Cambridge Ancient Hi.. - Index of

708 23. the balkans and greece 420,602
two secretaries for Attila, both called Constantius; the first, a Gaul, had
proved treacherous and was crucified, whereas the second, an Italian, was
rewarded by having Attila pursue on his behalf a disputed marriage with a
leading eastern family; the latter Constantius had an assistant, Rusticius, a
captive from Moesia, whose learning earned him the privilege of writing
letters for Attila. 21
Attila also seems to have possessed a strategic diplomatic awareness,
which allowed him to synchronize his challenges with severe problems for
the empire: his first major assault in 441, when Viminacium and Naissus
were captured, occurred when a large naval expedition had left
Constantinople to fight the Vandals in Africa, while his diplomatic
demands and subsequent invasions in the late 440s coincided with pressure
on other frontiers of the eastern empire. 22 The range of Attila’s knowledge
and contacts is impressive, as befitted his ambitions to universal authority:
in the east, he knew that Persia could be attacked across the Caucasus, and
had some information about the geography of the route and the military
capabilities of the Persians; in the west, quite apart from close links with
leading Romans like Aetius, his contacts with the Vandal king Geiseric and
with Frankish leaders kept him informed of relations between the different
tribal groups. 23 Against this background, Attila’s decision to use an offer of
marriage from the western princess Honoria as a basis for claiming a half
share of the western empire does not appear extravagant; similarly, the
assessment of informed associates that a Hunnic attack on Persia would be
followed by the subjugation of the Romans and imposition of harsher
terms was also realistic. After his capture of Milan, an imperial capital,
Attila redesigned an imperial portrait that had depicted a Roman triumph
over barbarians to display the humiliation of Roman emperors bringing
tribute to himself. 24
Diplomacy that lacked the support of military muscle was ineffective, as
the Romans repeatedly discovered in their dealings with Danubian tribes,
but for Attila success in war complemented negotiations. The Huns fought
as mounted warriors, using composite bows, whose efficacy remained
famous into the next century, 25 swords and lassoes, and were protected by
body armour; speed of movement assisted their reputation for ferocity.
These attributes ensured success against other Danubian tribes and over
Roman field armies, which had a substantial component of Germanic
tribesmen whose fighting capabilities and equipment were likely to be
similar to those of tribesmen north of the river. But what distinguished the
Huns and rendered their impact on the empire much more serious than
that of ordinary invaders was their ability to capture strongly fortified and
21 Priscus frr. 11.2.329–43; 14.1–51. 22 Priscus fr. 10; chronology: Croke (1983).
23 Priscus fr. 11.2.596–619;Jord.Get. 36.184; Priscus fr. 20.3. Discussion in Clover (1973).
24 Priscus frr. 20; 11.2.620–35; Suda m.405. 25 Procop. Wars v.27.27; vi.1.9.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008