It is interesting that
Gallienus resp. Aureoulus immediately crushed the usurpation of Ingenuus and
Regalianus.
Postumus however was granted enough time to secure
his revolt since
Gallienus was first handling Ingenuus and
Regalianus and afterwards, he faced the usurpation of
Macrianus and
Quietus in the east that seemed to be a far greater danger to the central empire than
Postumus. Also, one may suggest that
Gallienus was completely surprised by Postumus' revolt since it seems that he
had held some kind of
military key role in
Gaul granted him by
Gallienus himself before, he thus may have been a confidant of the emperor. On the other hand, it seems that the quick response on the revolt of Ingenuus suggests that
Gallienus, after getting the news about the disastrous end of Valerianus' expedition against the Persians, anticipated Ingenuus' revolt by moving forehanded towards
Pannonia and
Moesia.
The reasons for
Postumus not to
cross the Alps and go the whole hog soon after
his usurpation seem to be quite obvious to me: even after bringing the siege of
Saloninus and
Silvanus to an end, he first
had to secure
his base at
Gaul and the two Germanias; though the HA suggests so, it doesn't seem as if the whole
west immediately hailed
Postumus as new emperor. And when he finally secured the
west (expedition to
Britain in 261 AD??), he
still had to deal the "babarian" threat at the Rhine frontier. If one assumes that
Gallienus took a considerable
part of the western army with him when he left
Gaul in 259 AD, it is easily understood that
Postumus simply did not have enough troops to deal with the barbarians AND invade
Italy.
That
Postumus, after having secured
his empire and surviving Gallienus' attack in 265 AD (?),
still stayed in
Gaul can lead to different conclusions. One may assume that he just felt satisfied with
his rule, that he thought an invasian into
Italy would open
Gaul to babarian invasions, that
his forces
still did not suffice to start a counter offensive against
Gallienus, that he saw
his rule not as a deadly enemy of
Rome but as a backup in the
west, etc. I don't believe, however, that Postumus' rule did result out of any "gallic national feeling". It seems clear to me that
Postumus saw himself as a
Roman, beneath several other reasons it seems not to make any sense that a "gallic nationalist" would strike coins hailing the eternity of
Rome and would adopt full
roman titles including such as TR P and P M clearly related to the city of
Rome etc.
I think the secession of the "Gallic" and the "Palmyrenian" empires are
part of many symptoms leading to further decentralisation of the whole empire. The times when one single emperor could
handle all problems and threats of the empire clearly belonged to the past. I guess
Gallienus learned this lesson, and I must confess, I look at
his reign much more positive than many scholars did in the past. I think it is admirable, how
Gallienus survived himself and secured important parts of the empire during those troubled years after the capture of
his father. This is far from being a matter of course...
Whoops, sorry for this long posting...
Lars
