Cambridge Ancient Hi.. - Index of

the huns 709
stoutly defended Roman cities, the centres of Roman power, wealth and
administration that had been able to withstand the earlier Gothic incursions.
Some places fell through treachery, as when Margus was handed over
by its bishop, but accounts of attacks on Naissus and Aquileia indicate that
the Huns had access to quite sophisticated siege technology, probably supplied
by military captives or the remnants of the Roman population of
Pannonia, whose best chance of lucrative employment was now in Hunnic
service. 26 At Naissus, Priscus describes towers that could be wheeled up to
the ramparts and provide protection for attacking archers, substantial battering
rams and assault ladders; although there are signs that his account
has been affected by historiographical traditions of siege narrative, there is
no justification for dismissing the narrative as invention: Naissus was captured
and thoroughly sacked. At Aquileia there is less detail about the technical
equipment, and the siege may have lasted longer, 27 but Attila was still
able to collapse a section of the defences and storm the city. Apart from
mechanical devices, it is clear that Attila, controlling large reserves of
subject manpower, was content to sacrifice lives in frontal assaults. The
results are recorded in the sources: in the northern Balkans most of the
major cities succumbed, Naissus being joined by Viminacium, Ratiaria,
Philippopolis, Arcadiopolis and Constantia; the destruction was so extensive
that it could be claimed that only Adrianople and Heracleia on the Sea
of Marmara survived. In the sixth century Procopius could comment on
the Huns’ inexperience at siege warfare, but there is no justification for
reading this assessment back into the fifth century. 28
The consequences for the Romans were serious: Hun ravaging, which
extended as far south as Thermopylae, depopulated parts of Illyricum and
Thrace; urban defences no longer offered a secure refuge for inhabitants
and their wealth. In spite of being strengthened in 443, the Roman frontier
on the Danube ceased to exist from Pannonia as far east as Novae in
Thrace. Attila demanded that along the whole of this distance a stretch of
land five days’ journey wide must be left uncultivated; the place for commercial
exchange in Illyria should no longer be on the Danube but at
ravaged Naissus, itself adjudged to be five days from the river. Thus Roman
territory was to be clearly separated from Attila’s, which would reduce the
chances for Roman interference in Hunnic affairs; on the other hand, Attila
might choose to use this region for hunting, an activity that provided a convenient
disguise for military preparations. 29 To counter this threat, new
fortifications were built: Constantinople had already been provided with a
massive set of new land walls earlier in Theodosius’ reign (413), and these
26 Mócsy (1974) 357.
27 Priscus fr. 6.2; Blockley (1981) 54;Jord.Get. 42.220; Procop. Wars iii.4.30–5.
28 Theophanes 102–3; Procop. Buildings iv.3.21–2; contra Croke (1978) 257.
29 Theod. Nov. 24; Priscus frr. 11.1.9–14; 11.2.74–8.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008