Cambridge Ancient Hi.. - Index of

anastasius 59
defences in the region revealed by the war resulted in action to repair and
strengthen them and in the construction of a new frontier fortress at Dara,
the aim of which was to provide a forward base for Roman troops. 153 This
last move provoked strong protests from the Persians, since a fifth-century
settlement had prohibited any new forts close to the frontier, but by the
time Kavadh had dealt with the Hephthalites and was in a position to translate
protest into action, he was confronted by a Roman fait accompli.
Anastasius’ judicious use of diplomacy and money apparently dissuaded
him from pursuing the issue further, 154 and relations between the two
empires thereafter remained stable until the reign of Anastasius’ successor.
4. Epilogue
Anastasius died on 9 July 518. Given his age and the availability of suitable
candidates among his relatives, 155 his failure to nominate a successor represents
an uncharacteristic oversight on the part of an emperor who had,
in most areas of government, shown himself to be energetic and intelligent,
and had done much to ensure the continuing viability of the eastern
empire. That continuing viability, of course, stands in marked contrast to
the demise of the western empire, and prompts reflection on the question
posed in the introduction to this chapter as to why the fate of the east
during the fifth century diverged from that of the west. Needless to say, the
following observations make no claim to comprehensive coverage of all
the major issues which bear on this subject. In keeping with the focus of
the chapter, they concentrate primarily on the emperor and his policies in
key areas.
One feature of imperial behaviour in the fifth century which distinguishes
it sharply from that in the third and fourth centuries is the way in
which it became rare for the emperor to participate personally in military
campaigning. This development arose in the first instance out of the youth
and inexperience of Arcadius and Honorius, and then of Theodosius II
and Valentinian III (whose collective reigns, it is worth recalling, account
for the first half of the fifth century). However, the way in which it
remained the pattern thereafter until the early seventh century, in spite of
the military experience of many subsequent incumbents, suggests that a
more fundamental consideration was also at work – namely, concern to
protect the emperor from the political and physical consequences of military
defeat, which the fates of Julian and Valens in the latter half of the
fourth century had particularly highlighted. 156 The corresponding disadvantage
of this change was that it limited the emperor’s contact with the
153 Dara: Whitby (1986b); other sites: Capizzi (1969) 206–7, 214-28; Whitby (1986a) 726.
154 Procop. Wars i.10.13–19. 155 For the relatives, see Cameron, Alan (1978).
156 Cf. Whitby (1992).
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008