Cambridge Ancient Hi.. - Index of

714 23. the balkans and greece 420,602
they rejected the Goths’ request, and the Goths’ only response was to burn
the deserted city before departing. 42 Theoderic Strabo had a comparable
experience in 473 when, although he managed to capture Arcadiopolis by
starvation, his own army was also afflicted by famine: it was no easier to
find food outside a beleaguered city than inside. The emperor’s command
of food reserves was an important factor in negotiations with the Goths.
The bishop of Heracleia’s behaviour is an example of a local leader
taking the initiative in securing the well-being of his own people, and there
are other signs of the defence of local self-interest being combined with a
lack of confidence in the emperor. In 478 the inhabitants of Thessalonica,
suspecting that Zeno wanted to give their city to the Amali, overthrew
imperial statues and attacked the prefect and his office; they were calmed
by the clergy, but insisted on removing the keys of the city gates from the
prefect and entrusting them to the archbishop, and they organized themselves
into a guard. Shortly afterwards, at Dyrrachium, Theoderic was able
to exploit similar apprehensions when he sent Sidimund with a fake
message to warn the inhabitants that the Amali were about to move into
their territory with Zeno’s approval and that they should contemplate gathering
their possessions and seeking refuge on islands or in other cities; the
trick worked, and Theoderic occupied the city. 43
The opportune death of Theoderic Strabo and his son Recitach’s inability
to hold the loyalty of his followers permitted the consolidation of the
Gothic groups under Amal control, and the new dynasty set about inventing
a long history to justify its current pre-eminence. 44 Theoderic the
Amal’s Goths were encouraged to depart to Italy, which gave limited respite
to the Balkan provinces. New tribal groups emerged on the Danube, but it
took time for these to consolidate their positions and in the meantime the
new emperor Anastasius, a native of Dyrrachium, was gradually able to
reassert Roman authority along and within the Danube frontier. This was
a slow business, and most progress seems to have been made along the
lower Danube, especially in Scythia Minor, where there is evidence for
reconstruction at several sites; the Roman navy’s ability to control the Black
Sea and the Danube was probably an important element in this process.
Beyond the Danube there was no single dominant tribal group. In
Pannonia the Gepids acted as federate allies, and were probably used to
observe and pressurize the Ostrogoths, who controlled Dalmatia. But when
in 537 Justinian recovered Dalmatia, relations with the Gepids deteriorated,
and Justinian made an alliance with the Lombards, neighbours and rivals of
the Gepids. One other important group was active in this region, the Heruls,
42 Malchus fr. 20.35–42, 94–100;cf.Vita S. Hypatii (pp. 61.11–63.8) for a castellum acting as a food distribution-point
to country dwellers impoverished by Hun attacks. 43 Malchus fr. 20.5–19; 20.63–98.
44 Heather (1989); Heather, Goths and Romans 322–30; Burns (1984) chs. 2–3 is far too credulous,
Wolfram (1988) 248–58 more sceptical.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008