Aetius Attila’s Nemesis Read online

  The latter promotion would have resulted in the acquisition of a relatively large amount of political rank for one so young. As will be seen, this would be important for the next stage in Aetius’ career, but the appointment also demonstrates the high rank and political influence of Gaudentius.

  The Civil Service

  Following in his father’s footsteps, Aetius was placed in a military post. This is significant since during this period the ‘bureaucracy’ of the empire had earlier been divided between the ‘military’ and the ‘civil’. Despite the change, the civil service, or militia officialis, was always classed as part of the army, wearing military uniform, receiving rations, bearing the old, ‘non-commissioned’ ranks of the army and being entered on the rolls of ‘fictive’ units. For example, all clerks of the praetorian prefecture were enrolled in Legio I Adiutrix, a unit that had long ago ceased to exist as a military formation.13 The top civilian post was the Praefectus Praetorio (Praetorian Prefect). The Prefects acted as the emperor’s representatives, governing in his name with legal, administrative and financial powers. Yet these were not the only powerful individuals at court.

  The earlier consistorium (‘consistory’, council) had consisted of any individual ministers that the emperor wanted to consult about a specific topic. Probably by the date of Aetius’ birth this had become more of a formal body with specific duties.14 It was replaced by the proceres palatii (‘notables of the palace’), sometimes simply known as the palatium (‘palace’). As its name implies, this was formed largely from those individuals whose employment kept them in close proximity to the emperor. Closest to the emperor, at least physically, was his personal household. Included in this category were the protectores et domestici (‘corps of officer cadets’). From an early age Aetius was at the heart of the imperial court.

  Of more importance were the principal imperial ministers whose support and advice would be of great consequence to the emperor. Amongst the most powerful of these men were the magister officiorum (‘master of offices’) and the comes sacrarum largitionum (‘count of the sacred largesses’). The magister officiorum had many duties, including command of the agentes in rebus (‘imperial couriers’) and control of the scholae (‘imperial bodyguard’). He also controlled the officia dispositionum and admissionum, and so managed the emperor’s timetable and audiences. The comes sacrarum largitionum was in charge of finances, controlling the precious metal mines, the mints, and all revenue and expenditure in coin.15 These individuals each commanded a large number of men who served as rei privatae (‘private secretaries’). They tended to be fiercely competitive and protective of their powers, rights and privileges.

  All or any of these men could expect to be consulted by the emperor on important issues concerning their special field, and in the case of the most powerful individuals with regards to the whole running of the empire. Yet the delineation between these posts, especially at the top, was relatively narrow, and as a result often overlapped. This tended to cause friction between the top ministers of the empire.16

  The Army

  The civil service accounted for only a tiny fraction of the population of the empire and a career in it appears to have been seen as a means of self-promotion and security. The same cannot be said of the army. The army was restructured at the same time as the civil service. Although sometimes perceived as a precursor to modern military hierarchies, care must be taken when looking at the organization and the apparent modernity it represents.

  This is nowhere borne out more than in the Notitia Dignitatum.17 This massive document lists the postholders of the Roman army in a very hierarchical structure, with lower ranks apparently responsible to their superior. Although this is a very easy assumption to make, in reality things were not necessarily as they appear.

  The emperor was the undisputed head of the armed forces. However, as events of the third century had shown, he could not be at all points where danger threatened, and from the reign of Valentinian and Valens the empire was permanently ruled by two different emperors at separate courts in the east and west. In the West, as time passed the command of the army moved away from the emperor and devolved upon the newly created magister peditum (‘master of the infantry’) and magister equitum (‘master of the cavalry’). In the course of time the magister peditum became the more senior of the two posts. Yet the magister peditum had a major problem. The series of civil wars fought by Theodosius I at the end of the fourth century had greatly weakened the western army. Stilicho, Constantius III and their successors would always be short of the manpower necessary to re-establish fully the dominion of the West.

  Finance and Taxation

  In the fifth century inflation was still rampant in the West, despite the reforms of Diocletian (284–305) and Constantine I (306–337) and other attempts to calm matters by later emperors. Although these had resulted in the stabilization of the gold economy, lower-denomination coins continued to be debased. Furthermore, the coins for the West were being produced by only six official mints: Trier, Lyon and Arles in Gaul, Sirmium in Pannonia, and Aquileia and Rome in Italy.

  In earlier centuries coins had been common items, their distribution largely being initiated by payments to the army, from where they had spread throughout the local economy. However, the cost of the army had taken its toll and in this later period there is some evidence of units not being paid, whilst in the late fourth century the troops began to be paid in kind rather than in coin.18 The change from a monetary system to one based upon agricultural production would have aggravated the preexisting economic instability and so ensured that many individuals became disenchanted with Roman rule.

  To exacerbate further feelings of unhappiness, many of the larger landowners – including some of the richest people in the empire – were exempted from the payment of many of the taxes. It would have been galling for the poorer members of society to note that the rich avoided having to pay taxes. Even where they did have to pay, the taxes were not progressive: the rich paid the same amount as the poor, leading to a further increase in the sense of disenfranchisement amongst the lower and middle classes.

  Yet despite these difficulties, the empire continued to survive. This was thanks largely to the fact that a proportion of the state’s income came from public lands. These lands, either deserted thanks to the passage of war or confiscated from ‘traitors’ and pagan temples, or lying intestate or unexploited, were appropriated by the state and leased out by bailiffs to peasants, so ensuring a slow, steady trickle of money into the imperial coffers.19

  This money was supplemented by taxes on mines, quarries and on the mints themselves, but these provided only a limited amount of revenue. As a result, the empire was forced to rely on the taxation of the poor and the middle classes, and only attempted to coerce the senatorial aristocracy to provide funds at times of dire emergency, as will be seen during the course of this book.

  The Citizens

  It is possible to see the later empire as one in which the divisions within society contributed to the fall of the West. Over time the rich became wealthier. This was partly because many farmers were forced to sell their lands or their service to the rich to fulfil their tax obligations. Consequently, the rich greatly increased their holdings and wealth whilst many of the poorer people were forced into poverty and entered a patron–client arrangement with local political or military officials. The officials came to be given the name potentes to distinguish them from their clients. The net result of these developments was the creation of a ‘submerged economy’ and ‘the formation of social groups no longer in contact with the state’.20

  Where the more powerful individuals also lost faith in the empire, or where service was deemed worthless, they turned to the church. This is the period during which the church cemented its position of authority and also copied the administrative structure of the empire, an organization that exists to this day. The civilian bureaucracy (militia officialis) and the army (militia armata) were joined by the (militia C
hristi) ‘soldiers of Christ’.21 Although this helped the church to prosper and grow, the result was a loss of manpower to both the bureaucratic and military arms of the empire. Individuals wishing to evade their responsibility as functionaries of the state instead joined the clergy, sometimes as bishops and men of great ecclesiastical and political power, but where these options were not available simply as monks.22

  There were two main outcomes to these changes. One was that the wealthy came to hold power greatly disproportionate to their numbers. Once ensconced in their position, these same men tended to use their influence to protect their own interests rather than those of the state. An example of their influence may be seen in the repeated elevation of usurpers in outlying provinces to the role of ‘emperor’.

  Linked to this change is the fact that over a long period of time there was a transfer of loyalty. In the earlier empire bonds of loyalty had run from the poor to the wealthy to the aristocracy and finally to the emperor. In the late third and early fourth centuries many of the wealthy and the aristocracy entered the church. The bonds then ran from the poor to the wealthy to the church. The emperor was eliminated from the equation and loyalties reverted from the abstract empire to the more concrete person of the local bishop. The church replaced the empire as the focus of people’s lives.

  At the opposite end of the spectrum is the rise of the bacaudae – by the fifth century the term bacaudae, rather than usurpation, was used for any uprising against the empire where there was no leader aiming at becoming emperor – in the West. The origin and nature of the bacaudae remains unclear, but it would seem that when it began the phenomenon was mainly one of armed ‘uprisings’ by peasants in the less-Romanized areas of Gaul and Spain. The movement may have been enlarged, if not started, as a result of poorer peasants taking up arms to protect themselves and/or survive. The first uprising under the name bacaudae was c.283–284, when Gallic peasants rebelled against their treatment.23

  The main cause of unrest may have been the laws that tied people to their places of residence and jobs.24 In Gaul there was another reason for dissatisfaction. In the early fifth century the Praetorian Prefect moved from Trier in the north to Arles in the south. The move alienated a large part of northern Gaul and all of Britain, since it reinforced the concept that the emperor and his court were more concerned with the core of the empire and that those provinces on the northern periphery would, as a consequence, be neglected.25 Furthermore, the emperor moved his court from Milan, where it was easily accessible from Gaul, to Ravenna, where access from northern Gaul and Britain was poor. The move helped to alienate the indigenous aristocracy of the north west of the empire who were already tempted to join the church rather than serve the empire.

  The result of unpopular laws, civil wars, movements of political centres and barbarian invasions, was a tendency for the poor and unprotected to begin to cluster more tightly to the heads of their families, and they in turn to their aristocratic master or to the local warlord.26 As a result, it is logical to assume that the bacaudae were uprisings where the local inhabitants, probably including members of the local lower aristocracy, decided to secede from the empire and follow their own path, much as the British had done during the earlier reign of Honorius.27

  As the empire slowly began to withdraw its influence from the northern borders, the Germanic tribes slowly began to increase theirs. The Franks, for example, were beginning the gradual widening of their influence over northern Gaul, yet for the most part this was a very gradual process and the full effects would not be felt until some time in the future.

  CONCLUSION

  During the course of the early-fifth century the empire in the west came under increasing pressure from three sources. Possibly the least of these was the risk of usurpations within the empire, since the loss of Britain, the major source of usurping generals, greatly reduced the threat. The second was that barbarians both inside and outside the empire no longer took part in raids simply for financial gain. Instead, their leaders were intent on gaining land and prestige within the empire. In hindsight, this was the greatest threat to the survival of the west. Finally, there was the growing danger of large parts of the west seceding from the empire and following their own courses. The loss of Britain in this way provided a model for secessionists, but Britain had never been vital to the security of the empire: Africa, Gaul and Spain were.

  * Unless otherwise stated, all dates are AD.

  Chapter 2

  Aetius the Hostage*

  STILICHO

  In 394 Theodosius I won the Battle of the Frigidus and re-united the empire. Following Theodosius’ death in 395 Stilicho took control of the West. He disbanded the foederati (‘foreign’ troops, especially Goths: see Chapter 4) who had fought for Theodosius at the battle. Feeling that their services deserved more reward, almost immediately these troops rebelled under the leadership of Alaric. Alaric and the Goths would remain free agents for the remainder of Stilicho’s rule.

  After twice fighting Stilicho, Alaric took service with the East, being given the post of magister militum per Illyricum. However, feeling that he was becoming politically isolated, in 401 Alaric invaded Italy. After laying siege to Aquileia and Milan, Alaric attempted to cross the Alps into Gaul. Before he could do so he was caught outside Pollentia and narrowly defeated by Stilicho. Alaric agreed to a peace treaty and retreated across the north of Italy towards Illyricum. When in the neighbourhood of Verona Alaric made one last attempt to cross the Alps and reach softer targets further in the west. Stilicho acted quickly and this time Alaric was defeated more heavily. With many of his men defecting and joining Stilicho, Alaric was forced to resume his march to Illyricum, finally being settled in the West’s portion of the diocese in a minor military post.

  Illyricum

  In 404 Stilicho, who from the start had wanted to be guardian for Arcadius in the East, was forced to accept that this would never happen. Instead, he sent envoys to Constantinople with the lesser claim that Theodosius was planning to return the whole of the prefecture of Illyricum to the West before he died.1 Needless to say, this damaged East–West relations.

  As relations deteriorated, Stilicho began to make plans for the forcible annexation of Illyricum. Part of these plans involved using Alaric’s forces to help in the invasion. There followed negotiations between Stilicho and Alaric concerning the possible invasion. Obviously, Stilicho wanted to be sure that once Alaric was in Illyricum he would not simply devastate the prefecture on his own initiative, claiming that he was acting under orders from Stilicho. Conversely, Alaric wanted to ensure that this was not simply a plan by Stilicho to get rid of Alaric. After all, once Alaric had invaded Illyricum, Stilicho could easily announce that Alaric was a traitor and that the invasion was nothing to do with the west.

  It would appear that agreement was reached, and to secure the arrangements hostages were exchanged. The names of the hostages given by Alaric are unknown, but Alaric specifically demanded that he was given Jason, son of Jovius (an extremely powerful individual, as will be seen), and Aetius, who was probably in his mid teens.2

  The taking of hostages now has an extremely negative association. Modern-day hostages are taken against their will and held to ransom, usually for either money or for political gain. In the ancient world the exchange of hostages was a standard method of demonstrating that the two parties were in full accord and that they were intent on keeping to the agreements made. As a result, it was expected that hostages were individuals of rank and distinction, demonstrating the two parties’ faith in each other. That Aetius was asked for by name reveals that Gaudentius, like Jovius, was a highly respected and powerful individual within Stilicho’s private circle.

  For the Romans, the taking of hostages in such matters was an extremely important factor in ‘international’ relations. Rome expected to receive important hostages, and especially the sons and heirs of the leading men within the opposition forces. In this way the Romans hoped to be able to impress and educat
e the next generation of barbarian leaders in the superiority of Rome, so making political allies for the future.

  Radagaisus

  Over the winter of 405–406 the two armies prepared for an invasion that did not happen. In late 405 the Goth Radagaisus led a large number of people – allegedly 400,000 – over the Alps into Italy.3 The empire was paralyzed with fear, and for a time Stilicho remained with the troops at Ticinum.4 Once in Italy, Radagaisus divided his forces into three. When the campaign season of 406 began Stilicho moved against him.5 Taken by surprise, Radagaisus was forced to retreat to the heights around Faesulae, where he was captured and executed. The other two groups were quickly defeated and the remnants driven out of Italy.

  Stilicho returned to his plan for an attack upon Illyricum. He promoted Alaric to the post of magister militum per Illyricum, and Jovius, of whom little is known prior to this, was made praefectus praetoriano Illyrici and sent to join Alaric. In early 407 Stilicho ordered Alaric to march to Epirus before awaiting the arrival of Stilicho with troops from the Italian army.6 The plan was for the combined force to annex the whole of the prefecture of Illyricum for the West. Aetius doubtless accompanied Alaric, but Stilicho would never join the invasion.