by Ian Hughes
Interestingly, Hydatius, who as Bishop of Aqua Flaviae would be expected to make the most of this opportunity to promote Catholicism, makes no mention of the Pope.
The main objection to this version of events is that, far from marching on Rome, Attila was in the north-east of Italy and marching away from the city. However, if Leo was not attempting to save Rome, as is usually portrayed, the question remains as to the actual reasons for him being present.
This was simply due to the fact that Valentinian, the emperor, requested him to lead the delegation. As a major religious figure he was of immense political stature and his presence added sincerity and grace to the meeting: it will have been expected that this would influence Attila’s decisions concerning the embassy.
The origin of the story of Saint Peter and the flaming sword probably lies with Paulus Diaconus, who claims that one of Leo’s attendants ‘threatened the king with a drawn sword’, a story later embellished by Isidore of Seville, amongst others.40 However, Leo’s main purpose was not to ‘order’ Attila to withdraw. Fortunately, a letter from Eastern bishops to Pope Symmachus dated to 512 or 513 shows that Leo’s task was to negotiate the release of captives, not only of the Christians, but ‘if that can be believed, Jews and Pagans’.41 In return for a large sum of gold he had brought with him, Leo was able to obtain the release of many – but not all – of the captives.
Attila also agreed to continue his retreat from Italy. However, he repeated his demand that Honoria be surrendered to him, threatening to invade again unless she was sent to him ‘with her due share of the royal wealth’.42 Realistically, he was not in a position to make good on his demands. Attila’s invasion had gone some way towards repairing the damage to his reputation of the previous year, but it was still far from a complete success. Furthermore, the attack on the homes of the Huns demonstrated that his boasts about controlling the Eastern Roman Empire was no longer true. Attila retired to his homeland, this time determined on vengeance against the East, whose actions had helped to thwart his plans.
Conclusion
The major difference between the invasions of Gaul and Italy was the defence of Aquileia. In 451 Attila had taken a number of cities in quick succession, a fact that had allowed him to penetrate deep into Gaul. Aetius will have quickly realized that a long defence of any of the Gallic cities would have given him more time to organize the defence of Gaul and may even have halted the invasion. Accordingly, Aetius may have stationed a strong garrison in Aquileia as soon as he heard of Attila’s approach. The three-month siege of Aquileia caused Attila to lose a great part of the campaign season, and coupled with the heavy losses and the beginnings of disease ultimately brought the campaign to an abrupt end.
Aetius’ strategy is usually seen as poor, mainly due to the fact that he allowed Attila to enter Italy without attempting to defend the Julian Alps. However, as noted above, this is unrealistic. Having realized that he could not defend the Alps, Aetius had resorted to delaying tactics, reinforcing Aquileia in the hope that the city would hold out and give time for the East to organize a relief force for Italy. Although Aetius would have been hoping simply for help in Italy, Marcian’s decision to send the other Aetius on campaign against the Huns’ homeland was a major bonus. Furthermore, Aetius had understood that as long as he guarded the Apennines Attila would not be able to threaten Rome, and Ravenna was still impregnable behind its marshes. With famine throughout Italy meaning that Attila’s forces would struggle to feed themselves, time was on Aetius’ side.
Once the troops arrived from the east there can be little doubt that Aetius used his forces to harass the Huns as they retreated across northern Italy. This, together with the envoys sent by Valentinian, determined Attila that the West, although fragmented, was simply too strong whilst led by Aetius. Attila took the only course open to him. Having saved at least a little face by ransoming some of the prisoners in negotiations with Pope Leo, the Huns returned home to begin the rebuilding of their shattered homesteads and Attila’s palaces.
Chapter 16
The End
453
Following his ‘victory’ in Italy, Attila turned his mind to the East. Since Marcian had ascended the throne the East had been troublesome for Attila. With the West nominally chastised, he returned to his usual stance with the East. Early in 453 he not only demanded the payment of tribute but also the arrears that had not been paid to him since before the death of Theodosius.1 In response, Marcian sent emissaries to meet with Attila to negotiate, but he refused to treat with them and the mission was a failure.2
Yet this attitude benefited the east more than Attila. Marcian had concluded peace treaties with both the Persians in the east and the Blemmyes and Nobades south of Egypt. With peace on his other frontiers, Marcian, although wary of the threat still posed, was no longer fearful of the Huns and was prepared, if necessary, to fight.3 Marcian’s dogged refusal to pay was no doubt also reinforced by the fact that Attila had now been ‘beaten’ twice and there was in all likelihood increased tensions within Attila’s empire as the subject nations considered the possibility of a rebellion against Hunnic rule. It is possible, although impossible to prove, that Marcian had sent agents into Hunnic territory with the specific intention of stirring up discontent and encouraging a rebellion.
Prior to leading his men against the East, Attila:
took in marriage according to the custom of his race a very beautiful girl named Ildico. At his wedding he gave himself up to excessive celebration and he lay down on his back sodden with wine and sleep. He suffered a haemorrhage, and the blood, which would ordinarily have drained through his nose, was unable to pass through the usual passages and flowed in its deadly course down his throat, killing him.
Prisc. fr. 24.14
There is a claim in Malalas that Attila did not die of natural causes but that Aetius bribed his spatharius (bodyguard) to kill him.5 This is extremely unlikely as it is not mentioned elsewhere, and Malalas, writing so long after events, does not explain where he obtained the information. So passed the ruler of the empire of the Huns and the greatest external threat to Roman imperial security.
When the news arrived in Constantinople and Rome no doubt there was great relief: the individual who had welded the disparate tribes of the Huns into a major military force had died. Yet at the same time there would have been great concern over what would happen to Attila’s empire: after all, one of his sons could easily emulate – if not better – the acts of the ‘Scourge of God’.
This was not to be. Rather than closing ranks and ensuring that the Hunnic Empire remained one whole body, Attila’s sons immediately began a civil war to determine who would inherit it.6 Attila had numerous wives, and although it is not known if all of them bore him children, there is a good chance that he left his empire to be divided amongst many sons, who ‘themselves almost amounted to a people’.7
The East
The relief with which the news of the Huns’ implosion was received was tempered by some unhappy news, especially for Marcian. In July 453 his wife, his link with the Theodosian dynasty, died, leaving her property for ‘charitable purposes’.8 Marcian now had to survive without her political support, so he was extremely fortunate that the death of Attila and the outbreak of a civil war amongst the Huns gave him and the East a breathing space in which to cement his position as sole ruler.
The West
In the West the death of Attila and the eruption of civil war amongst the Huns will also have been greeted with relief: indeed, Aetius may have hoped that at least one of Attila’s sons would appeal to him for aid, so allowing a return to the former situation where he and at least one section of the Huns were close allies.
However, it was events in Gaul that dominated his attention. Probably after hearing of Attila’s death, and so knowing that Gaul was secure from Hunnic attack, Thorismund attacked and defeated the Alans north of the Loire.9
The event may have caused some confusion in the sources. Jordanes writes that
in 453 the Goths and the Alans united to defeat a second invasion of Gaul by the Huns, this time without Roman aid.10 There is no other evidence for this campaign and, given the timescale, it is very unlikely that it happened. The reasons for Jordanes’ odd account are unknown. Jordanes may have known of the Goths and the Alans fighting and may have been simply confused, assuming that the two must have been fighting the Huns rather than each other. If so, the account should probably be seen as an attempt to boost further the reputation of the Goths, this time by having them beat the Huns with the help of the Alans but without Roman aid. On the other hand, it may simply have been an attempt to disguise the fact that in 453 the Goths were again on the warpath and fighting against the empire.
The reasons for the Gothic attack on the Alans are unclear. In part at least Thorismund may have been annoyed at the lack of any reward for the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains. It can be assumed that Aetius believed that the Goths had been fighting as part of their foedus with Rome. Thorismund may have expected more. Despite the death of his father and his own narrow escape there does not appear to have been any recompense to the Goths from Aetius, neither in land nor in appointments within the Roman military hierarchy. It is also likely that Thorismund, like his father before him, wanted to extend his power both politically at Rome and territorially in Gaul. Furthermore, internal politics may have played a part, since a failure to extract any rewards would result in his brothers, who remained watching in the wings, being ready to remove him if his reign was not satisfactory.
In this context the attack makes sense. The Alans, originally led by Goa, who by this time may well have died with the event not being recorded, were staunch allies of Aetius and could be expected to join him in any war with the Goths. By defeating them in a pre-emptive strike, Thorismund would weaken Aetius’ alliance and ensured that his own northern border was safe from attack.
Understandably, Aetius appears to have been completely taken by surprise by the attack on his ally. According to Sidonius, he led his army north out of Italy to help the Alans and stop the Goths from extending their frontier northwards, although the nature of the forces he commanded and their employment remain obscure.11
In response Thorismund now turned his attention to the south and laid siege to Arles, the ‘capital’ of Gaul.12 According to Sidonius, although he tried Aetius could not break the siege of Arles.13 However, at this point events took a strange turn. Resident in the city was Ferreolus, the praefectus praetorio Galliarum. In an unexpected twist Ferreolus invited Thorismund into the besieged city and entertained him at a banquet. His methods were decidedly odd, but effective. During the banquet somehow Ferreolus convinced Thorismund to lift the siege.14 The Goths returned to Aquitaine.
It is possible that even at this late stage Thorismund was willing to accept a nominal reward for the help the Goths had given against Attila and for the death of his father. Although the attribution is uncertain, it is possible that as part of the agreement reached between Thorismund and Ferreolus and later ratified by Aetius, Frederic, Thorismund’s brother, was given the post of magister militum in the West, since he was shortly afterwards attested as fighting in Spain on behalf of the Romans.15
Unfortunately for Thorismund, his brothers were dissatisfied with this course of events. Prosper notes that they were unhappy with the fact that Thorismund had gone to war with Aetius.16 Further, the description of Theoderic (Thorismund’s younger brother and the next in line to the throne) given by Sidonius portrays an individual with pro-Roman leanings.17 Perhaps his brothers were unhappy with the fact that Thorismund had so quickly broken the peace with Aetius.
To compound his error Thorismund did not have the will to grasp his opportunities, since although his siege of Arles was too strong to be broken by force he agreed to withdraw. In the ensuing negotiations Thorismund’s brothers could have expected more than a single Roman military post and may have felt that Thorismund was too indecisive to rule properly.18 He was clearly not the type of forceful, dynamic leader that was needed by the Goths.
Whatever the cause, later that year the brothers quarrelled and Theoderic and Frederic conspired to remove Thorismund.19 In the end, Thorismund was defeated by his brothers and garrotted.20 With his death Theoderic succeeded to the throne and is now known as Theoderic II.21 Interestingly, given Theoderic’s alleged pro-Roman bias, the peace treaty agreed between Ferreolus and Thorismund remained active and Theoderic made no attempt to declare war on Rome. In fact, it is likely that he was more politically astute than his brother and had recognized that the Goths had more to gain by joining the Romans than by opposing them. Frederick had just been appointed as magister militum and such military positions in the Western army would gain the Gothic leaders legitimacy in the eyes of the Gallic population and so ease the transferral of Gallic loyalty within the Gothic kingdom. It would also help later, when the Goths could be seen as inheritors of the Roman political body rather than as barbarian settlers.
Spain
At around the same time as the Goths attempted to expand their influence in Gaul, Mansuetus, the comes Hispaniarum, and Fronto, also a comes, were sent as envoys to the Sueves. Whilst Aetius and the allies had been preoccupied with events in Gaul and engaged in battle with Attila the Sueves had again broken the peace and launched raids against their neighbours. As was the normal case by now, the threat of war from Aetius, probably combined with the news of the defeat of Attila in Gaul and his subsequent death, convinced the Sueves to accept yet another treaty, reestablishing ‘the terms which had (previously) been imposed’, though doubtless without the need for the Sueves to return the acquired booty.22
454
If not before the new year then almost certainly at the start of it Aetius received the news that the Hunnic empire, already in the grip of civil war, now faced internal revolt.23 With the death of Attila his treaties with other peoples became void, and the hostages given by Aetius – probably including his son Carpilio – returned home. At the same time the bureaucrats sent by Aetius to serve Attila when he was made honorary magister militum, including Orestes, also returned. They will have brought the news that a revolt had begun against Hunnic rule. Ardaric, the king of the Gepids, had been one of Attila’s most trusted allies.24 He didn’t give the same respect to Attila’s sons as he had to their father, probably angered that the sons were squabbling over Attila’s empire and had ‘allotted war-like kings and peoples like household servants’.25 In response he raised the standard of revolt. Other tribes emulated his actions and within a short time an alliance was formed against the Huns.
The Battle of the Nedao26
At an unknown date, but most likely in 454, in a great battle the two opponents met at the River Nedao (Nedava). The forces of the Huns were led by Ellac, the eldest of Attila’s sons and his personal favourite. Due to the nature of the rebellion it would appear that most, if not all, of Attila’s other sons joined Ellac’s forces in an attempt to defeat the rebels.
Ardaric and his Gepids had enlisted the help of the Ostrogoths, the Rugians, the Sueves, the Alans and the Heruls, amongst others. Although it may appear surprising that many of the tribes listed are to be found within the boundaries of the Roman Empire – for example, the Sueves in Spain – it should be remembered that the troops represent those tribes who did not join in the invasion of the Roman Empire, either preferring or being compelled to remain in their original homelands under the dominion of the Huns.
In a fierce battle the Huns, unexpectedly, were heavily defeated and Ellac himself ‘died fighting so bravely that, had his father been alive, he would have wished for an end so glorious’.27 After his death the Hunnic empire disintegrated with the survivors fragmenting and separately following those sons of Attila who were still alive. The Huns ended near the coasts of the Black Sea, disunited and unable to reconstruct the empire of Attila. Although they were to play a minor part in events for the next century, they lost their ability to influence happenings and slowly passed into history.
<
br /> Spain
With the attention of the imperial government focused on Gaul, yet again the bacaudae in Spain became active. As part of the treaty with Thorismund before his death, or possibly as part of a new, unattested treaty with the new king Theoderic, Frederic, the brother of Theoderic, was sent to Spain with an army. Whether this army was composed solely of Gothic troops or of Romans or was an allied force is unknown. Once in Spain Frederic attacked the bacaudae of Tarraconensis, slaughtering large numbers ‘under orders from the Roman government’.28
Aetius
In Italy Aetius would have been in high spirits: Gaul was at peace, the Vandals were quiet, Spain was being chastised for its presumption and now the empire of the Huns was being dismantled. His position was now such that he could browbeat Valentinian into agreeing to his demands. At some point prior to 454 Eudoxia, the wife of Valentinian, had decided that the best man to become emperor after the death of Valentinian was Majorian, the member of Aetius’ staff who had fought alongside him at the Battle of Vicus Helena.29 His military ability was promising and he appealed to Eudoxia as being well suited to continue the Theodosian dynasty. Accordingly, she proposed that he be married to Valentinian’s daughter Placidia, the heir to the throne since Eudocia was betrothed to Huneric, Gaiseric’s son, and so ineligible to rule.
Unfortunately for Majorian, Aetius was now in such a strong position that Valentinian could deny him nothing. Instead of a betrothal, Majorian retired from active service and went to live on his private property in the country.30 The retirement is said by Sidonius to have been due to the political manipulations of Aetius’ wife Pelagia.31 With Majorian removed from the scene, Valentinian agreed to the betrothal of Placidia and Aetius’ son Gaudentius in place of Majorian.32
Although Sidonius’ claims are suspect, since they are part of a panegyric delivered to Majorian, the story is probably near to the truth. Valentinian may have long harboured resentment of the general who had supported his rival in 424 and have wanted Majorian as his successor on the throne rather than agreeing to Aetius’ plans. By betrothing Majorian to Placidia Valentinian would ensure that Aetius’ control of the West was weakened. The chances are that Valentinian was opposed to Aetius’ proposal but had little option but to accede to the betrothal of Gaudentius and Placidia.
