Beate Dignas & Engelbert Winter - Kaveh Farrokh

136 4 The diplomatic solutions
that the duel symbolised a particular outcome of a historical confrontation.
Differing from Malalas, the Byzantine historian Procopius describes the
events as follows.
Procopius, De Bello Persico i.2.11–15
(11) When Theodosius had grown up and reached a certain age and Yazdgard
(I) had died because of an illness, the Persian king Bahrām (V) entered Roman
territory with a large army; however, he did not inflict any harm but without
actually having done anything returned to his own country in the following way.
(12) The emperor Theodosius happened to send the magister militum per Orientem
Anatolius as ambassador to the Persians, all by himself. As soon as he was very close
to the army of the Medes, he, on his own, dismounted his horse and on foot went
up to Bahrām. (13) When Bahrām saw him he asked those present who this man
was who was approaching him. They responded that he was the Roman general.
(14) Struck by this extraordinary gesture of honour the king himself turned and
drove back his horse, and the entire Persian army followed. (15) Back in his own
country he regarded the ambassador with utmost respect and concluded the peace
just as Anatolius had asked him to, that is under the condition that neither of the
two parties would build any new fortress on their territory in the border area of the
other. After they had come to this agreement both sides went about their domestic
affairs as they liked.
According to Procopius Bahrām V was impressed when Theodosius II (408–
50) sent the high ranking magister militum per Orientem as ambassador
to him; even more impressed by the ambassador’s respectful gestures he
decided to withdraw his troops and to conclude a peace. The author seems
to get the events of 422 confused with new hostilities during the reign
of Yazdgard II (439–57). 96 It was not before this war that the influential
Anatolius, who held the supreme command in the East from 433 to around
446, played an important role and was largely responsible for renewing the
peace of 422. 97 However, Procopius’ account nicely illustrates the crucial
impact of diplomatic interaction between the two powers. Codes of honour
and gestures of mutual respect were important factors bearing an impact
on decisions of war and peace. In this context cross-cultural understanding
was necessary and, surprisingly, worked on several levels.
Do either Malalas’ or Procopius’ episodes reveal the actual outcome of
the war? As far as it mattered, one may speculate that the result of the duel
in Malalas and Bahrām’s compliance with Anatolius’ wishes in Procopius
96 Procopius’ account is most likely based on the work that Priscus composed during the fifth century.
It is possible that Procopius intentionally shortened his source and ‘merged’ both wars in order to
streamline his narrative; cf. Veh 1970: 459.
97 On the chronology of the peace of 422 and that of 441 see Luther 1997: 101–8.