Rome's Gothic Wars: From the Third Century to Alaric (Key Conflicts of Classical Antiquity) by Michael Kulikowski Page A

Eunapius, frag. 64.1 = John of Antioch, frag. 190 ( FHG 4: 610).
    [219] Claudian, Stil . 2.95–96.
    [220] Claudian, Ruf . 2.105–23 and 235–39, with Gild . 294–96 and Stil . 1.151–69.
    [221] Claudian, č cons. Hon . 435–49; Stil . 1.188–245.
    [222] Zosimus, HN 5.5.6–8.; Claudian, Ruf . 2.186–96; Eunapius, VS 476, 482.
    [223] Claudian, č cons . 479–83; Zosimus, HN 5.7.2. Date: Paulinus, č. Ambrosii 45, 48, for the relevance of which see E. Burrell, ‘A re-examination of why Stilicho abandoned his pursuit of Alaric in 397’, Historia 53 (2004): 251–56.
    [224] Eunapius, frag. 64.1 = John of Antioch, frag. 190 ( FHG 4: 610); Zosimus, HN 5.7.1 – both misdated, but both clearly referring to 397 because of their reference to Hellas .
    [225] Claudian, Eutr . 2.211–18; Get . 533–40.
    [226] Claudian, Stil . 1.269–81.
    [227] Main sources for the revolt: Synesius, De providentia 2.1–3; Socrates, HE 6.6.1–34; Sozomen, HE 8.4; Theoderet, HE 5.30–33; Zosimus, HN 5.18–19; Philostorgius, HE 11.8. My narrative follows A. Cameron and J. Long, Barbarians and Politics at the Court of Arcadius (Berkeley, 1993).
    [228] Date: Codex Theodosianus 9.40.17 (17 August 399).
    [229] Fasti Vindobonenses Priores 532 ( Chron. Min . 1: 299).
    [230] Claudian, č cons. Hons . 201–15; 281–86.
    [231] Claudian, č cons. Hon . 229–33.
    [232] Sozomen, HE 8.25.3; 9.4.2–4.
    [233] The arguments of A. R. Birley, The Roman Government of Britain (Oxford, 2005), 455–60, very nearly persuade me to abandon my attempt, in ‘Barbarians in Gaul, usurpers in Britain’, Britannia 31 (2000): 325–45, to redate the Rhine crossing from the traditional 31 December 406 to 405.
    [234] Orosius, Hist . 7.37.13–16.
    [235] Olympiodorus, frag. 7.2 (Blockley) = 5 (Müller).
    [236] Olympiodorus, frag. 3 (Blockley) = 2 (Müller).
    [237] Olympiodorus, frag. 5.1 (Blockley) = 2 (Müller); Sozomen, HE 9.4; Philostorgius, HE 12.3.
    [238] Zosimus, HN 5.35.5–6.
    [239] Zosimus, HN 5.36.1–3.
    [240] Sozomen, HE 9.6–7.
    [241] Olympiodorus, frag. 7.3 (Blockley) = 6 (Müller); Zosimus, HN 5.38.
    [242] Sozomen, HE 9.7.
    [243] Zosimus, HN 5.46.1.
    [244] Zosimus, HN 5.45–51; Sozomen, HE 9.7.
    [245] On Olympiodorus, one should consult A. Gillett, ‘The date and circumstances of Olympiodorus of Thebes’, Traditio 48 (1993): 1–29.
    [246] Olympiodorus, frag. 14 (Blockley) = 13 (Müller); Sozomen, HE 9.8.
    [247] Sozomen, HE 9.8 has the former, Zosimus, HN 6.12.2 the latter. Both were drawing on Olympiodorus, but it is unclear which version better transmits the original.
    [248] Sozomen, HE 9.9.2–3; Philostorgius, HE 12.3.
     
Epilogue: The Aftermath of Alaric
     
    [249] Orosius, Hist . 7.39.4–14.
    [250] Sozomen, HE 9.9.5.
    [251] Olympiodorus, frag. 25 (Blockley) = 25 (Müller).
    [252] Rutilius Namatianus, De reditu suo 1.140.
    [253] Olympiodorus, frag. 16 (Blockley) = 15 (Müller).
    [254] Jordanes, Get . 158.
    [255] Sozomen, HE 9.9.1.