by Ian Hughes
Yet there was a more pressing reason for Theodosius to want a quick ending to the war against Gaiseric. In 441, even as the expedition was setting sail, the Persians had attacked Theodosiopolis (Erzerum) and Satala (Sadagh) in the east (see Map 10). The cause of the war was simple. The Romans had begun building and strengthening the defensible frontier system in the east. Furthermore, earlier, the Romans had agreed to subsidize Persian defences at the Caspian Gates, the main area of weakness where the Huns had in 395 crossed into Persian and Roman territory. For internal propaganda purposes the Persians referred to these subsidies as ‘tribute’ and Theodosius, unhappy with the claim, stopped the payments. With Roman defences being built and the subsidy being withheld, the Persians attacked. Aspar and Anatolius may have been sent to deal with the invasion.19 Although the war was of short duration, ending in June 441, it was clear that any attempt to evict the Vandals from Africa could result in the Persians invading the east.20
Unfortunately, the war against the Persians was not the worst event for the East in 441. Whilst the majority of the praesental and Thracian armies were in Sicily, the Huns attacked Thrace.21 When an embassy was sent to ask for the reasons for the attack, Attila and Bleda complained about the actions of the Bishop of Margus, who had allegedly robbed the royal tombs across the frontier. They demanded restitution and that the bishop be handed over.22 When this did not happen, they invaded Thrace, capturing the cities of Viminacium, Singidunum and Naissus in the process (see Map 10).23 The Huns may also have captured Sirmium at this time, although this is not certain.24 When the Bishop of Margus realized that he was about to be handed over, he went to the Huns and offered to betray Margus to them in exchange for his safety. They accepted the deal and duly captured Margus.25 The Huns went on to ‘devastate’ Illyricum.26
At the same time internal rivalries within the Eastern command system also appear to have raised their head. John, a Vandal who was magister militum per Thracias, was ‘treacherously killed by Arnegisclus’, one of his subordinates.27 It is possible that one reason for his death is that he was a Vandal and that his death was a reaction to the Vandal invasion of Africa. However, it is more likely that the execution was part of the internal political fighting in the East and may have been sanctioned by the court in Constantinople.28 His position as magister militum suggests that he was an able soldier, and his death is a clear indication that the war effort against the Huns was to be hampered by internal politics.
Despite the internal problems, Anatolius and Aspar gathered their armies and faced the Huns.29 At this point, and for an unknown reason, Attila and Bleda decided to accept a one-year truce and withdrew from Illyricum.30
Theodosius was now under intense pressure and could not afford to fight a war on more than one front, especially as the war against the Vandals would be fought with troops withdrawn specifically from Thrace. Accordingly, he was willing to agree terms with Gaiseric that would otherwise have been unacceptable. Furthermore, unable to muster enough forces to reconquer Africa on his own due to the ongoing wars in other theatres, Aetius would be forced to accept any treaty agreed by Theodosius.
The Treaty of 442
It is unfortunate that no comprehensive list of the terms of the treaty of 442 still exists. Instead, estimates of the terms have to be made from the fragments that remain in existence. Two of the most important of these are to be found in Prosper and Procopius. The statement in Prosper’s chronicle is very brief:
The Augustus Valentinian made peace with Gaiseric and Africa was divided between the two into distinct territories.
Prosper s.a. 442
The report in Procopius is slightly more detailed, but unfortunately, as seen earlier, it is also slightly confused. It would appear that he has conflated the treaties of 435 and 442, which, given the timescale between the treaties and Procopius’ writing, is understandable:
[Gaiseric] made a treaty with the Emperor Valentinian providing that each year he should pay to the emperor tribute from Libya, and he delivered over one of his sons, Honoric, as a hostage to make this agreement binding.
Procopius 3.4.13
The use of the term ‘Libya’ is clearly from the earlier Treaty of 435, since there is no mention of the Vandals taking Africa Proconsularis and Carthage. However, the paying of ‘tribute’ and the sending of Huneric (Honoric) as ‘hostage’ both appear to refer to the Treaty of 442.
The specific nature of the ‘tribute’ is unknown. However, given that when Gaiseric had first captured Carthage he had cut the supplies of grain to Italy, it is almost certain that the term refers to the restoration and continuation of the grain supply from Africa. Since the provinces in Africa produced a very large excess of grain, this was a small price for Gaiseric to pay in return for being accepted as the ruler of Africa.31
To help cement the treaty, Gaiseric’s son, Huneric, was sent as a hostage to Ravenna. His time in the capital was to be very well spent. Merobaudes describes this period as a success, especially since it resulted in Huneric becoming attached to the imperial family.32 Prior to the reading of Merobaudes’ poems, which occurred some time around the year 443, Huneric had become engaged to Eudocia, daughter of the emperor Valentinian.33 Interestingly, this was in direct contravention of the law passed by Valentinian and Valens and only recently ratified by its inclusion in the Theodosian Code.34 This would not be the first time that a female member of the imperial family had been forced to marry a barbarian: Galla Placidia had been married to Athaulf in 414. It is possible, however, that the betrothal was not a serious proposition but was merely a ruse aimed at ensuring that Gaiseric continued to adhere to the terms of the treaty. If that is true, the betrothal was a counterbalance to Huneric becoming a hostage. Gaiseric may have asked for a daughter of the emperor as counter-hostage to Huneric, but as the imperial family did not exchange hostages from its members, the betrothal did give a modicum of assurance to Gaiseric that his son would be safe.
Although this was most likely a separate agreement from the treaty and represents Huneric’s acceptance at court as much as his father’s capture of Carthage, the betrothal had one immediate side-effect: Huneric’s marriage to the daughter of the Gothic king Theoderic was annulled. Possibly in an attempt to place the blame on her, she was accused of attempting to poison Huneric. In retaliation, she was mutilated – her nose and ears were cut off – and sent back to her father.35 Much to the approval of Aetius, the alliance between the Vandals and the Goths had ended in dramatic fashion. However, since Huneric would now be theoretically in line for the throne, Eudocia’s claim to inheritance was declared ineligible to avoid a barbarian being Valentinian’s heir. Pulcheria thus became the heir apparent in the West.36
Merobaudes may also give a further detail on the nature of the agreement, although this is slightly more conjectural. In the second panegyric he ‘uses the adjective socius [which] with other tenuous evidence suggest that the Empire bestowed on Gaiseric the ancient status of socius et amicus cum foedere’ (ally and friend by treaty).37 This would help explain both the fact that the empire could accept the Vandals’ occupation of Africa and the fact that Gaiseric continued to honour the treaty in the future, since he was now being acknowledged as virtually the equal of the emperor. This impression would have been reinforced by the prospective marriage between Huneric and Eudocia.
Africa
Secure in his position, Gaiseric was now able to distribute lands and positions of power as he thought fit, steadfast in the knowledge that he was safe from attack by the empire.
Byzacena, Abaritana and Gaetulia, and part of Numidia he kept for himself; Zeugitana and the proconsular province he divided up as an allotted portion for his people’; and he allowed Valentinian . . . to take for himself the remaining, and now devastated provinces.
Victor of Vita, 1.13
Map 11. The Vandal Settlement of 442
The fact that the parts of Numidia, Mauretania Caesariensis and Sitifensis that had been returned as part of the treaty had been �
��devastated’ by the Vandal occupation is reinforced by the novels of Valentinian, which mention the large reduction in taxes that the regained provinces had to pay in order to allow them to recover – only one-eighth of the pre-Vandal assessment.38
The remainder of the African territory, Africa Proconsularis, Byzacena, Tripolitania and parts of Numidia, were now ruled by the Vandals. Most of the territory remained under Gaiseric’s direct control, but he ‘gave the best and richest land [Africa Proconsularis] to his sons and the Vandal people’, although Carthage itself remained in his own hands, and he established his royal palace on Byrsa, the Acropolis of Carthage.39 This territory was later known as the sortes Vandalorum (‘lot’/‘allotment’ of the Vandals), which, despite modern interpretations, is used by Victor of Vita simply to mean ‘land of the Vandals’. The nature of these divisions is confused and open to interpretation, with some historians claiming that the land of the dispossessed Roman senators was given to the troops, whilst others claim that it was the income from the land, not the land itself, that was distributed.40
It is probable that only the income from the land was given, following the Roman tradition of ‘honesta missio’, which in return brought hereditary service in the army, a fact which Gaiseric would have approved.41 The net result was that the Vandals simply took the place of the empire, as the Vandal nobles ‘effectively stepped into the shoes of the Roman authorities that had ruled Africa previously and took over the existing administrative regime, including the tax system’, whilst the warriors received the traditional stipends of regular Roman troops, plus land out of the fisc (imperial exchequer) and agri deserti (uninhabited lands), whilst remaining billeted in towns – mainly Carthage.42 The remaining Romans paid their usual taxes, but to the king, not the emperor: the only difference in these cases appears to have been that the leases issued by the Vandals were dated by the regnal year of the Vandal king, rather than using the Roman dating system.43
If the Vandal warriors took the place of the Roman army, Gaiseric and the Vandal nobility took the place of the emperor and the aristocratic landowners. This simple change of ‘landlord’ doubtless eased the transformation from Roman to Vandal Africa, as well as proving simple for the new Vandal rulers to understand and keep track of. However, the maintenance of Roman institutions can easily result in the suffering and dislocation caused by the Vandal takeover being minimized. The takeover was not peaceful and doubtless involved forceful evictions and deaths.
In fact, Gaiseric’s actions in annexing the lands of powerful, rich absentee landlords and in forcing the resident Roman landowners to flee resulted in a large pressure group in Ravenna agitating for the recovery of Africa. Under the constant threat of invasion, Gaiseric doubtless retained a large proportion of his troops in Carthage rather than allowing them to disperse in order to farm personally. It should be noted, however, that once the immediate threat of invasion had passed the attitude of Gaiseric to the dispossessed Romans did in some respects relent. Later some of them returned to Africa and at least some of their property was returned.44 At this time some of the Vandal troops may have been released from immediate service, especially those who had been involved in the fighting since before 429, who may have been close to retirement age, to begin their new lives as farmers and landholders, and the likelihood is that at the end of the Vandal kingdom the only difference between the Vandals and the ‘native’ Romans was that the Vandals served in the army.
Catholic churches were given to the new Arian clergy, as was some of the land confiscated from the Roman aristocracy, no doubt in order to make them selfsufficient and a powerful force to support the king. When Gaiseric later allowed some of the Roman aristocracy to return, the land ‘donated’ to the church was not restored to the returning Romans.45
Furthermore, despite the ancient portrayal of a rigid demarcation between the Vandal conquerors and the native Romans, close analysis of the sources suggests that there was a ‘much more porous border between Arian and Nicene and much more traffic across it than our sources are willing to disclose’.46 Although there was always a divide between the Arian Vandals and their Catholic Christian and Nicene subjects, laws enforcing a separation between Arians and – especially – the Nicenes explain why later kings ordered persecutions of Catholics: the law may have been needed in order to maintain Vandal identity and stop them being absorbed into the majority population.47
In one way, however, Gaiseric was able to change the nature of African society. The vast majority of the production of Africa was geared towards supplying Italy with necessities via the system of annona (supplying goods instead of tax). After the Vandal conquest, Africa was freed from this burden, and although the Vandals themselves must have appropriated some of the annona for themselves, their demands were less than those of Rome and Italy. Despite the fact that the ‘tribute’ will have continued to siphon goods, especially grain, for the empire, African traders were now allowed to trade a significant proportion of the surplus produce in other markets, including southern Gaul, Spain, north-western Italy and Sicily.48 Alongside these, trade continued with Rome and Southern Italy, although now the customers were expected to pay for the goods they received rather than relying upon government ‘donations’ due to the annona.49 Taxes from these activities will have helped to finance the embryonic Vandal kingdom.
The treaty was a landmark in Roman affairs. Although Valentinian and Aetius saved face by claiming that the Vandals had settled in Africa under Roman rule, the reality was that the government in Ravenna had agreed to the ‘permanent’ loss of territory to a barbarian king and acknowledged that they did not have the troops to retake it without help from the East.50 Yet probably contrary to popular expectations, the Vandals did not attempt to further enlarge their realm until after the death of Aetius and Valentinian, after which time they believed that the treaty of 442 was invalid.
In part this was due to the fact that the Vandals, and especially Gaiseric, realised that they would provoke a further invasion from the East if they attempted to attack the West: after all, it was a matter of luck that the eastern expedition had been halted by the attacks of both the Persians and the Huns. There is no evidence, as suggested by some historians, that there was a political and military agreement between Gaiseric, Attila and Yezdigerd II. Furthermore, Gaiseric may have been following the ‘standard barbarian policy’ of attacking the West when it was weak or divided and of coming to terms with the emperor when the West was stronger and more able to defend itself.51
Yet there was a further factor in the protracted period of peace following the treaty of 442: Gaiseric was not yet totally secure in his ‘kingdom’. Prosper notes that following the treaty:
Some of Gaiseric’s magnates conspired against him because he was proud even among his own people, due to the successful outcome of events. But when the undertaking was discovered, they were subjected to many tortures and killed by him. Whenever others seemed to venture the same thing, the king’s mistrust served to destroy so many that he lost more men by this anxiety of his than if he had been overthrown in war.
Prosper s.a. 442
As with the Goths, the modern perception that the Vandals were a unified ‘kingdom’ under the rule of Gaiseric conceals the reality of many different nobles and groups being unhappy with the rule of one man. Furthermore it is possible, though improvable, that Aetius and Theodosius had been able to send agents to Africa who had managed to provoke the conspiracy.52 As a consequence, it would have been very risky of Gaiseric to provoke another war with the West, since it was possible that many of his own followers would change allegiance, so weakening his forces and giving a greater chance of victory to the Romans.
Italy
Despite the focus on the negative aspects of the treaty with the Vandals, at least one area actually profited from the loss of Africa. In the north of Italy the rural settlements continued their decline, mirroring the majority of the rest of the West and notwithstanding their function of supplying the ‘imper
ial capital’ of Ravenna. Yet the rural settlements in the south prospered. Apulia, Basilicata and Lucania began to supply Rome with the grain lost from Africa. Furthermore, Samnium and Lucania provided the old capital with animals, especially pigs, and the whole of the south now supplied the wine for Roman tables. This especially benefited the senatorial families who had large landholdings in these areas, since it naturally increased their financial and political importance.53 It also resulted in these families wanting the Vandals to remain in Africa, as a Roman recovery would reduce their own income.
The Huns
Once the treaty was agreed, Theodosius recalled the forces in Sicily.54 The timing was good, as the treaty with the Huns had expired and Attila and Bleda had renewed their attacks on Illyricum, capturing Ratiaria (probably Arzar-Palanca), Naissus (Niš), Phillipopolis (Plovdiv), Arcadiopolis (Lüleburgaz) and Constantia (Constanţa): only Adrianople (Edirne) and Herakleia (Marmara Ereǧlisi) were not captured (see Map 10).55
Returning to Thrace, the Eastern army under Aspar, Areobundus and Ardegisclus met the Huns in battle, but was repeatedly defeated.56 However, the Huns were unwilling to continue the conflict and probably in mid-442 a peace treaty was agreed, seemingly involving the payment of increased ‘subsidies’ by Theodosius to Attila and Bleda.57 The reasons for the sudden acceptance of a treaty by the Huns when they obviously had the upper hand are unknown. They had devastated the Balkans and repeatedly defeated the armies that were sent against them. There can be little doubt that the increase in the ‘subsidies’ paid by the East were a factor, yet it is likely that there were more reasons for the decision.
