Aetius Attila’s Nemesis Page 25

  Reassured that the Goths would not now attack him under orders from Aetius, in February 449 Rechiarus plundered the territories of the Vasconiae (Basques).39 At around the same time, Censorius, the envoy who had been captured by the Sueves in Martylis in 440, was ‘assassinated’ by Agiulfus. Agiulfus may have been one of the Gothic envoys and the act may have been a dramatic signal that the treaties with the Romans were now considered to be over.40

  Probably in an associated move, and ‘to show his outstanding daring’, an individual named Basilius ‘gathered together bacaudae and killed federates in the church of Tyriasso (Tarazona)’.41 Situated close to the area of Rechiarius’ attack, it is likely that the two ‘uprisings’ were co-ordinated.

  That these attacks were co-ordinated is proved by the fact that in July Rechiarius visited his new father-in-law in Gaul, but on the return journey he joined with Basilius and they pillaged the territory around Caesaraugusta, capturing the city of Ilerda with ‘trickery’ (see Map 13).42 Since Theoderic now had a marriage alliance with Rechiarius, Aetius, who had previously relied on Gothic reinforcements for the campaigns in Spain, would be forced to rely solely on Roman troops.43 Yet with Spain in a renewed upheaval, Aetius was faced with a trickier situation at court in Ravenna.

  Attila and Chrysapius

  In the east, Chrysapius, eunuch and spatharius (bodyguard) to Theodosius, instigated a plot to murder Attila.44 Chrysapius had slowly risen to power over the preceding years and by 449 was the leading figure in the East. Unfortunately for him, Attila discovered the plot and attempted to extradite Chrysapius for punishment. Due to Chrysapius’ superior position at court the attempt failed, and an embassy sent to Attila comprising Anatolius and Nomus, the latter being a loyal supporter of Chrysapius, managed to smooth things over. However, the incident hardened opposition to Chrysapius, and his enemies, especially Pulcheria, looked to weaken his position.

  Yet that was not Attila’s only infuriating problem. As part of the earlier treaty with Attila, Aetius had sent a Gaul named Constantius to act as Attila’s secretary. This Constantius had allegedly taken some golden bowls from Attila and sent them to a Roman banker named Silvanus. Attila now demanded that Silvanus be handed over to him.45

  450

  In hindsight the story of these continuous wars and the information that the West was bankrupt can lead to the assumption that what was needed at this time was imperial unity and the joining together of all imperial peoples to use whatever means was necessary to claw back the lost ground and restore the empire to its previous glory. Yet despite the fact that the West was in disarray, life for the moneyed classes continued as normal. Two laws passed in May 450 demonstrate that personal interests dominated over imperial ones: due to the focus on the wars by the government, unscrupulous tax collectors were being allowed to defraud the taxpayer, and there were problems collecting the taxes from Sardinia.46 The situation was made worse by the fact that in 450 there was a famine in Italy, although the precise causes are unknown.47

  However, these were not the worst events for Aetius. Either in 449 or in 450 Honoria, sister of Valentinian, was:

  caught in a clandestine affair with a certain Eugenius . . . He was executed for the crime, and she was betrothed to Herculanus, a man of consular rank and of . . . good character. [In response, she] . . . sent the eunuch Hyacinthus to Attila offering him money to avenge her marriage. She also sent her ring as her pledge to the barbarian.

  Prisc. fr. 17 = Joh. Ant. fr. 199,2 = Exc. De Ins. 8448

  Although this claim has been doubted, it is almost certain that the event happened.49 Several interpretations are possible, but probably the correct interpretation of the passage is that Honoria was disgraced and betrothed to Herculanus, a man deemed to be safe from imperial pretensions, but a man in whom she had no interest. As a result, she petitioned members of the court for help. When this was not forthcoming, since the courtiers were either supporters of Valentinian or Aetius, both of whom appear to have agreed upon her marriage, she sought elsewhere for aid. The only other individual of any political or military standing who could possibly help her was Attila, who since the treaty of 443 was an ‘honorary’ magister militum. As a result, she offered him gold to take her side in the disagreement at court.

  The act of attempting to enlist the aid of a barbarian is usually interpreted as a betrayal, since in hindsight the effects of her request were to be calamitous. This is a mistake. In the first place, Attila was an imperial officer and her last resort. Secondly, this was not the first time that a member of the court had appealed to the Huns for help against their opponents at court: Aetius owed his career to that ability. Finally, Honoria’s mother had actually been married to a ‘barbarian’: Alaric’s brother-in-law and successor Athaulf.50 There was a family tradition of dealing with ‘barbarian’ individuals only indirectly connected with the court.

  As proof of her identity, Honoria also sent her ring with the messenger. This gesture mirrored a common act of giving a specific personal item to the messenger as proof that the bearer was acting on the sender’s behalf. In return, Honoria will have expected Attila simply to make a threat for the engagement to be annulled.

  Furious, Valentinian now had to decide what to do with his sister Honoria. Messengers arrived from Theodosius advising that she be sent to Attila. However, the prolonged pleas for clemency from Placidia, the mother of Valentinian and Honoria, finally bore fruit. Honoria was banished from court and surrendered to the custody of Placidia.

  Before any other action could be taken, events in the East again intervened. The emperor Theodosius injured his spine after falling from his horse.51 Despite the best efforts of his physicians, on 28 July he died in Constantinople at the age of forty-nine.52 The only surviving male member of the House of Theodosius was Valentinian in the West.

  Claim to the Throne

  According to Priscus, Valentinian now decided that he wanted to be the emperor of both East and West: the first emperor of a united empire since Theodosius I in 395.53 Although unsubstantiated elsewhere, the claim may be true. As the last male heir to the throne, Valentinian almost certainly saw himself as the only valid claimant to the Eastern Empire. The East was in a far stronger financial position than the West and a large infusion of money may have helped the West to reconquer some lost areas and so stave off the West’s terminal bankruptcy. Yet if it is true, the claim was not transmitted to the East. Without an obvious heir, Pulcheria, the sister of Theodosius II, would soon lose her position of political independence. As a result, she decided to raise her own emperor and so ensure her continuation in power. Her choice fell on Marcian, the man who had been captured by Gaiseric in Africa in 432. He was immediately summoned and on 26 August 450 was crowned the forty-second emperor at Constantinople with the consent and approval of the Senate and the army. Marcian immediately married Pulcheria, so ensuring that he was seen as part of the Theodosian dynasty.54 With the death of Theodosius, Chrysapius had lost his only means of support and shortly afterwards he was beheaded by the order of Pulcheria, so one bone of contention with Attila was removed.55

  Again according to Priscus, at this point Valentinian wanted to lead an army to Constantinople ‘to remove Marcian from his throne’.56 Aetius disagreed, and Priscus claims that this disagreement was a major cause of Valentinian’s unhappiness with Aetius’ domination.

  Yet the claim that Valentinian wanted to invade the East is unlikely. The East was much stronger both militarily and financially than the West and would have easily been able to defeat any ‘invasion’ by Valentinian. Furthermore, by 450 the court and bureaucracy of the East had a long tradition of separation from that of the West. A unified empire would, theoretically at least, result in a united court. Many powerful officials would have lost power, or at least had their influence reduced by the arrival of the Western Emperor. Although in hindsight the possibilities are tantalising, in reality the Eastern court would not accept the imposition of Valentinian as emperor in Constantinople.57


  Marcian

  With the elevation of Marcian there was an immediate change in policy in the East. Unlike his imperial predecessors, who had been forced to rely from a young age upon ministers and generals, Marcian was a mature individual who had spent his career rising through the ranks of the army. His confidence in his military abilities was high and he had no fear that a strong magister militum would force him to relinquish the reigns of power, as had happened in the West. As a result, one of his first decisions was to put a halt to the paying of subsidies to the Huns, and messengers were sent to Attila informing him of the new regime.

  Only a few months later Placidia, Valentinian’s mother, also died and was buried in the monastery of St Nazarius at Ravenna.58 She had supported Valentinian throughout his rule and had been the power behind the throne for the last quarter of a century, whenever possible guarding her son from outside political interference. Although she appears to have been an opponent of Aetius at the beginning, the lack of opposition to his dominance implies that she was later reconciled to him, especially after she became convinced that he was not aiming to either take the throne himself or to remove Valentinian and replace him with his own nominee. As a result, it is possible that in her later years she actually supported him. It should be acknowledged, though, that she may never have reconciled with Aetius, but was unable to muster enough support to oust him.59 With her death Valentinian now became susceptible to political machinations at court.

  Consequently, Attila received two pieces of news in quick succession. The first was that Theodosius had died and that Marcian, the new, more militant emperor of the East, was not going to pay the subsidies Attila expected. The second was Honoria’s request for help.60

  Chapter 13

  Crisis*

  450

  The request from Honoria wasn’t the only diplomatic activity in the west in which Attila was embroiled. The king of the Franks had died. At an unknown date his younger son had been sent on an embassy to Rome. He had been befriended by Aetius, who had adopted him as his son, promised to support him in his claim to the throne and then sent him home laden with gifts.1 This was a shrewd move by Aetius. An alliance with the Franks would eliminate the need to station troops in the north east of Gaul and allow him to use them in other theatres of war. Further, the alliance would result in the Franks themselves protecting the northern frontiers against tribes from further inside Germania. When the Frankish king died, the younger son seized the throne. The support of Aetius had proved to be decisive, so the elder son of the Frankish king decided to appeal to the only power that could oppose Aetius. He went to Attila and asked for the Hun’s support in his claim to the throne.2 Any attempt to support the elder son would break Attila’s agreement with the West and precipitate war.

  However, when Honoria’s request arrived, followed by the news that Theodosius had died, Attila saw a way forward. In response to the two envoys, Attila decided to reply in an aggressive fashion. Realizing that Christian ambassadors would have a better chance of achieving his aims than pagans, Attila sent two embassies, both composed of Goths, to Constantinople and to Italy.3

  The embassy to Constantinople was straightforward. Attila demanded the payment of the tribute, plus the missed payments. The Chronicon Paschale also claims that he included the message ‘My master and your master Attila commands you through me to make ready a palace for him.’4 It is unlikely that this is correct, and the concept that Attila believed that he could overthrow the Roman empire is mistaken, especially as the Chronicon Paschale only claims that Attila wanted ‘a’ (singular) palace, not the throne. It is probably better to assume that this is a device used by the author to highlight Attila’s arrogance and pride, and so use it as a counterpoint to his later fall, a popular theme amongst Christian writers.

  Attila’s grasp of political opportunities is nowhere more apparent than with his use of Honoria’s offer. The likelihood is that Honoria was expecting him to use his influence to stop her marriage, much as his predecessors had used theirs to manoeuvre Aetius back into power. Attila appeared to be following her request when he sent envoys to the West demanding that unless Honoria was given ‘the sceptre of sovereignty, he would avenge her’. Unfortunately, Attila also demanded her hand in marriage.5 He had picked on one item and used it to change Honoria’s request into something far more alarming for the west: Attila chose to interpret Honoria’s inclusion of her ring as a proposal of marriage.6

  He was to be disappointed: both of his envoys received a negative reply.7 In the case of the East it was a straight refusal to pay, but with the additional response that if he kept the peace they would give him gifts. From the West came a denial that Honoria could be married to Attila, since she was already engaged to another. Furthermore, the envoy reported that the West had refused Honoria any regal rights to the throne, ‘since the rule of the Roman state belonged not to females but to males’.8

  Calmly accepting the denial of both emperors could have encouraged his rivals to see him as weak and so have precipitated a civil war amongst the Huns and their subjects. Attila was the leader of a ‘vast military machine which demanded action and an influx of rewards, otherwise it could easily turn on him’.9 He had to declare a war. He now had to decide which option to take. Attacking the East was a possibility, but there were three major problems. One was that the provinces that were within reach had been plundered on several occasions in previous years. The likelihood is that the amount of booty he would obtain would be minimal. Furthermore, ravaging already ravaged areas was unlikely to put enough pressure on Marcian to force him to agree to Attila’s terms. Secondly, and more importantly, Marcian was not Theodosius II. Theodosius from a very young age had been at the mercy of warring political groups within the government. Marcian was a mature, strong-willed individual who would not yield to pressure from his courtiers. The political contacts Attila had fostered in Constantinople, and which had almost certainly helped to hinder policy making, had been rendered powerless. Finally, Marcian was a military man. If Attila invaded – unlike his predecessors, who had used the army sparingly to avoid having a ‘military dictatorship’ such as existed in the West – Marcian could gather as many troops as he needed and personally lead them against Attila.

  On the other hand, Attila believed that if he attacked Gaul he was on stronger ground. He could guarantee support from those Franks who supported the older brother of the deceased king. Furthermore, if his political strategy was correct, he could easily divide the nations of the west, especially if he could convince the Goths of Theoderic to abandon their treaty with Rome. This would mean that Aetius’ allies would be limited to only ‘half’ of the Franks and possibly the settled Alans.

  The later historian Jordanes, along with the ‘Chronicle of Fredegar’, claims that at least part of the reason why Attila contemplated the attack on Gaul was because he was bribed by Gaiseric to attack the Goths.10 Allegedly, this is because Gaiseric was afraid that Theoderic would try to avenge his daughter’s earlier mutilation. Obviously, if Theoderic was already at war with the Huns, Gaiseric would be safe. In addition, Priscus claims that Attila attacked Gaul and the Goths partly because he was ‘laying up a store of favour with Gaiseric’.11

  If these claims are true, it would mean that Gaiseric was encouraging the Huns to wage war against the Romans. As a result, the statements are usually dismissed by historians. However, there is one additional piece of information that may hint that at least some of this story is true. In 450 Eudocia reached the age of twelve and according to Roman custom was now allowed to marry. In theory, she should have gone to Carthage to marry Huneric. The fact that she did not may hint at strained relations between Gaiseric and Valentinian – possibly caused by the knowledge that Gaiseric had suggested to Attila that he invade Gaul.12

  In conclusion, although the two claims concerning a Vandal–Hun ‘alliance’ remain a possibility, they must be classed as of doubtful reliability, largely because Gaiseric had no influence over events an
d, despite his control of the sea, would be unable to help Attila in central Gaul. Further, the reasons for Attila wishing to retain Gaiseric’s friendship and alliance are not made clear by Priscus. It is perhaps best to assume that in the confusing times of late 450 and early 451 envoys were travelling throughout the Western Empire and to Attila in the east, including those from the Vandals. What was really said at these meetings was unknown, even at the time, but gossip within the empire may have suggested that the Vandals wanted Attila to invade the West and that Attila agreed with the Vandal envoys who suggested that the softest target for Attila was Gaul. The truth will never be known. Yet whether influenced by Gaiseric or not, Attila now began to send envoys to Italy to talk with Aetius and to Gaul to talk with the Franks, the Alans and with Theoderic, the king of the Goths. Attila’s policy was clearly one of divide and conquer.

  After weighing his options, Attila had decided that war with the west was the better of the two. The East had always been stronger than the West and was now led by a military emperor who was prepared to marshal the forces of the whole East to defeat Attila. Attila knew when to cut his losses. His envoys in Constantinople agreed a treaty with the new emperor, which was ‘surprisingly favourable to Rome’: the concept that this was due to the ‘wisdom of his East Roman interlocutors’ is mistaken.13 Attila simply wanted a peaceful border in the East when he invaded the West. It is possibly during the negotiations for this treaty that Attila complained about the Roman cultivation of those lands five days’ march deep along the Danube between Pannonia and Novae in Thrace, which were supposed to have been left deserted.14

  It was only Aetius’ relationship with Attila’s predecessors that had saved the West from Hunnic attack. Attila knew that attacking Italy would be problematic, since Aetius would be ready to defend the Alps against any attempt to enter Italy, and theoretically Aetius had enough forces to enable him to block the passes. It is possible that before he decided to attack Gaul Attila had attempted to have Aetius removed. However, the accuracy of this claim is uncertain.15