Editing Battle of Naissus (section)

==Sources==
As is often the case in the history of the Roman Empire in the troubled third century, it is very difficult to reconstruct the course of events around the battle of Naissus. Surviving accounts of the period, including [[Zosimus (historian)|Zosimus]]' ''New History'', [[Joannes Zonaras|Zonaras]]' ''Epitome of the Histories'', [[George Syncellus]]' ''Selection of Chronography'', and the ''[[Augustan History]]'', rely principally on the lost history of the Athenian [[Dexippus]]. The text of Dexippus has survived only indirectly, through quotations in the fourth-century ''Augustan History'' and extracts in ninth-century Byzantine compilations.<ref>David S. Potter, p.232&ndash;233</ref> Despite his importance for the period, Dexippus has been declared a "poor" source by the modern historian David S. Potter.<ref>David S. Potter, p.232&ndash;234</ref> To make matters worse, the works making use of Dexippus (and likely another unknown contemporary source) provide an almost radically different interpretation of events.<ref>John Bray, p.283, David S. Potter, p.641&ndash;642, n.4.</ref> The imperial propaganda in the age of [[Constantine the Great|Constantine]]'s dynasty added more confusion by attributing all the calamities to the reign of Gallienus to avoid blemishing the memory of Claudius (supposed ancestor of the dynasty).<ref>David S. Potter, p.266</ref>

As a consequence, controversy still exists on the number of invasions and the order of events and to which reign those events must be attributed.<ref>John Bray, p.279. Also David S. Potter, p.263</ref> Therefore, there is a dispute over who was the Emperor and head of the army at the time of the battle. In 1939, Andreas Alföldi, preferring the single invasion theory, suggested that Gallienus was the only one responsible for defeating the barbarian invasions, including the victory at Naissus.<ref>''The Cambridge Ancient History'', vol 12, chapter 6, p.165&ndash;231, Cambridge University Press, 1939</ref> His view had been broadly accepted since then, but modern scholarship usually attributes the final victory to Claudius II.<ref>John Bray, p.284&ndash;285, Pat Southern, p.109. Also see Alaric Watson, p.215, David S. Potter, p.266, H. Wolfram, p.54</ref> The single invasion theory has been also rejected in favour of the two separate invasions. The narrative below follows the latter view but the reader must be warned that the evidence is too confused for an entirely safe reconstruction.<ref>John Bray, p.286&ndash;288, Alaric Watson, p.216</ref>