Cambridge Ancient Hi.. - Index of

the huns 705
latter is well illustrated by Priscus’ own experiences as envoy to Attila in
448: at a ceremonial banquet Onegesius sat to the right of Attila, the position
of honour, and his status was also reflected in the size of his compound,
which contained a Roman bathing suite with skilled attendant, by
Attila’s courteous treatment of his wife and by his employment on an
important mission to the Akatziri. 12 But the key to the long-term preservation
of authority was a controlled terror that made it impractical to plot
against Attila and impossible to escape his revenge: the lesson of Uldin’s
fate had been learnt. As a result, Romans could not employ traditional
tactics of diplomatic subversion. A Hun envoy, Edeco, was prepared to
accept bribes from the cubicularius Chrysaphius to assassinate Attila, but on
returning to court revealed the plot: loyalty was strengthened by awareness
that his fellow ambassador, Orestes, might report him to Attila. Onegesius,
a man through whom the Romans hoped to influence Attila, preferred loyal
servitude among the Huns to Roman wealth. 13 The Romans were consistently
denied the chance to acquire friendly Huns who might be used to
subvert Attila’s position, and this was the principal reason why the return
of fugitives was a regular demand in negotiations. 14 Attila was not concerned
about a leakage of precious manpower, since his military resources
were ample as long as his authority was unchallenged, and the numbers of
fugitives seem to have been comparatively small, capable of being recorded
on lists and once being specified as seventeen; 15 rather, it was a demonstration
to all followers that no one could escape his clutches. On one occasion
when the Romans were obliged to return fugitives of royal descent, Mama
and Atakam, they were at once impaled, even before they had been
escorted back to Hunnic territory. It is likely that most fugitives were from
the class of leading men, identifiable individuals from tribes under Hunnic
control who might hope that association with the Romans would lead to
their reinstatement as tribal leaders. In these ways Attila dominated the
social pyramid of the Hun federation: the leaders at court, Attila’s advisers,
diplomats and military commanders, were loyal and they preserved the allegiance
of the units under their control. Disobedience was punished swiftly
and publicly, with the guilty being impaled or gibbeted and left as warnings
to others. 16
Military success, patronage of leading men, and terror ensured that
Hunnic control extended over all the tribes along the Danube and the
northern shore of the Black Sea. In part, this has to be inferred from the
process of the disintegration of the Hun federation, when Gepids, various
groups of Goths, and Bulgar tribes emerged to trouble the Romans, but it
12 Priscus frr. 10; 13.1.33–7; 11.2.361–72, 378–85, 241–3. 13 Priscus fr. 11.2.126–31, 536–41.
14 E.g. Priscus frr. 2.6–7, 29–31; 6.1.8–9; 9.1.3; 9.3.1–10, 35–8; 10.2; 11.1.6–7; 11.2.181–3, 195–201;
15.4.10. 15 Contra Thompson (1948) 177–8; Priscus fr. 11.2.12–13.
16 Priscus frr. 2.40–3; 11.2.343; 14.58–65; cf. Zuckerman (1994) 163.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008