Empires and Barbarians (111 page)

73
For Maximus’ revolt, see Eunapius fr. 55; Zosimus 4.45.3, 48–9. Alaric of course led the revolt after the Eugenius campaign. The arguments of Kulikowski (2002) and Halsall (2007), 187–93 comment neither on the Maximus revolt nor on the significance suggested by the exact chronology of the banquet quarrel.

74
Orosius 7.35.19 (casualties confirmed at Zosimus 4.58). Neither Kulikowski (2002) nor Halsall (2007), 187–93 discusses this backdrop to the Gothic revolt.

75
In recent times, we have seen one successful example of this kind of diplomatic strategy in the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland, and one so far unsuccessful example in the Oslo Accords on the Middle East.

76
Zosimus 5.5.5ff.

77
Themistius,
Orations
16.211.c–d.

78
Whether this made any practical difference to Alaric’s position in Illyricum in the short term is unclear; having been commanding general there, he was perhaps in a position to retain control of the levers of power.

79
For this argument in more detail, see Heather (forthcoming).

80
See in more detail Heather (1991),
chapter 6
.

81
Fravittas, Sarus and Modares:
PLRE
1, 605; 372–3. On the 402 battle, see Claudian,
VI cons. Hon.
229ff.; cf. Cameron (1970), 186–7.

82
It disappeared to the extent that of the sources that discuss the events of 376, only Ammianus knew there were originally two separate groups of Goths. In my view, both Greuthungi and Tervingi were settled under the treaty of 382 and Alaric’s revolt in 395 involved and definitively united both. An alternative view sees the unification happening when Alaric summoned his brother-in-law Athaulf from Pannonia in 408: Zosimus 5.37.1ff.

83
Zosimus 5.35.5–6.
Pace
Kulikowski (2002), it is hard to see who this large body of barbarian soldiery in Roman service was, if not mainly the 12,000 followers of Radagaisus drafted by Stilicho: Olympiodorus fr. 9.

84
Heather (1991), 151ff. looks to unravel Zosimus’ confusions.

85
Gothic subgroups were destroyed by Frigeidus (Ammianus 31.9), Sebastianus (Ammianus 31.11) and Modares (Zosimus 4.25), and there is no reason to think this a comprehensive list. On this process in general, see Heather (1991), 213–14, 223–4, 314ff.

86
Zosimus 5.45.3; cf. Liebeschuetz (1990), 75ff.; Kulikowski (2002).

87
Exactly how much larger this Gothic force was involves a huge amount of guesswork, but if it is right to calculate the military manpower of fourth-century Gothic units at around 10,000, then the Visigoths who formed around Alaric could certainly field at least twice this number of soldiers, and possibly between three and four times as many.

88
Victor of Vita,
History of the Persecutions
1.2.

89
Hydatius,
Chronicle
77 [86].

90
On the mid-410s: Hydatius,
Chronicle
59–60 [67–8]; on the 420s: ibid. 69 [77]; on the 440s and 460s: Heather (2005), 289ff. and 390ff.

91
Suevi: Hydatius,
Chronicle
63 [71]. Alans: see the convenient listings of Bachrach (1973).

1
Jordanes,
Getica
50.261–2.

2
Uldin’s Huns and Sciri: Sozomen,
Historia Ecclesiastica
9.5;
Codex Theodosianus
5.6.3. Huns’ Gothic subjects in 427: Theophanes AM 5931; cf. Procopius,
Wars
3.2.39–40, with Croke (1977). The date could be either 421 or 427. The best general survey of Attila’s subject peoples is Pohl (1980).

3
See Maenchen-Helfen (1973),
chapters 8
–
9
, who also notes that leaders like Attila could easily have had ‘proper’ Hunnic names as well as Germanic nicknames; Attila means ‘little father’ in Germanic.

4
Ammianus 31.2.1–2; Zosimus 4.20.3–5 (cf. Eunapius fr. 42); Jordanes,
Getica
24.121–2.

5
Ammianus 31.2.3ff.

6
The Alanic digression: Ammianus 31.2; the Saracen digression: Ammianus 14.4. In treating this material, the approach of Maenchen-Helfen (1945) was much more critical than that of Thompson (1995), even though it was Maenchen-Helfen who noticed the meat being placed under saddles. For further comment, and recent bibliography, see G. Kelly (2008),
chapter 2
.

7
For some orientation on nomadism, particularly of the Eurasian-steppe variety, see Cribb (1991); Khazanov (1984); Krader (1963); Sinor (1977), (1990).

8
Bury (1928).

9
Avars: Pohl (1988). Magyars: Bakony (1999).

10
For general accounts, see Thompson (1995); Maenchen-Helfen (1973); cf. Heather (1995a) on relations with Aetius.

11
Attila’s more or less complete indifference to additional territorial gains emerges with striking clarity from the surviving fragments of Priscus’ history.

12
Huns up to 376: Ammianus 31.3. Huns and Alans in 377: Ammianus 31.8.4ff. Huns and Carpo-Dacians: Zosimus 4.35.6.

13
‘Improvised leaders’: Ammianus 31.2.7. Jordanes does place a Hunnic king called Balamber in this era, but these are really events of c.450 and Balamber is in fact the Gothic king Valamer: see Heather (1989), and p. 234 above.

14
Uldin: Sozomen,
Historia Ecclesiastica
9.5, with further comment and full references in Heather (1995a). Analogous phenomena occurred in the Viking era, when leaders thrown up in the first generation of small-scale expansion were quickly subdued as larger numbers under more important leaders joined in the flow: see
Chapter 9
.

15
Olympiodorus fr. 19; cf. Priscus fr. 11.2, p. 259 (on the Akatziri).

16
On the Huns’ bow, see Heather (2005), 154–8, with further references.

17
For some calculations based on grazing room on the Great Hungarian Plain, see Lindner (1981). On the great raid of 395, see Maenchen-Helfen (1973), 51–9.

18
On nomad devolution in general, see the literature cited in note 7 above.

19
See Heather (2005), 325ff., with full references.

20
Procopius,
Wars
8.5 seems to preserve by an indirect route the story originally told by the contemporary Eunapius, which was cast after Herodotus 5.9 (on the Sigynnae).

21
On the third-century Heruli, see
Chapter 3
. Sciri: Zosimus 4.35.6. Rugi: Tacitus,
Germania
43. On likely placements within the Middle Danubian region, see Pohl (1980).

22
We will return to the Amal-led contingent in more detail. Bigelis: Jordanes,
Romana
336. For the third group under Dengizich’s control, see Priscus fr. 49.

23
Dengizich:
PLRE
2, 354–5. Hernac: Jordanes,
Getica
50.266, with
PLRE
2, 400–1. Hormidac:
PLRE
2, 571. Bigelis: see previous note.

24
Jordanes,
Getica
50.264. Pohl (1980) suggests – in a compromise – that the Amal-led Goths may have moved at this point only from Transylvania. Much ink has been spilled on the relationship between the surviving Gothic history of Jordanes and the Gothic history of one Cassiodorus, which we know to have been written down at Theoderic’s court in Italy. In my view, the textual evidence indeed
suggests that Jordanes worked using Cassiodorus’ text (as he claims) and I find the various conspiracy theories that have been offered against this unconvincing: see Heather (1991),
chapter 2
; Heather (1993). The archaeological evidence for such a late Gothic move to the Middle Danube is indecisive. Kazanski (1991) has placed the end of the Cernjachov culture as late as c.450, but this is not the usual view, and the argument is essentially circular since it is based on Jordanes’ report that there were still Goths east of the Carpathians at this date.

25
Odovacar:
PLRE
2, 791–3. On the Balkan adventures of the Amal-led Goths, see Heather (1991), part 3.

26
For full references, see
PLRE
2, 457 and 484–5.

27
The Lombards should strictly be called Langobards. The narrative source is Paul the Deacon,
History of the Lombards
1.19. For modern commentary, see e.g. Christie (1995); Jarnut (2003); Pohl and Erhart (2005).

28
Procopius,
Wars
6.14–15. Cf. Pohl (1980): the archaeological evidence suggests that the Gepids were slowly expanding south into Transylvania at this point.

29
An earlier exception would be the Goths rescued from Hunnic domination in 427: see note 2 above. These may also be the same as the Thracian Goths, as we shall shortly see. The Gepids too engaged in expansion within the region: see previous note.

30
‘He was a Greek trader . . .’: Priscus fr. 11.2.422–35. Edeco:
PLRE
2, 385–6.

31
You can tell how people were dressed by where they wore their safety pins, which is all that tends to survive of clothing in most graves. Possible reasons for archaeological invisibility can range from the dramatic (where bodies are left exposed to the elements and wild animals) to the prosaic (cremation followed by scattering of ashes), or the generation of customs where bodies are buried without any chronologically identificatory gravegoods (something which often makes medieval cemeteries undatable in northern Europe once populations convert to Christianity). The horizons of the Hunnic Middle Danube are differentiated from one another by slight changes in the manner in which broadly similar sets of gravegoods were decorated. In chronological order (and there are overlaps between them), the sequence starts with the Villafontana horizon, succeeded in turn by those of Untersiebenbrunn and Domolospuszta/Bacsordas. For introductions to this material, see Bierbrauer (1980), (1989); Kazanski (1991); Tejral (1999). There are excellent illustrations in Wolfram (1985).

32
Many of the Germanic groups of central Europe had practised cremation in the first to the third century, but inhumation was already spreading more widely before the arrival of the Huns.

33
Historical sources do occasionally supply enough information, however, which can be used in conjunction with the archaeological evidence approximately to identify some particular groups.

34
See most recently Halsall (2007), 474–5; for a similar view of the Avar Empire, see Pohl (1988), with Pohl (2003).

35
Priscus fr. 14.

36
Priscus fr. 11.2, p. 259. See
Chapter 4
for the Tervingi and Greuthungi; cf. the junior status and grimmer treatment handed out to the Sciri after Uldin’s defeat: see above, note 2.

37
For references, see note 2 above; and see p. 248.

38
Priscus fr. 2, p. 225.

39
Priscus fr. 2, p. 227.

40
Priscus fr. 2, p. 227.

41
Priscus fr. 49.

42
The Romans provided Attila with a succession of secretaries, and a prisoner called Rusticius wrote the odd letter (Priscus fr. 14, p. 289). This governmental machine could keep lists of renegade princes who had fled to the Romans, and could keep track of the supplies required from subject groups, but little more. Akatziri: Priscus fr. 11.2, p. 259. Goths: Priscus fr. 49.

43
Jordanes,
Getica
48.246–51, with Heather (1989), (1996), 113–17, 125–6.

44
Gepids: Jordanes,
Getica
50.260–1.

45
Franks: Priscus: fr. 20.3. Akatziri: see note 42 above. Of the subject groups in between, the most dominated were apparently the Goths who appear in Priscus fr. 49, part of which is quoted above; the least dominated were the Gepids, who led the revolt against Attila’s sons (see previous note). In between were the Pannonian Goths of Valamer: see note 43 above.

46
Miracles of St Demetrius
II.5.

47
See e.g. Agadshanow (1994).

48
For further discussion, see Heather (2005), 324ff., with references.

49
As we have seen, modern anthropological evidence indicates that the most you will sometimes find in such circumstances is that a very few particular items have significance for signalling group identity, but that does not mean that the group identity is in any sense unreal: above, p. 26, after, in particular, Hodder (1982).

50
While Attila could extract annual subsidies measured in thousands of kilos of gold, the most that even a successful Hunnic successor group like the Amal-led Goths could manage was three hundred: Priscus fr. 37.

51
Jordanes,
Getica
50.265–6. Jordanes himself came from this Balkan military milieu, and there is every reason to suppose this catalogue correct. When exactly in the 450s or 460s these settlements occurred is not clear: that of Hernac is firmly dated to the later 460s, however, and it may be that they all belong to the post-465 meltdown of Hunnic power that also saw moves into Roman territory by Bigelis and Hormidac. Hernac’s willingness to have his power base broken up might explain why he was treated more favourably than Dengizich (see note 23 above).

52
Jordanes,
Getica
53.272; cf. Agathias 2.13.1ff.

53
Paul the Deacon,
History of the Lombards
2.26ff.; cf. Jarnut (2003). It is a consistent theme both within Paul’s narrative and some of the other early Lombard texts that victory led to the inclusion of warriors in the group, but not always on terms of equality: see e.g.
Origo Gentis Langobardorum
2 (as
aldii
: ‘half-free’);
History of the Lombards
1.20, 1.27, 5.29.

54
Goths: Heather (1996), Appendix 1. Lombards: ibid., and see previous note. See also
Chapter 2
above.

55
Lombards: see e.g. Jarnut (2003), who argues that kingship among the Lombards may have been a temporary phenomenon restricted to the leading of expeditions. Goths: Heather (1989), (1996),
chapters 8
–
9
.