, C., ‘Points de vue sur la reconquête byzantine de l’Afrique au VI^e siècle,’ Cahiers de Tunisie 7 (1959) 281-297. The second volume of Rubin, B., Das Zeitalter Iustinians, which will cover Justinian's western wars, has not yet appeared.Google Scholar

² Sped, C. J., ‘The Disappearance of Christianity from North Africa in the Wake of the Rise of Islam,’ Church History 29 (1960) 379–397.Google Scholar

³ For an excellent discussion of the geographical characteristics of the Vandal kingdom: Courtois, ‘Structure géographique,’ Vandales 155-214.Google Scholar

⁴ The African clergy endeavored to publicize their sufferings under the Vandals. One book written with this purpose was Victor of Vita, Historia persecutionis africanae provinciae sub Geiserico et Hunirico regibus Wandalorum (ed. C. Halm MGH Auct. Antiq. 3.1-58). The persecution under King Huneric (477-484) was the most notorious. For a more peaceful picture of the Vandal kingdom, see G.-G. Lapeyre's edition of La Vie de Saint Fulgence de Ruspe (Paris 1929) and id., Saint Fulgence de Ruspe (Paris 1929); this work describes the early fifth century. It is questionable, of course, how serious the Arian-Catholic tensions in Africa really were. The important fact, however, is that Justinian considered the situation of Catholics in Afica as intolerable. On the problem of Arian-Catholic relations in Africa, see Courtois, Vandales 287, 310-324; cf. also Saumagne, C., ‘La paix vandale,’ Revue Tunisienne N.S. 1 (1930) 174-75. On Victor of Vita, see Courtois, Victor de Vita et son œuvre (Algiers 1954). For the piety of Justinian, see Diehl, C., Justinien et la civilisation byzantine au VI^e siècle (Paris 1901) 315; Stein Hist. du Bas-Empire II 279; Rubin, Das Zeitalter Iustinians (Berlin 1960) I 128-29. On the emperor's desire to unite the Church under Catholicism, and consequently his persecution of heresy: Geizer, H., ‘Das Verhältnis von Staat und Kirche in Byzanz,’ Ausgewählte kleine Schriften (Leipzig 1907) 70-76; and Knecht, A., Die Religions-politik Kaiser Justinians I (Würzburg 1896) 24-25. For a very exaggerated picture of the emperor's piety, see: Biondo, B., Giustiniano Primo, principe e legislatore cattolico (Milan 1936), 1-10, 27-63. Justinian expressed his views on the reconquest of Africa in a law promulgated during April 534: Codex Justinianus 1.27.1.1-5 (ed. Krueger, P., Corpus Juris Civilis 2.77).Google Scholar

⁵ Justinian, Nov. 30.11.2 (ed. Schoell, R., Corpus Juris Civilis 3.234).Google Scholar

⁶ Zachariah of Mitylene, Chronicle 9.17 (tr. Hamilton and Brooks 262).Google Scholar

⁷ Cod. Just. 1.27.1,6 (77 Krueger); Procopius, De bello vandalico 1.5.3 (2nd ed. Haury, J. and Wirth, G., Leipzig 1962, 331-32).Google Scholar

⁸ Procop., bell. vand. 1.20.5 (397 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

⁹ Procop., bell. vand. 1.9 (351-55 Haury-Wirth) discusses the deposition of Hilderic; Justinian's protest to Gelimer; Gelimer's reaction of the protest; and Justinian's angry decision to go to war and the emperor's summons to Belisarius to come from the eastern frontier and prepare for an invasion of Africa. Justinian's endeavor to split the Vandals by claiming that he had sent Belisarius and an army only to depose Gelimer and ‘free’ the Vandals is obvious in the emperor's open letter to the Vandal nation: Procop., bell. vand. 1.16 13-14 (384 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

¹⁰ For the fears of the magistrates, Procop. bell. vand. 1.10.2-6 (355-56 Haury-Wirth). The magistrates were too afraid of the emperor to speak out, but John the Cappadocian frankly exposed his misgivings, ibid. 1.10.7-17 (356-58 Haury-Wirth). See also Procop., De aedificiis 6.5.6 (ed. Haury, J. 180). For the office of praetorian perfect in late antiquity, Ensslin, W., ‘Praefectus praetorio,’ RE 22.2 (1954) 2426–2502.Google Scholar

¹¹ Procop., bell. vand. 1.10.18-21 (358-59 Haury-Wirth). Courtois, Les Vandales et l’Afrique 288, believes this bishop was acting as an agent for the African Catholic clergy.Google Scholar

¹² Victor of Tonnenna, Chronica an. 534 (ed. Mommsen, T., MGH Auct. Antiq. 11.198). A possible explanation of this discrepancy between the accounts of Procopius and Victor, in my opinion, is the role of Byzantine propaganda; spreading the word of pious African Catholics that the emperor at Constantinople had been moved to liberate them because of the visit of one of their own martyrs whom the Arian Vandals had killed, would be an excellent way to win the Africans’ good will and support. Such a tale would convince them of God's blessing upon the new regime. Procopius, who had access to high officials such as Belisarius, would understand that the real pressures were being exerted by the clergy. Moreover, reports of African martyrs’ visits to Justinian would make less of an impression upon the Greek population of the East than upon Africans themselves. If my supposition is correct, this story of Laetus’ visit to Justinian would only have been circulated among Africans. Zachariah of Mitylene was aware that the Vandals were Arians, but he did not explain how their religious beliefs affected Justinian's decision to invade Africa, Chronicle 11.17 (263 Hamilton and Brooks).Google Scholar

¹³ For the appointment of Belisarius: Procop., bell. vand. 1.11.18 (363 Haury-Wirth); the number of troops: ibid. 1.11.2-16 (360-63, Haury-Wirth); cf. Stein, Hist. du Bas-Empire II 312-13; for the number of ships: Procop., bell. vand. 1.11.13 (362 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

¹⁴ For Belisarius’ unlimited powers: Procop., bell. vand. 1.11.18.20 (363 Haury-Wirth); his birthplace: ibid. 1.11.21 (363 Haury-Wirth). For Belisarius’ life: an old work by Lord Mahon, The Life of Belisarius (London 1829); Hartmann, ‘Belisarios,’ RE 5 (1897) 209-240; the biography by Gen. L. M. Chassin which contains little original research, but includes insights by a fellow soldier, Bélisaire: généralissime byzantin, 504-565 (Paris 1957).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Gen. Chassin, in an annex on ‘Les temps des hérésies,’ notes that Belisarius seems to have been a pious Catholic, but was mainly interested in doing his military duty, ibid. 240. Belisarius’ speeches, as recorded by Procopius, are filled with references to God. Most of these allusions, however, are to Tyche or Fortune, rather than the Christian God in particular. These speeches were composed by Procopius in imitation of classical models rather than as reproductions of the general's words. But for two real instances of Belisarius’ piety during the African campaign, see the general's baptism and adoption of the former heretical Eunomian, Theodosius: Procop., Historia arcana 1.16 (2nd ed. Haury, J. and Wirth, G., Leipzig 1963, 8); and his prayer before the battle of Ad Decimum: Procop., bell. vand. 1.19.11 (393 Haury-Wirth). These of course are instances of conventional piety. For his narrow interest in military affairs to the exclusion of other concerns: Hartmann, ‘Belisarios,’ 238: and Stein, Hist. du Bas-Empire II 285.Google Scholar

¹⁶ For the place and date of the ceremony: Procop., bell. vand. 1.12.1 (365 Haury-Wirth); for the Patriarch's blessing, ibid. 1.12.2 (365 Haury-Wirth). Epiphanius was enthroned as Patriarch 25 February 520 and died 5 June 535.Google Scholar

¹⁷ The most recent general study of Procopius is the extensive article ‘Prokopios von Kaisaraia’ by Berthold Rubin, RE 23.1 (1957) 273-599. The classic work on Procopius by F. Dahn, Procopius von Caesarea (Berlin 1865) is still useful. G. Soyter's article, ‘Prokop als Geschichtschreiber des Vandalen-und Gotenkrieges,’ Neue Jahrbücher für Antike und Deutsche Bildung (1939) 97-108, is mainly an evaluation of Procopius’ utility for the student of German tribal history. For the presence of Procopius on the expedition: bell. vand. 1.12.3 (365 Haury-Wirth); 1.14.3 (373 Haury-Wirth).]Google Scholar

¹⁸ The newly-baptized and renamed ‘Christian,’ ibid. 1.12.2 (365 Haury-Wirth), is thought to be the former Eunomian adopted by Belisarius and his wife Antonia. This convert took the name of Theodosius: Procop., Hist. arc. 1.16 (8 Haury-Wirth). For the identification: Rubin, ‘Prokopios,’ 410. For the significance of the Patriarch's placing the new convert on board: Pargoire, J., L’Église byzantine de 527 à 847 (3rd ed. Paris 1923) 24-25, who considers it a sanctification; C. Jenkins, ‘Procopiana,’ Journal of Roman Studies 37 (1947) 75, regards it as a favorable omen.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Diehl, L’Afrique byzantine 15.Google Scholar

²⁰ Woodward, E. L., Christianity and Nationalism in the Later Roman Empire (London 1916) 89.Google Scholar

²¹ See n. 15, supra. Google Scholar

²² For the number of Arians: Procop., bell. vand. 2.14.12 (484 Haury-Wirth). Procopius discusses the contemporary meaning of foederati, ibid. 1.11.3-5 (361 Haury-Wirth). Most of the Arians were barbarians, some were Herulians. There were 400 Herulians on the expedition commanded by Pharas, ibid. 1.11.11 (362 Haury-Wirth). The Herulians were barbarians who dwelled in Slovakia and later moved southwestward: Stein, Hist. du Bas-Empire II 150-51, 305-06.Google Scholar

²³ Cod. Just. 1.5.12.17 (54 Krueger); for a discussion of this provision: Sundwall, J., Abhandlungen zur Geschichte des ausgehenden Römertums (Helsingfors 1919) 252–57; King Theoderic of the Arian Ostrogoths had threatened to make reprisals against Italy's Catholics if Justinian persecuted Arians within the Byzantine empire. For Theoderic's relative toleration of Catholicism: Ensslin, W., Theoderich der Grosse (2nd ed., Munich 1959) 93-106.Google Scholar

²⁴ Procop., bell. vand. 1.16.13-14 (384 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

²⁵ Belisarius could already count on the refugee African landowners who had been urging Justinian to reconquer Africa: Zachariah, Chron. 9.17 (262 Hamilton and Brooks).Google Scholar

²⁶ Courtois, Vandales et l’Afrique 353.Google Scholar

²⁷ Procop., bell. vand. 1.15.18-30 (378-80 Haury-Wirth). This speech is, unlike many of the later ones composed by Procopius, filled with information of historical value. For the diminished historical importance of later speeches composed by Procopius, Brückner, M., Zur Beurteilung des Geschichtschreibers Prokopius von Caesarea (Ansbach 1896) 10.Google Scholar

²⁸ Procop., bell. vand. 1.16.2-8 (381-83 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

²⁹ The African Catholic clergy definitely welcomed the Byzantine arrival with enthusiasm. Documentary evidence of their feelings is found in a letter written in the name of a general council of the African church nearly two years after the invasion (May 535). The African bishops declared to Pope John II their joy at liberation: Collectio Avellana, letter 85, (ed. Guenther, O., CSEL 35.328). Other evidence of their feelings is the triumphant celebration of St. Cyprian's Day at Carthage 14 Sept. 533, after the Arian priests had fled at the news of Gelimer's defeat at Ad Decimum on 13 Sept.: Procop., bell. vand. 1.21.17-25 (402-04 Haury-Wirth). The only recorded instance of their active aid to Belisarius, however, was the surrender of Syllectum by the priest and notables of the city, ibid. 1.16.9-11 (383 Haury-Wirth). Courtois, Vandales 312 n.7, questions whether the priest and local leaders surrendered voluntarily or under duress.Google Scholar

³⁰ Zachariah, Chron. 9.17 (262-63 Hamilton and Brooks). Courtois is perhaps correct in saying that the general reception that Belisarius received from the Africans was apathetic, Vandales 311-12, but his discussion and arguments are somewhat weakened by his failure to consider this passage from Zachariah which is quite relevant. Procopius mentions African cooperation, bell. vand. 1.17.6 (386 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

³¹ Belisarius, in an oration to his men a day after the landing, rebuked them for plundering, ibid. 1.16.2-8 (381-83 Haury-Wirth). The general declared that he was relying completely on the Africans’ loyalty as Romans for the success of the campaign. He did not mention religion. As Rubin noted, ‘Prokopios,’ 412, the speech is quite rhetorical, but still of some historical value. Pflugk-Harttung, ‘Belisar's Vandalen-krieg,’ Historische Zeitschrift 61 [N. F. 25] (1889) 72-73, and Courtois, Vandales 311-12, both note that Belisarius was forced to take careful security measures after landing, indicating that he did not trust the Africans. Jörs, P., Die Reichspolitik Kaiser Justinians (Giessen 1893) 16, observes that the emperor received no material help from the Church and its bishops.Google Scholar

³² Procop., bell. vand. 1.16.12 (384 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

³³ Ibid. 1.16.13 (384 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

³⁴ Ibid. 1.16.14 (384 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

³⁵ Ibid. 1.16.15 (384-85 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

³⁶ The date: ibid. 1.21.23-25 (404 Haury-Wirth). For the battle of Ad Decimum: ibid. 1.19 (391-96 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

³⁷ Ibid. 1.18.2 (388-89 Haury-Wirth). Downey, G., ‘Paganism and Christianity in Procopius,’ Church History 18 (1949) 92–93, believes that Procopius is attempting to reconcile the Christian concept of Theos with the pagan Tyche. Google Scholar

³⁸ For a clear expression of Procopius’ skepticism: Procop., De bello gothico 1.3.6-9 (ed. Haury, J. and Wirth, G., Leipzig 1963, 15–16). Also on Procopius’ skeptical but probably Christian beliefs: Veh, O., Zur Geschichtsschreibung und Weltauffassung des Prokop von Caesarea 2 (Bayreuth 1952) 30; Rubin, ‘Prokopios,’ 341. The assertion of Bonfante, P. ‘Il movente della Storia Arcana di Procopio,’ Bullettino dell’ Istituto di Diritto Romano 41 (1933) 283-87, that Procopius was probably an Arian himself, is almost certainly false: Stein, Hist. du Bas-Empire II 716 n.1; Veh. Zur Geschichtsschreibung … Prokop. 2.29. A further indication of the unrealistic character of Bonfante's assertion is the fact that Procopius was forced to flee for his life from an Arian-inspired mutiny in Africa during the spring of 536, bell. vand. 2.14.12-15, 21 (484-85 Haury-Wirth); 2.14. 38-41 (488 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

³⁹ See Braun, H., Procopius Caesariensis, quatenus imitatus sit Thucydidem (Diss. Erlangen 1885); Die Nachahmung Herodots durch Prokop (Nürnberg 1894). But cf. Soyter, G.: ‘Glaubwürdigkeit des Geschichtschreibers Prokopios von Kaisareia,’ Byzantinische Zeitschrift 44 (1951) 541-45.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ The other sources offer few or no details on the campaign. Zachariah, Chron. 9.17 (262-63 Hamilton and Brooks), says nothing about Belisarius’ policy toward religion, although he does give more details than any source with the exception of Procopius. The others simply announce the capture of Africa without discussing the actual campaign: Marcellinus, Chronicon a. 534 (ed. Mommsen, T. MGH Auct. Antiq. 11.103-04) does say Africa ‘volente deo vindicata est.’; Victor of Tonnenna, Chron. an. 534 (198 Mommsen). Veh, Zur Gesch. Prokop 2.29, claims that Procopius stresses the ‘religious liberation’ in this war and points to passages in De bello vandalico as examples of this. His two examples, 1.8.3 (345 Haury-Wirth) on the persecution by King Huneric, and Procopius’ description 1.21.19 (403 Haury-Wirth) of the return of a Cathaginian sanctuary to the Catholics (which the Arians had wrested away by violence) are not convincing. Just because Procopius mentions Vandal violence, he is not necessarily expressing a personal opinion. It is not necessary to believe, as Veh does, that Procopius actually ‘rejoiced’ at the return of the Carthaginian church to the Catholics. While undoubtedly Procopius had heard many tales of Arian cruelty to Catholics, and this hearsay has crept into his narrative at various points, it seems clear that his account is quite restrained and remarkably independent from the official propaganda line expressed in the Corp. Jur. Civ. Google Scholar

⁴¹ Procop., bell. vand. 1.19.5 (392 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

⁴² Ibid. 1.19.25 (394-95 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

⁴³ Ibid. 1.20.1-2 (396 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Ibid. 1.20.19-20 (399 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Ibid. 1.21.19-25 (399-400 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Ibid. 1.21.21 (403 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Ibid. 1.21.9-10 (401-02 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Ibid. 1.20.16 (398-99 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Procop., bell. goth. 3.9.21 (336 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Apparently all of the Vandals remaining in Carthage when Belisarius entered the city had fled to sanctuaries as suppliants: Procop., bell. vand. 1.20.1 (396 Haury-Wirth). Belisarius gave them pledges: ibid. 1.21.11 (402 Haury-Wirth). cf. 2.4. 10, 21, 32 (434, 435, 437 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

⁵¹ See the statement of two Ostrogothic envoys to Belisarius at Rome during the winter of 537-538 when he was besieging their king Vitigis: Procop., bell. goth. 2.6.18-19 (176-77 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

⁵² For Belisarius’ haste and desire to prevent the Vandals from uniting and attacking him: Procop., bell. vand. 2.4.10-11 (434 Haury-Wirth); 2.4.32 (437 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

⁵³ Ibid. 1.24.19 (412 Haury-Wirth). The date of Solomon's departure is uncertain, but it must have occurred soon after the capture of Carthage on 15 Sept. and perhaps after Belisarius had strengthened the fortification to the extent that he was fairly confident that he could hold the city: ibid. 1.23.19-20 (409 Haury-Wirth). For more information on Solomon see Nagl, ‘Solomon,’ RE 3A (1929) 941-46. Solomon was Belisarius’ domesticus, Procop., bell. vand. 1.11.5 (361 Haury-Wirth) and also a eunuch, ibid. 1.11.6 (361 Haury-Wirth). For the office of domesticus, Seeck, ‘Domesticus,’ RE 5 (1905) 1296–99.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ The Sardinian rebel Godas, a Goth, was a slave of Gelimer to whom the Vandal king had previously entrusted the island's government: Procop., bell. vand. 1.10.25-34 (359-60 Haury-Wirth). Gelimer dispatched Tzazo to quell the revolt, ibid 1.11.22-23 (363-64 Haury-Wirth). Tzazo killed the rebel and reestablished Vandal rule, ibid. 1.24.1-6 (410 Haury-Wirth). After Gelimer informed him of the loss of Carthage, Tzazo returned to Africa with his men, ibid. 1.25.10-26 (413-16 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Ibid. 1.23.1-18 (407-09 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Ibid. 2.1.1 (419 Haury-Wirth). When Gelimer marched to Carthage he hoped that the Arians in the Byzantine army would revolt against Belisarius; Procopius does not say what measures the Vandal king took to help realize his hopes, ibid, 2.1.4 (419 Haury-Wirth). The Arian Vandal church seems to have been organized as an aggressive and expansionistic force, Courtois, Vandales 226-27. The Vandal clergy may have tried, given this zeal, to stir up their Arian coreligionists in Belisarius’ army. For Gelimer's attempts to win over the Carthaginians and Huns, Procop., bell. vand. 2.1.4 (419 Haury-Wirth); 2.1.5-6 (420 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Being suspicious, Belisarius impaled the Carthaginian Laurus, ibid. 2.1.7-8 (420 Haury-Wirth). The general courted the Hunnic Massagetae cavalry and promised that they would be able to return home safely with all their booty, ibid. 2.1.9-11 (420-21 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Procopius says nothing further about these Arian troops until he mentions them in connection with the events of 536, bell. vand. 2.14.12 (484 Haury-Wirth). Since he does not mention any rebellion by them during Gelimer's blockade of Carthage in 533, and since these troops were allowed to remain in Africa, they apparently did not rebel. Belisarius’ address to the troops: ibid. 2.1.13-25 (421-23 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Since Gelimer lived in a kingdom where religious tensions between Arian and Catholic were always near the breaking point, he may have overestimated the effect of confessional differences within the Byzantine army where religious issues tended normally to be of secondary importance.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Gelimer's hopes were not so absurd, for at a later date (536) these Arian troops did revolt because of religious grievances against the Catholics.Google Scholar

⁶¹ The cost of transporting even 1,000 troops from Africa to the Persian frontier would have been great. The expense would have been slight, however, in comparison with the great damage caused in Africa when these troops rebelled in 536. In fact, Belisarius had shipped thousands of Arian Vandals to the eastern frontier from Africa. These Vandals, incorporated as a Byzantine corps, Vandali Justiniani, were probably sent not only to bolster that border, but also to prevent any Vandal revolt in Africa against the new Byzantine government, Procop., bell. vand. 2.14.17 (484 Haury-Wirth); 2.4.10-12 (434 Haury-Wirth). Later Solomon of Dara in 539 did send soldiers of questionable loyalty to Belisarius in Italy and to Justinian at Constantinople, ibid. 2.19.3 (508 Haury-Wirth). The explanation for the authorities’ failure to transfer these Arian elements seems to have been either oversight or miscalculation.Google Scholar

⁶² In retrospect, Procopius probably saw that Gelimer's endeavor to win the Arian troops within Belisarius’ army anticipated and foreshadowed the successful efforts of Arian priests to seduce these troops in the spring of 536, Procop., bell. vand. 2.14.13 (484 Haury-Wirth). The conspiracy took the authorities (including Procopius himself, the assessor of Solomon) by complete surprise, ibid. 2.14.23 (485 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

⁶³ The battle is described by Procopius, bell. vand. 2.2-3 (423-32 Haury-Wirth). Tricamarum was about 20 miles west of Carthage, ibid. 2.2.4 (424 Haury-Wirth). The Vandals simply fled wildly when they heard that Gelimer had taken flight; there was no longer an organized Vandal army, ibid. 2.3.22-23 (431 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Ibid. 2.2.9-22 (424-26 Haury-Wirth); 2.2.24-32 (425-28 Haury-Wirth). These speeches are regarded as sheer rhetoric by Rubin, ‘Prokopios,’ 417.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Procop., bell. vand. 2.4.10, 21, 32 (434, 435, 437 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Ibid. 2.4.11-12 (434 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Ibid. 2.7. 11-12 450 (Haury-Wirth). Pharas conducted the siege of Gelimer's mountain fortress, Procop., bell. vand. 1.11.11; 2.4.28-32; 2.6 and 2.7 (362, 436-37, 443-51 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Pharas used the term λέγονσιν, bell. vand. 2.6.22 (446 Haury-Wirth); there was no binding promise to make Gelimer a patrician. For his refusal to abandon Arianism, see: Procop., bell. vand. 2.9.14 (458 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Ibid. 2.8.1-2 (452 Haury-Wirth); 2.8.5 (542 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Ibid. 2.8.23 (455 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

⁷¹ Ibid. 2.9 (455-58 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

⁷² No one seems to have paid much attention to the vulnerability of the Arian soldiers’ faith to exploitation, because the revolt of 536 completely surprised the authorities, including Procopius, bell. vand. 2.14.23 (485 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

⁷³ Procop., bell. goth. 1.5.2-7 (25-26 Haury-Wirth). For the date, see Stein, Hist. du Bas-Empire II 339 n.3.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ The source for this council is a letter addressed by the bishops attending the session to Pope John II: letter 85, Collectio Avellana (ed. O. Guenther, CSEL 35.328-30). Guenther dates the letter about May 535. C. Saumagne, ’Étude sur la propriété écclesiastique à Carthage d'après les novelles 36 et 37 de Justinien,’ Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 22 (1913) 83-85, dates the council early in 535. For this council, see also: Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire des conciles (Paris 1908) 2.2.1136–39; A. Audollent, ’Afrique,’ Dict. d’Hist. Géog. Éccl. (Paris 1912) I 835-36; L. Duchesne, L’Église au VI^e siècle (Paris 1925) 640-42; E. Caspar, Geschichte des Papsttums (Tübingen 1933) II 211-213; R. Devreesse, ‘L’Église d’Afrique durant l'occupation byzantine,’ Mélanges d’Archéologie et d’Histoire 57 (1940) 143-46. On the African church in general, see also: H. Leclercq, L’Afrique chrétienne (Paris 1904) II; J. Mesnage, Le Christianisme en Afrique; déclin et extinction (Paris and Algiers 1915); E. Buonaiuti, Il cristianesimo nell’Africa romana (Bari 1928). The African church seems to have almost completely recovered from the Vandal persecutions by the time of this council: Duchesne, L’Église 640-41; Stein, Hist. du Bas-Empire II 322; Devreesse, ‘L’Église d’Afrique,’ 145.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Saumagne, ‘Étude,’ 81; his arguments are presumably accepted by Stein, Hist. du Bas-Empire II 321.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Saumagne, ‘Étude,’ 81-82. Belisarius had allowed Arian priests to remain in Rome after the Ostrogoths were expelled: Procop., bell. goth. 3.9.21 (336 Haury-Wirth). The Arian priests were driven out much later when suspected of treason.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ The Arian clergy of the Carthaginian church (where the St. Cyprian festival was about to be celebrated) fled when they heard of Gelimer's debacle at Ad Decimum, Procop., bell. vand. 1.21.25 (404 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Saumagne, ‘Étude,’ 81-82. For two short discussions of Justinian's mixture of conciliation and firmness in his overall policy toward heretics: A. Knecht, Die Religionspolitik Kaiser Justinians I (Würzburg 1896) 147; Stein, Hist. du Bas-Empire II 278-80.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Saumagne, ‘Étude,’ 82.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Ibid.; letter 88, Collectio Avellana (ed. Guenther), CSEL 35.333-38.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Saumagne, ‘Étude,’ 82.Google Scholar

⁸² Ibid. 82, 86.Google Scholar

⁸³ The evidence for the petition of the African bishops is found in Nov. 37 of Justinian addressed to Solomon, the Praetorian Prefect of Africa. The emperor declares that the council of the African church had dispatched the deacon Theodorus of the Carthaginian church to present the bishops’ demands.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Nov. 37, De africana ecclesia (cd. Schoell 244-45).Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Ibid. Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Nov. 37.3 (244 Schoell).Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Nov. 37.5 (245 Schoell).Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Nov. 37.6 (245 Schoell).Google Scholar

⁸⁹ For the limited toleration previously accorded by Justinian to Arian Gothic foederati, Cod. Just. 1.5.12.17 (54 Krueger).Google Scholar

⁹⁰ The only record of the African church's discussion of this question is letter 85, Collectio Avellana (ed. Guenther, CSEL 35.328-30).Google Scholar

⁹¹ The letter was carried to Rome by two African bishops, Gaius and Peter, and a Carthaginian deacon, Liberatus: letter 86, Coll. Avell. (330-31 Guenther). For the council's statement of its desire to follow the pope's decision: letter 85 (329 Guenther).Google Scholar

⁹² Letter 86, Coll. Avell. (330-32 Guenther).Google Scholar

⁹³ In the letter which Pope Agapetus wrote to Justinian, the Pontiff indicates that he knows that the emperor wishes to permit the converted Arian clergy to enter the Catholic hierarchy while retaining their present offices and remaining eligible for future promotion: Letter 88, Coll. Avell. (335 Guenther). Perhaps Gaius, Peter, and Liberatus had orally explained to Agapetus the emperor's policy toward the Arians who wished to be converted to Catholicism; letter 85, Coll. Avell. does not contain any indication that it is Justinian who is encouraging the Arian clergy to enter the Catholic hierarchy.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Letter 88, Coll. Avell. (335 Guenther).Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Saumagne, ‘Étude,’ 81.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Nov. 37.1 (244 Schoell). Cf. R. Massigli, ‘Primat de Carthage et métropolitain de Byzacène,’ Mélanges Cagnat (Paris 1912) 431.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ For the dispatch of Belisarius to Sicily, Procop., bell. goth. 1.5.2-7 (25-26 Haury-Wirth); the date, Stein, Hist. du Bas-Empire II 339. The disrupting effect of disturbances in Africa upon Byzantine military affairs in Sicily and Italy was manifest in 536. Belisarius, having conquered all of Sicily by the end of 535, was preparing his army for the invasion of Italy when the general received word of the revolt in Africa in 536, Procop., bell. goth. 1.5.18, 1.6.26-27 (27, 32 Haury-Wirth). Also, bell. vand. 2.14.41-42 (488 Haury-Wirth). Belisarius was forced to go to Africa, ibid. 2.15.9 (490 Haury-Wirth). His departure from Sicily allowed rumors to arise that troops on that island had also revolted, ibid. 2.15.48 (495 Haury-Wirth). The general was compelled to return to Sicily without having completely subdued the rebels, ibid. 2.15.49 (495 Haury-Wirth). The revolt in Africa had jeopardized Sicily's security and perhaps interrupted preparations for the Italian campaign.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Procop., bell. vand. 2.5.1 (439 Haury-Wirth); 2.8.4 (452 Haury-Wirth); 2.9.1 (455 Haury-Wirth); 2.14.17-18 (484-85 Haury-Wirth). Courtois, Vandales 354, believes that casualties had been relatively light in the actual fighting. Therefore he concluded that several tens of thousands of Vandal men must have survived the immediate Byzantine reconquest.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Procop., bell. vand. 2.15.55-56 (496 Haury-Wirth); Hist. arc. 18.11 (113 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ The resentment of the foederati is manifest in a speech of the rebel leader Stotzas at the battle of Membresa in 536: Procop., bell. vand. 2.15.30-36 (493 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Ibid. 2.14.8-9 (483 Haury-Wirth). Many women were captured at the battle of Tricamarum, ibid. 2.3.24; 2.4.3 (431, 433 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

¹⁰² Nov. 36 (243-44 Schoell).Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Zachariah, Chron. 9.17 (262-63 Hamilton and Brooks).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ The soldiers objected to Solomon's attempts to register former Vandal lands in the name of the emperor, Procop., bell. vand. 2.14.10 (483-84 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Procop., bell. vand. 2.14.11-15 (484 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Ibid. 2.14.13 (484 Haury-Wirth). Procopius emphasizes that it was Justinian who decreed the exclusion of Arians from religious rites, ibid. 2.14.14 (484 Haury-Wirth) but he failed to mention the pressure which the African Catholic clergy and the pope exerted upon the emperor. Procopius attacked Justinian on this matter, Hist. arc. 18.10 (113 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Procopius mentions that the Vandal women played an important part in inciting the rebellion by urging their husbands to claim lands which the women had previously held, bell. vand. 2.14.8-9; 2.15.47 (483, 495 Haury-Wirth). These Vandal women, presumably all Arians, had always lived under the religious supremacy of Arianism in Africa and were undoubtedly outraged by the reversal of positions between Arianism and Catholicism. It is likely that these women shared and stimulated the resentment of their husbands over the denial of Arian baptismal rites to their children, Procop., bell. vand. 2.14-15 (484 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Ibid. 2.14.17-19 (484-85 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Ibid. 2.14.20 (485 Haury-Wirth). It is significant that it was the Arians (rather than the soldiers who were concerned with economic issues) who finally decided to start the revolt, ibid. 2.14.21 (485Haury-Wirth). The religious conflict, together with the likely exposure of Solomon while at church, probably dictated the selection of Easter Day service as the original time and place for the assassination attempt: ibid. 2.14.22 (485 Haury-Wirth). The only study of this rebellion is a Marxist interpretation emphasizing the economic causes: K. F. Schtepa, ‘Vosstaniya Stotsi (536-546 gg. n.a.) — K Istorie Revolutsionnikh Dvizhenii v Rimskoi Afrike,’ Vestnik Drevnei Istorii 3-4/12-13 (1940) 115-130.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Procop., bell. vand. 2.14.22-28 (485-86 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Ibid. 2.14.29 (486 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

¹¹² The majority of the garrison revolted on the fifth day of the Easter celebration (Easter fell on 23 March 536), ibid. 2.14.31 (487 Haury-Wirth). The rebels plundered the city, ibid. 2.14.36 (487 Haury-With) and forced Solomon, Procopius and others to flee, ibid. 2.14.37-41 (487-88 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

¹¹³ Ibid. 2.14.23 (485 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ The dispatch of Solomon to Justinian at Constantinople after the capture of Carthage on 15 Sept. 533: Procop., bell. vand. 1.24.19 (412 Haury-Wirth); his return in 534 after the Vandals were conquered: ibid. 2.8.4 (452 Haury-Wirth); his replacement of Belisarius: ibid. 2.8.23 (455 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ J. B. Bury, Later Roman Empire (2nd ed., London 1923) II 139, 143, refers to the ‘utmost intolerance’ and ‘intolerance’ of Justinian; Diehl, L’Afrique byzantine 48, sees ‘trouble and disorganization’ in Africa as a result of Justinian's religious intolerance. But he notes that intolerance in itself was not the whole cause of the rebellion in 536; there were also economic factors, ibid. 77-78.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ Audollent, A., ‘Afrique,’ Dict. d’Hist. Géog. Éccl. (Paris 1912) I 836, believes that the local political and military authorities in Africa must have informed Justinian of the need to conciliate the Arians there, and that for this reason the emperor permitted Arian clergymen to enter the Catholic hierarchy. Audollent fails to explain how, if this were so, Justinian subsequently changed his mind, and why he did not receive local reports warning him not to enforce the Catholic clergy's new demands. And if the emperor did decide to change his mind, why did not these local officials, who had been corresponding so carefully with him on the Arian question, recommend that he immediately order the transfer of these Arians to another military theater? Why did the local authorities not write to the emperor about the activities of these Vandal Arian clergymen who were inciting the Arian soldiers, and why did the local authorities not arrest these priests? It seems clear from Procopius’ narrative that the rebellion came as a complete surprise. No one was expecting the local troops to react violently against the anti-Arian measures, and therefore no reports of this kind had been made to Constantinople. There may have been earlier recommendations to Constantinople to be moderate toward the Arians, but in 535-36 the local authorities were taken unawares: Procop., bell. vand. 2.14.23 (485 Haury-Wirth). Buonaiuti, E., Il Cristianesimo nell’Africa romana (Bari 1928) 419, believes that in general Constantinople had not taken sufficient account of the critical conditions in Africa, and had recalled Belisarius. Poor communications must have contributed to the lack of coordination (it took two and one-half months for Belisarius’ invasion fleet to sail from Constantinople to Carthage), but it seems that the failure of both central and local Byzantine authorities to perceive the political and military implications of new religious policies was the basic cause for the mutiny.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ The importance of the Arians in starting the revolt is clear from Procopius, bell. vand. 2.14.21 (485 Haury-Wirth). ibid. 2.14.38-39 (488 Haury-Wirth). Solomon charged him with defense of the city, ibid. 2.14.41 (488 Haury-Wirth). Theodorus was able to hold the city for the emperor, ibid. 2.15.6 (489 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Victor of Tonnenna, Chron. an. 541 (200 Mommsen), says nothing of the motives for Stotzas' revolt; Marcellinus, Chron. an. 535 (104 Mommsen), only mentions that a revolt had begun by the soldiers against their leader; Jordanes, Romana 369 (ed. T. Mommsen, MGH Auct. Antiq. 5.48), also merely says that Stotzas wished to establish a tyranny; Zachariah of Mitylene, Chron., does not mention the revolt; Corippus (MGH Auct. Antiq. 3.3.34 ed. R. Partsch) Johannidos 3.305-306, does not explain how the rebellion arose save from Stotzas' hatred of the Africans; in Joh. 4. 208-17 (p. 43 Partsch), Stotzas' dying words, after some nine years of revolt, are a confession of his own ingratitude and disloyalty to the emperor.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Rubin comments on the excellent presentation by Procopius of the causes of the mutiny, ‘Prokopios,’ 422-23.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ For the number of Arians: Procop., bell. vand. 2.14.12 (484 Haury-Wirth); number of Vandals: ibid. 2.15.4 (489 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

¹²¹ For the great number of slaves: ibid. 2.15.4 (489 Haury-Wirth). Doubtless the participation of these slaves in Stotzas' movement explains why Corippus called the rebel leader a companion of Catiline: Joh. 4.212 (43 Partsch). There were 8,000 regular soldiers who rebelled: Procop, bell. vand. 2.15.2 (489 Haury-Wirth); 1,000 Vandals joined these mutineers: 2.15.3-4 (489 Haury-Wirth); making 9,000 rebels in all — excluding slaves. Cf. ibid. 2.16.3 (497 Haury-Wirth), where Germanus discovers that two-thirds of the army has rebelled.Google Scholar

¹²² Election of Stotzas: Procop., bell. vand. 2.15.1 (489 Haury-Wirth); Procopius believes heaven may have placed a curse upon Stotzas and caused him to revolt against the emperor: ibid. 1.11.30 (365 Haury-Wirth); cf. Nagl, ‘Stotzas,’ RE 4A (1932) 74-75.Google Scholar

¹²³ Stotzas was a bodyguard of Martinus, a commander of foederati: Procop., bell. vand. 1.11.6 (361 Haury-Wirth); Jordanes, Rom. (48 Mommsen). Procopius' belief that heaven had cursed Stotzas, bell. vand. 1.11.30 (365 Haury-Wirth), not because of the rebel's religious confession, but because he had rebelled against the emperor. The same reasoning applies to Corippus' consignment of Stotzas' soul to Hell: Joh. 4. 213-18 (43 Partsch).Google Scholar

¹²⁴ Procop., bell. vand. 1.11.30 (365 Haury-Wirth); 2.15.1 (489 Haury-Wirth); Jordanes, Rom. 369 (48 Mommsen); Victor of Tonnenna, Chron. an.541 (200 Mommsen).Google Scholar

¹²⁵ The mutineers killed a number of the guards and plundered: Procop., bell. vand. 2.14. 35-36 (487 Haury-Wirth); Coripp., Joh. 3.308-09 (34 Partsch). Great destruction resulted from this rebellion and those that followed: Procop., Hist. arc. 18.11 (113 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

¹²⁶ Presumably, some Arian priests from Africa made their way to the Arian Ostrogothic kingdom of Italy, as, for example, some Hunnic deserters from Justinian's army: Procop., bell. goth. 1.3.15 (17 Haury-Wirth). There are no exact figures for the size of the Arian Vandal clergy, but Courtois, Vandales 286 n. 1, estimates that there were several hundred at most. Those Arian priests who remained with the Arian rebels probably bolstered the in surgents' morale. If any Arian priests were present at the battle of Cellas Vatari, they may well have been killed in the general slaughter of the rebels: Procop., bell. vand. 2.17.22 (503-04 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

¹²⁷ Theodorus had been sent with a new army, sharing its command with Ildiger, son-in-law of Antonina, wife of Belisarius, ibid. 2.8.24 (455 Haury-Wirth). The mutineers first elected Theodorus their general because he had a grudge against Solomon, ibid. 2.14.33-34 (487 Haury-Wirth). Theodorus helped Solomon and Procopius escape from Carthage, ibid. 2.14.38-39 (488 Haury-Wirth). Solomon charged him with defense of the city, ibid. 2.14.41 (488 Haury-Wirth). Theodorus was able to hold the city for the emperor, ibid. 2.15.6 (489 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

¹²⁸ Procop., bell. vand. 2.15.9-11 (490 Haury-Wirth); Marcellinus, Chron. an. 535 (104 Mommsen); Coripp., Joh. 3.310-13 (34 Partsch); Jordanes, Rom. 370 (48 Mommsen).Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Procop., bell. vand. 2.15.16-29 (491-92 Haury-Wirth). Rubin notes that speech is pure rhetoric: ‘Prokopios,’ RE 23.423. Stotzas’ speech, bell. vand. 2.15.30-39 (493-94 Haury-Wirth) is also considered pure rhetoric by Rubin: ‘Prokopios,’ 423.Google Scholar

¹³⁰ For the victory at Membresa (Majaz al-Bab, on the river Bagradas/Majarda): Procop., bell. vand. 2.15.44 (494 Haury-Wirth); Coripp., Joh. 3.310-14 (34 Partsch). For the return of Belisarius: Procop., bell. vand. 2.15.46-49 (495 Haury-Wirth); Marcellinus, Chron. an. 535 (104 Mommsen).Google Scholar

¹³¹ Procop., bell. vand. 2.16.1 (497 Haury-Wirth): Germanus goes to Libya. He sent Solomon back to Constantinople: Marcellinus, Chron. an. 536 (104 Mommsen). Germanus was appointed Master of the Soldiers for Africa and also had special powers.Google Scholar

¹³² Scalae Veteres is the name given by Procopius, bell. vand. 2.17. 3(501 Haury-Wirth). For the battle ibid., 2.17.4-33 (501-505 Haury-Wirth) According to Rubin, who bases his opinion on Coripp., Joh. 3.318 (35 Partsch), the correct name is Celias Vatari: ‘Prokopios,’ 424. For the date of the battle: Marcellinus, Chron. an. 537 (105 Mommsen).Google Scholar

¹³³ Procop., bell. vand. 2.17.35 (505 Haury-Wirth): Marcellinus, Chron. an. 537 (105 Mommsen). Rubin notes that Procopius describes the flight and subsequent fortunes of Stotzas without hatred: ‘Prokopios,’ 424.Google Scholar

¹³⁴ For the abortive revolt of Maximinus: Procop., bell. vand. 2.18.1-11 (505-07 Haury-Wirth); surprised by Germanus: ibid. 2.17.13-14 (507 Haury-Wirth) impaled: ibid. 2.18.18 (507-08 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

¹³⁵ Ibid. 2.18.9 (506-07 Haury-Wirth). Overdue pay was no new grievance for soldiers in Africa. For Maximinus’ ambitions: ibid. 2.18.2 (505 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

¹³⁶ The return of Solomon: Procop., bell. vand. 2.19.1 (508 Haury-Wirth); Marcellinus, Chron. an. 539 (106 Mommsen). For the removal of Vandals and suspicious army elements: Procop., bell. vand. 2.19.3 (508 Haury-Wirth). Cf. Belisarius’ herding of the Vandals to Carthage, ibid. 2.4.10-12 (434 Haury-Wirth); guarding them, ibid. 2.7.17 (451 Haury-Wirth); loading them to be sent to Constantinople, ibid. 2.8.4, 2.8.20, 2.9.1 (452, 454, 455 Haury-Wirth). Courtois, Vandales 354, while admitting that one cannot be precise, believes that at least several tens of thousands of Vandals remained in Africa immediately after the Byzantine conquest. They were a minority of the population: Courtois Vandales 354.Google Scholar

¹³⁷ Procop., bell. vand. 2.19.3 (508 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

¹³⁸ The name of the Moorish chief whose daughter Stotzas married is not given by Procopius: bell. vand. 2.17.35 (505 Haury-Wirth); Coripp., Joh. 4.429-32 (48 Partsch).Google Scholar

¹³⁹ Procop., bell. vand. 2.17.35 (505 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ Procop., bell. vand. 2.22.5 (522-23 Haury-Wirth). Solomon was killed by the Moors near the city of Tebesta: ibid. 2.21.26-28 (521-22 Haury-Wirth). His replacement by Sergius: ibid.2.22.1 (522 Haury-Wirth); Marcellinus, Chron. an. 541 (106 Mommsen). Sergius’ unpopularity: ibid. 2.22.2 (522 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ Procop., bell. vand. 2.23.1 (525 Haury-Wirth). These soldiers may have been remnants of the rebels who escaped from the carnage at Celias Vatari: ibid. 2.17.21:28 (504 Haury-Wirth) or they may have been new deserters from the Byzantine army.Google Scholar

¹⁴² Stotzas was now cooperating with Antalas, the Moorish leader: Procop., bell. vand. 2.23.1 (525 Haury-Wirth). The Moors, having surprised a Byzantine detachment and captured its members including Himerius, commander of the troops of the province of Byzacium, ibid. 2.23.3-5 (525-26 Haury-Wirth), and also captured a cavalry group, ibid. 2.23 6.-10 (526 Haury-Wirth), and having turned the prisoners over the Stotzas, the rebel leader used these prisoners to decoy the garrison of Hadrumetum into opening the gates, ibid. 2.23.11-16 (526-27 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

¹⁴³ Procop., bell. vand. 2.23.18-25 (527-29 Haury-Wirth). Paul and virtually all the African notables were forced subsequently to flee to Constantinople owing to new and more serious depredations by Stotzas and Antalas: ibid., 2.23 (525-29 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁴ Ibid. 2.24.1, 2.24.4 (529, 530 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁵ Arrival of Areobindus: ibid. 2.24.6. (530 Haury-Wirth); battle and defeat of Byzantine troops under John, son of Sisiniolus, who is killed : ibid. 2.24. 8-13 (530-31 Haury-Wirth); the location was between Sicca Veneria (el Kef) and Carthage; death of Stotzas, Procop., bell. vand. 2.24.13-14 (531 Haury-Wirth); Coripp., Joh. 4.208-19 (43 Partsch)); Victor of Tonnenna, Chron. an. 545 (201 Mommsen); Marcellinus, Chron. an. 545 (107 Mommsen); Jordanes, Rom. 384 (51 Mommsen).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁶ Succession of John: Procop., bell. vand. 2.25.3 (532 Haury-Wirth); Marcellinus, Chron. an. 545 (107 Mommsen); Jordanes, Rom. 384 (51 Mommsen). The name ‘Stotzas Junior’ is given only by Marcellinus and Jordanes.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁷ Tyranny of Guntharic: Procop., bell. vand. 2.25. 1.2.28.34 (532-50 Haury-Wirth). For the death of Areobindus: ibid. 2.26.23-33 (538-40 Haury-Wirth); Marcellinus, Chron. an. 547 (108 Mommsen); Victor of Tonnenna, Chron. an. 546 (201 Mommsen). The rebel John joined Guntharic: Procop., bell. vand. 2.27.7 (531 Haury-Wirth); Marcellinus, Chron. an. 547 (108 Mommsen).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁸ Procop., bell. vand. 2.24.16 (532 Haury-Wirth).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁹ Artabanes managed to slay Guntharic at a banquet: Procop., bell. vand. 2.28.28-34 (549-50 Haury-Wirth); Marcellinus, Chron. an. 547 (108 Mommsen); Jordanes, Rom. 384 (51 Mommsen). For the length of Guntharic's ‘tyranny’: Victor of Tonnenna, Chron. an. 546 (201 Mommsen).Google Scholar

¹⁵⁰ Many other accomplices of Guntharic, including Vandals, were slain while asleep, eating, or paralyzed with fear: Procop., bell. vand. 2.28.35-38 (550 Haury-Wirth). The rebel leader John ‘Stotzas Junior’ was captured in a sanctuary along with some of his Vandals: ibid., 2.28.39 (550 Haury-Wirth). John and the Vandals were sent to Constantinople: ibid. 2.28.40 (550 Haury-Wirth); Marcellinus, Chron. an. 547 (108 Mommsen). At the capital he was punished: Jordanes, Rom. 384 (51 Mommsen). Schmidt, Gesch. der Wandalen (2nd ed., Berlin 1942) 147, notes that this seems to be the last reference to the Vandals, but cf. Genesius, Regna (ed. C. Lachmann, Bonn 1834) 33.Google Scholar

¹⁵¹ Jordanes, Rom. 385 (51 Mommsen).Google Scholar

¹⁵² Audollent, A., ‘Afrique,’ Dict. d’Hist. Géog. Eccl. I 837.Google Scholar

¹⁵³ Procop., bell. vand. 2.22.5 (522-23 Haury-Wirth); Coripp., Joh. 3.458-59 (38 Partsch).Google Scholar

¹⁵⁴ Procop., bell. vand. 1.25.2-9 (412-413 Haury-Wirth). On the relations of Vandals and Berbers: Courtois, Vandales 340-352.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁵ Speel, C. J., ‘The Disappearance of Christianity from North Africa in the Wake of the Rise of Islam,’ Church History 29 (1960) 379.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁶ Ibid. 392.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁷ Ibid. 393.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁸ Ibid. 391.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁹ Coripp., Joh. 4.666-83 (53 Partsch); 8.304-17 (101-02 Partsch); 6.104-41 (67 Partsch).Google Scholar

¹⁶⁰ Speel, 397 n. 43, citing C. H. Becker, Cambr. Med. Hist. II 370 and E. L. Woodward, Christianity and Nationalism in the Later Roman Empire 67 ff.Google Scholar