Romanian History and Culture

  where it's written: "(IX.) ... in terra Pannonie, que primo Athile regis terra fuisset . .. quam terram habitarent Slavi, Bulgarii, et Blachii ac pastores Romanorum."

. Strabo specified that the Daci are the Getae who lived in the area towards the Pannonian plain , while the Getae proper gravitated towards the Black Sea coast .

Text at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacians

 By 14 B.C. , western Hungary was part of the Roman Empire's provinces of Pannonia . The area east of the Danube, part of Dacia, was never part of the Roman Empire, but was part of the Dacian Empire.

Pannonia was a melting pot of different people and nations, and Romanized chieftains of Sarmatian, German, Dacian or other origins were able to settle in Pannonia and in other Roman territories, sometimes later becoming generals or emperors.(http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/5452/)

Pannonian Plains and the Dacians

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungary_before_the_Magyars

Around 50 BC, the mainly Celtic tribes living on the territory were confronted by Burebista, king of the Dacians (82-44 BC), who began suddenly to expand his domain centered in Transylvania.^[3] The sources do not indicate clearly whether Burebista was the original unifier of the Dacian tribes, or whether his efforts at unification built upon the work of his predecessors.^[3] Burebista subjugated the Taurisci and the Anarti; in the process, he confronted the Celtic tribal alliance lead by the Boii.^[2][3] Burebista’s victory over the Celts led not only to the breakup of their tribal alliance, but also to the establishment of Dacian settlements in the southern parts of today's Slovakia.^[3] Burebista, however, fell victim to his political enemies and his domain was divided into five, then four parts.^[3]

The period between 15 BC and 9 AD was characterized by the continous uprisings of the Pannonians against the emerging power of the Roman Empire. The Romans, however, could strengthen their supremacy over the rebellious tribes and they organised the occupied territory into a new province.^[1]

 Roman period (9 AD - c. 4th century)

The Roman Empire subdued the Pannonians, Dacians, Celts and other peoples in this territory. The territory west of the Danube was conquered by the Roman Empire between 35 and 9 BC, and became a province of the Roman Empire under the name of Pannonia. The easternmost parts of present-day Hungary were later (106 AD) organized as the Roman province of Dacia (lasting until 271). The territory between the Danube and the Tisza was inhabited by the Sarmatian Iazyges between the 1st and 4th centuries AD, or even earlier (earliest remains have been dated to 80 BC). The Roman Emperor Trajan officially allowed the Iazyges to settle there as confederates. The remaining territory was in Thracian (Dacian) hands. In addition, the Vandals settled on the upper Tisza in the 2nd half of the 2nd century AD.

The four centuries of Roman rule created an advanced and flourishing civilization. Many of the important cities of today's Hungary were founded during this period, such as Aquincum (Budapest), Sopianae (Pécs), Arrabona (Győr), Salva (Esztergom), Savaria (Szombathely) and Scarbantia (Sopron). Christianity spread in Pannonia in the 4th century, when it became the Empire's official religion.

The period between 15 BC and 9 AD was characterized by the continous uprisings of the Pannonians against the emerging power of the Roman Empire. The Romans, however, could strengthen their supremacy over the rebellious tribes and they organised the occupied territory into a new province.^[1]

The four centuries of Roman rule created an advanced and flourishing civilization. Many of the important cities of today's Hungary were founded during this period, such as Aquincum (Budapest), Sopianae (Pécs), Arrabona (Győr), Salva (Esztergom), Savaria (Szombathely) and Scarbantia (Sopron). Christianity spread in Pannonia in the 4th century, when it became the Empire's official religion. 

  Anarti

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarti

Anarti, or Anartophracti - was a Celtic tribe most probably living in Dacia, or (according to occasional opinions a Dacian tribe) in today's Slovakia and southern-east side of Poland^[1]. They were probably identical or constituted a significant part of the archaeological Púchov culture, with the center in Zemplin, Bükkszentlászló and Galish-Lovačka. Some people consider them a Dacian tribe

The tribe was first time mentioned in 10 BC in the Elogium of Tusculum. According to Tacitus, both Sarmatians (present-day Poland) and Quadi (present-day southwestern Slovakia) extracted tribute from the iron mines of the Anarti in the 1st century AD. The Anarti are later mentioned in connection with the Marcomannic Wars: Around 172 AD, they did not help Romans in their fight against Marcomanni. To punish them, Marcus Aurelius had moved (all?) the Anarti to Lower Pannonia, which happened not later than 180 AD.

In De Bello Gallico, Caesar writes in Book VI 25,1: The Hercynian Forest begins in the area of the Helveti, Nemeti and Rauraci and stretches along the Danube to the areas of the Daci and Anarti).

References

Carpi

 In the last quarter of the 3rd century, substantial numbers of Carpi - A Free Dacian Tribe (100,000) were forcibly transferred by the Roman military to the Roman province of Pannonia (mod. W Hungary) following two major defeats the Carpi suffered at Roman hands (272 and 296). In the same period, the remaining Carpi probably occupied the northern part of the Roman province of Dacia, which was evacuated by the Romans in 270-5.

In the 4th century, the Carpi appear to have fallen under the hegemony, if not direct rule, of the Goths who occupied the Wallachian plain and at least part of Moldavia. After the collapse of the Gothic kingdoms in Dacia under Hunnic pressure in the late 4th century, the Carpi are last mentioned as part of a coalition of Huns and Sciri who were defeated by the emperor Theodosius I (379-95).

Early Christian Necropolis of Pécs (Hungary)

 http://www.clonmacnoisewhsbid.org/page.asp?id=2247

In the 4th century, a remarkable series of decorated tombs were constructed in the cemetery of the Roman provincial town of Sopianae (modern Pécs). These are important both structurally and architecturally, since they were built as underground burial chambers with memorial chapels above the ground. The tombs are important also in artistic terms, since they are richly decorated with murals of outstanding quality depicting Christian themes

Pannonia under the Romans was a Christian entity.

See: http://www.crestinortodox.ro/biserica-in-lume/67724-cimitirul-paleocrestin-din-pecs

Archaeologists find late Roman grave in Budapest
By: MTI

http://www.caboodle.hu/nc/news/news_archive/single_page/article/11/archaeologis-2/?cHash=73de456cfa
2009-12-15 10:22
Archaeologists unearthed a burial place from the 4th century - the last period of Roman rule in the former Pannonia province - in NW Budapest, the head of the excavation project told MTI on Monday.
Archaeologist Gabor Lassanyi said that the grave had been dated based on a bone comb it contained. The comb - made with three components fastened together by way of small iron thuds and decorated with geometric motifs - was similar to objects made by barbarian tribes on the area of today's eastern Hungary, and which only became fashionable in Pannonia during the last decades of the era, Lassanyi said.
Acquincum, the most prominent Roman city of the province in today's District 3 of Budapest, was gradually abandoned during the first half of the 5th century.

 488        Romans left the Danube region

http://indoeuro.bizland.com/project/chron/chron4.html

The valleys of Pannonia and Dacia were always the first to suffer from invasion of Asian nomads. Even in ancient times population here had to resist Cymmerians, Scythians, later Sarmatians. Lands here have always been fertile enough both for cattle breeding and agriculture, and could feed a lot of people. In the first centuries of the new era the Great Movement took new waves of invaders here.

By the beginning of the 5th century Pannonia, Dacia and Noricum were populated by Roman settlers and the remains of the aboriginal Indo-European population - Dacians, Thracians, Illyrians, Celts and - in some places - also Sarmatians and Scythians. The invasions of Bastarnes in the 2nd and Goths in the 4th century were not repelled, but Bastarnes quickly mixed with natives, and Goths passed through these lands and headed further to the south. The next threat was much more serious - Hunns came here together with their allies Alanians. Field were devastated, towns destroyed, people mostly eliminated, and Pannonia became a pasture for Hunnic cattle. Attila, the famous king of Hunns, selected his base (a sort of a capital) in Estergom. From here his huge army started its raids over Europe, here was the centre of the enormous Hunnic kingdom, from Gaul until the Ural mountai.

After Attila was assassinated in 453, Hunns disappeared from the map of Europe as fast as they emerged here. By that time the population of Europe decreased two or even three times, and Pannonian lands were empty. Since the late 5th century Germanic, Slavic, later Turkish people penetrate to settle here. In 488 last Roman colonists leave Pannonia, for it was no longer possible to cultivate and build anything here.

 Attila the Hun and Aetius

Attila, despite the occasional instance of forgiveness and justice, was a  savage with one goal, as Jordanes states in “Getica”: “He was a man born into the world to shake the nations, the scourge of all lands, which in some way terrified all mankind by the dreadful rumours noised abroad concerning him”. In his “Getica”, Jordanes describes Attila the Hun as a “lover of war”, but goes on to remedy this -not to make a generalisation- by saying “…yet restrained in action, mighty in council, gracious to suppliants and lenient to those received into his protection”

  http://www.answers.com/topic/huns   

http://steppes.proboards23.com/index.cgi?board=board04&action=print&thread=718

The reputation of the Huns as a warlike people is due to perceptions of their impact upon the late Roman empire. Under their greatest leader, Attila, they threatened to create an empire in 5th-century Europe. Contemporaries wrote of them with fear and loathing, characterizing their culture as primitive, and their behaviour as bestial. This image had a lasting impact on the Western imagination. Even in the 20th century the Germans of WW I were characterized as ‘The Hun’ for propaganda purposes. Yet surprisingly little is known for certain about a people whose natural habitat was the Asian steppe, impacting on China, India, and Persia, and whose supremacy in Europe lasted barely a century.

Steppe nomads had always been a threat to the settled agrarian societies. The Romans had been aware of the Huns at least as early as ad 200, when the geographer Pliny describes them; but it was not until the late 4th century that they had an impact on the empire. In the early 370s, Hunnic attacks on the previously all-conquering Goths on the Eurasian steppe led to their king, Ermaneric, committing suicide in despair. The Goths then sought refuge over the Danube within the Roman empire, but were so badly treated that they rebelled and destroyed the army sent to pacify them at Adrianople in 378. In the years that followed, Huns were found co-operating with other barbarian armies in looting an empire riven by civil war. They also served as mercenary troops for the Emperor Theodosius in 388, before ravaging the Balkans again in the 390s. As nomadic herdsmen, accompanied by their wives and families, they moved around continually seeking the best opportunities for grazing and plunder, but probably only numbered a few thousand. In 395, larger numbers of Huns attacked Persia, impelled by the loss of their herds through drought, and then drifted westward.

By c.404, Hunnic leaders were negotiating with Emperor Honorius in Rome, and after 409 Huns served regularly in the Roman army. They then disappear from history until 423 when Ruga is named as their king. He ruled for some ten to fifteen years and may have been ceded lands in Pannonia (modern Hungary) where the grasslands suited a nomadic lifestyle. It is only when Attila appears on the scene that the Huns seem to become a serious threat. In 441, the Huns broke into the western Balkan provinces and took Sirmium in 442. In 447, they devastated Thrace and threatened Constantinople. Outbreaks of plague were the only things to check their progress. Yet Attila was no world ruler along the lines of the later Mongols, he ruled a defined territory from the mouth of the Danube west to Slovakia. In 451, the Huns crossed into Italy taking Aquileia, Milan, and Pavia, but were forced north of the Alps into Gaul by a combination of plague and Roman resistance led by the magister militum Aetius. He offered battle on the ‘Catalaunian Fields’ (Châlons), both sides relying upon German support. Aetius drew up with his Visigothic allies on his right flank, who, despite the loss of their king, overran the Ostrogoths opposing them and gained control of a strategically placed hill. Meanwhile Aetius' Romans held off fierce Hunnic attacks on their own positions. Staring defeat in the face, Attila fell back into his camp, and allegedly prepared to die on a pyre of saddles, although his men's arrows kept the pursuing Romans at bay. Unable to sustain his strategic position, Attila withdrew to Pannonia and died in 435. No successor proved capable of creating such formidable force.

 http://www.jaysromanhistory.com/romeweb/ROMARMY/art13.htm

,Contact with the Huns taught eastern Romans to develop a native cavalry which was both bow-and lance-armed, mobile and aggressively inclined. Such troops were the core of the armies sent out by Justinian I under his general Belisarius to reconquer the western empire in the mid-6th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attila_the_Hun 

http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/children/huns2.jpg

 Flavius Aëtius or simply Aëtius, (c. 396–454), dux et patricius

 Aëtius was born at Durostorum in Moesia Inferior (modern Silistra, Bulgaria), around 390. His father was Flavius Gaudentius, a Roman general of Scythian or Gothic origin but more probably of Daco-Roman origin, his mother, whose name is unknown, was a wealthy and aristocratic woman of Italian stock.^[1] Before 425 he married the daughter of Carpilio,^[2] who gave him a son, also named Carpilio^[3]. Later he married Pelagia, widow of Bonifacius, from whom he had a son, Gaudentius. It is possible that he had also a daughter, wife of the Thraustila who avenged Aëtius' death by killing Valentinian III.^[4]

Early years, service under Joannes and first Gallic campaigns

As a boy, Aëtius was at the service of the imperial court, enrolled in the military unit of the tribuni praetoriani partis militaris.^[5] Between 405 and 408 he was kept as hostage at the court of the king of the Goths, Alaric I; in 408 Alaric asked to have back Aëtius as hostage, but this time he was refused, as Aëtius was sent as a hostage at the court of the king of the Huns, Rua.^[6] Gibbon and some other historians maintain that Aëtius's upbringing among vigorous and warlike peoples such as the Huns gave him a martial vigour lacking in Rome itself at that period.^[7]

In the picture Aetius is on the right and Emperor Valentinian III as a child, accompanied by his mother, is on the left.

In 423, the Western Emperor Honorius died. The most influential man in the West, Castinus, chose as his successor Joannes, a high ranking officer. Joannes was not part of the Theodosian dynasty and he did not receive the recognition of the eastern court. The Eastern Emperor Theodosius II organized a military expedition westward, led by Aspar, to put his nephew, the young Valentinian III (who was also a nephew of Honorius), on the Western throne. Aëtius entered the service of the usurper as cura palatii and was sent by Joannes to ask the Huns for help. Joannes lacked a strong army and fortified himself in his capital, Ravenna, where with his other senior ministers he was captured and killed (June or July 425). Shortly afterwards, Aëtius returned in Italy with a large force of Huns to find that power in the West was in the hands of Valentinian and his mother Galla Placidia. After fighting against Aspar's army, Aëtius managed to compromise with Galla Placidia; he sent back his Huns and obtained the rank of comes et magister militum per Gallias, commander in chief of the Roman troops in Gaul.^[8]

That same year, or in 426, he defeated the Visigoths, who were besieging Arelate, and obliged them to return to Aquitaine. In 428 he was successful against the Franks, recovering some territory they had occupied along the Rhine.^[9] In 429 he was elevated to the rank of magister militum; this was probably the iunior of the two offices of magister militum praesentalis, as the senior is known to have been the patrician Flavius Felix, the most influential man in those years, supporter of Galla Placidia. However, in May 430, Aëtius accused Felix of plotting against him and had him and his wife killed. Once Felix was dead, Aëtius was probably the most prominent among the magistri militum, even if he had not yet been granted the title of patrician. That same year he defeated the Juthungi in Raetia and destroyed a Visigothic group near Arelate, capturing their leader, Anaolsus. In 431 he defeated the Nori in Noricum; returning to Gaul, he received Hydatius, bishop of Aquae Flaviae, who complained about the attacks of the Suebi. In 432 Aëtius again defeated the Franks, making peace with them, and he sent back Hydatius to the Suebi in Spain .^[10]

Rivalry with Bonifacius

While Aëtius fought for the Empire in Gaul, he had to play on another table, the struggle among the strong men at the imperial court. Since 425, Aëtius was one of two strong generals below Flavius Constantius Felix, the other being Bonifacius; the rivalry between the two men grew through the years. While Bonifacius was in Africa, as governor of Diocese of Africa, Aëtius plotted against the comes of Africa, causing Bonifacius to fall into disfavour with Galla Placidia (427); when this plotting was discovered, in 429, Aëtius was too strong to be punished. Boniface was eventually returned to favour by Placidia, not before revolting in Africa and calling in the Vandals.^[11]

After the death of Felix in May 430, the power struggle had only two protagonists, Aetius and Bonifacius. In 432, when Aëtius held the consulate, Boniface was recalled to Italy by Galla Placidia and given the rank of patrician, probably to counterbalance the power of the commander in chief of the Gallic armies. Aëtius, believing that Placidia had decided to get rid of him, marched against Boniface and fought against him at the Battle of Rimini; Boniface won the battle, but was mortally wounded and died a few months later. Aëtius went to his country properties, but, after being the target of an attempted murder, went first to Rome, then, through Dalmatia and Pannonia, to his friends the Huns. With their help he returned to power, receiving the title of magister utriusque militiae; he had Bonifacius' son-in-law, Sebastianus, who had succeeded to Bonifacius as magister militum praesentalis, exiled from Italy to Constantinople, bought the properties of Bonifacius and married his widow Pelagia.^[12]

Campaigns against Burgundians, Bagaudae, and Visigoths

From 433 to 450, Aëtius was the dominant personality in the Western empire, obtaining the patrician rank (5 September 435) and playing the role of "protector" of Galla Placidia and Valentinian III while the Emperor was still young. At the same time he continued to devote attention to Gaul. In 436, the Burgundians of king Gunther were defeated and obliged to accept peace by Aëtius, who, however, the following year sent the Huns to destroy them; 20,000 Burgundians were killed in a slaughter which became the basis of the Nibelungenlied, a German epic.^{[citation needed]} That same 436 Aetius was probably in Armorica with Litorius to suppress a rebellion of the Bacaudae. Year 437 saw his second consulship and the wedding of Valentinian and Licinia Eudoxia in Constantinople; it is probable that Aetius attended at the ceremony that marked the beginning of the direct rule of the Emperor. The following two years were occupied by a campaign against the Suebi and by the war against the Visigoths; in 438 Aetius won a major battle (probably the battle of Mons Colubrarius), but in 439 the Visigoths defeated and killed his general Lictorius and obtained a peace treaty. On his return to Italy, he was honoured by a statue erected by the Senate and the People of Rome by order of the Emperor; this was probably the occasion for the panegyric written by Merobaudes.^[13]

In 443, Aëtius settled the remaining Burgundians in Savoy, south of Lake Geneva. His most pressing concern in the 440s was with problems in Gaul and Spain, mainly with the Bagaudae. He settled Alans around Valence and Orleans to contain unrest around present-day Brittany.

The Alans settled in Armorica caused problems in 447 or 448. It was probably in that period that he fought a battle near Tours, followed by a Frankish attack under Clodio to the region near Arras, in Belgica Secunda; the invaders were stopped by a battle around a river-crossing near Vicus Helena, where Aëtius directed the operations while his commander Majorian (later Emperor) fought with the cavalry.^[14] However, in 450 Aëtius had already returned in good terms with the Franks. In that year, in fact, the king of the Franks died, and the patricius supported his younger son's claim to the throne, adopting him as his own son and sending him from Rome, where he had sent as ambassador, to the Frankish court with many presents.^[15]

 Victory over Attila at the Catalaunian Plains

The probable path of the Hun forces in their invasion of Gaul, leading up to the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains

Before 449 Aëtius had signed an agreement with the Huns, allowing some of them to settle in Pannonia, along the Sava River; he also sent to Attila, the king of the Huns, a man called Constantius as a secretary. In 449, Attila was angry for an alleged theft of a golden plate, and Aëtius sent him an embassy under Romulus to calm him; Attila sent him as a present a dwarf, Zerco, whom Aëtius gave back to his original owner, Aspar.^[16]

However, the good terms between Romans and Huns did not last, as Attila wanted to attack Gaul; he knew that Aëtius was a serious obstacle to his enterprise, and tried to have him removed, but in 451, when the Huns attacked, Aëtius was the commander of the Roman army in Gaul.^[17] The large Hunnish army^[18] captured several cities, and proceeded towards Orleans.

When the Alans living in the region were ready to defect to Attila, Aëtius, with the help of the influential Gallo-Roman senator Avitus, convinced the Visigoths of king Theodoric I to join him against the external menace; he also succeeded in avoiding that Sangibanus, a possible ally for Attila, could join his army with the Hunnish one. Then the joint Roman and Visigothic armies moved to relieve the besieged city of Orleans, forcing the Huns to abandon the siege and retreat to open country.^[19]

On September 20, 451 (some sources place the date at June 20, 451),^[20] Aëtius and Theodoric defeated Attila and his allies at the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains.^[21] Theodoric died in the battle, and Aëtius suggest his son Thosrismundus to quickly reach Toulouse (capital of the Kingdom of the Visigoths) to secure his throne; for this reason it is said that Aëtius kept all of the booty for his army.^[22]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:De_Neuville_-_The_Huns_at_the_Battle_of_Chalons.jpg

Attila returned in 452 to again press his claim of marriage to Honoria; Aëtius did not take the necessary precautions to block the Alpine passes,^[23] and Attila invaded and ravaged Italy, sacking numerous cities and razing Aquileia completely, leaving no trace of it behind. Valentinian III fled from Ravenna to Rome; Aëtius remained in the field but lacked the strength to offer battle. Gibbon however says Aëtius never showed his greatness more clearly in managing to harass and slow Attila's advance with only a shadow force. Attila finally halted at the Po, where he met an embassy including the prefect Trigetius, the consul Aviennus, and Pope Leo I.

 http://knowledgenews.net/moxie/worldtour/attila-hun-2.shtml

 ATTILA MEETS THE POPE

 Aetius Assassination

Although in 453 Aëtius had been able to betroth his son Gaudentius to Valentinian's daughter Placidia, Valentinian felt intimidated by Aëtius, who had once supported Joannes against him and whom Valentinian believed wanted to place his son upon the imperial throne. The Roman senator Petronius Maximus and the chamberlain Heraclius were therefore able to enlist Valentinian in a plot to assassinate Aëtius. On September 21, 454, when at court in Ravenna delivering a financial account, Aëtius was slain by Valentinian's own hand. Edward Gibbon credits Sidonius Apollinaris with the famous observation, "I am ignorant, sir, of your motives or provocations; I only know that you have acted like a man who has cut off his right hand with his left."^[24]

Maximus expected to be made patrician in place of Aëtius, but was blocked by Heraclius. Seeking revenge, Maximus arranged with two Hun friends of Aëtius, Optila and Thraustila, to assassinate both Valentinian III and Heraclius. On March 16, 455, Optila stabbed the emperor in the temple as he dismounted in the Campus Martius and prepared for a session of archery practice. As the stunned emperor turned to see who had struck him, Optila finished him off with another thrust of his blade. Meanwhile, Thraustila stepped forward and killed Heraclius. Most of the soldiers standing close by had been faithful followers of Aëtius and none lifted a hand to save the emperor.

The last Western emperor was forced to abdicate and the imperial regalia were sent to Zeno in the East with a letter stating they would no longer be needed because there was no longer a western emperor.

 Legacy

Military legacy

Aëtius is generally viewed as a great military commander, the support of the dying Empire for three decades. Most historians also consider the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains as decisively important, crippling Attila by destroying his aura of invincibility.^[25] Gibbon eloquently states the majority view:

(Attila's) retreat across the Rhine confessed the last victory which was achieved in the name of the Western Roman Empire."^[26].

John Julius Norwich caustically referred to the assassination of Valentinian III by his own guards as an act that Valentinian brought on himself by his foolish execution of Aëtius, the "Empire's greatest commander."^[27] Certainly Aëtius' military legacy is defined by Chalons, even though he effectively ruled the western empire from 433-450, and attempted to stabilize its European borders under a deluge of barbarians, including foremost, Attila and the Huns.

One of his greatest achievements was the assembling of the coalition against Attila. On this Arthur Ferrill says:

After he secured the Rhine, Attila moved into central Gaul and put Orléans under siege. Had he gained his objective, he would have been in a strong position to subdue the Visigoths in Aquitaine, but Aëtius had put together a formidable coalition against the Hun. The Roman leader had built a powerful alliance of Visigoths, Alans and Burgundians, uniting them with their traditional enemy, the Romans, for the defense of Gaul. Even though all parties to the protection of the Western Roman Empire had a common hatred of the Huns, it was still a remarkable achievement on Aëtius' part to have drawn them into an effective military relationship.

—"Attila the Hun and the Battle of Chalons", by Arthur Ferrill

While J. B. Bury viewed Aëtius as a great military commander, and giant figure of history, he did not consider that the battle itself was particularly decisive. He argues that Aëtius attacked the Huns when they were already retreating from Orleans (so the danger to Gaul was departing anyway); and he declined to renew the attack on the Huns next day, precisely in order to preserve the balance of power. (Others suggest that the Huns may have abandoned the siege of Orleans because Aëtius's armies were advancing on them.)

Bury suggests that the German victory over the Huns at the Battle of Nedao, three years later, was more important. This determined that there would be no long-term Hunnic Empire in Europe, which Bury thinks would have been unlikely even if they had crushed the Germans on that occasion. For Bury, the result of the battle of the Catalaunian Plains determined chiefly that Attila spent his last year looting Italy, rather than Gaul.

Bury's view remains in the minority, and the battle is considered crucial by virtually every other major historian.

Controversies

His legacy has been filled with controversy somewhat similar to that of Stilicho. The two best Roman generals of their time, both were killed by jealous emperors, and both left the Empire significantly weaker when they died. The main difference between the two was that all major historians hail Aëtius as a loyal Roman and a pillar of the Empire, while Bury finds Stilicho an unwitting traitor. While Stilicho was succeeded by Aëtius, the Empire simply had no one to take Aëtius's place. At the time of Aëtius's death, all the Roman provinces in western Europe had a significant barbarian presence. This had begun a full three generations earlier, when the barbarians were allowed to stay inside the Empire's borders in exchange for peace and their military service. Edward Gibbon maintains that Aëtius could not have expelled them if he had wanted to, as he lacked Roman troops to do the task, and the barbarians were the only army he had to keep the peace. Gibbon argues in great detail that Roman citizens had lost their martial vigour, with the consequence that the only troops available to Stilicho or Aëtius were mostly barbarians.^[28]

Gibbon views Aëtius in a positive light, as do Norwich, Creasy, Ferrill, and Watson. In 1980, Robert F. Pennel wrote in Ancient Rome from the Earliest Times Down to 476AD

The Empire was but a relic of its former self. Gaul, Spain, and Britain were practically lost; Illyria and Pannonia were in the hands of the Goths; and Africa was soon after seized by the barbarians. Valentinian was fortunate in the possession of AËTIUS, a Scythian by birth, who for a time upheld the Roman name, winning for himself the title of LAST OF THE ROMANS. He was assassinated by his ungrateful master."^[29]

Gibbon believes it was not indifference but rather preoccupation with the Huns and other barbarians that led Aëtius to neglect the navy. The subsequent loss of Africa came after Boniface invited the Vandals. Gibbon makes clear that Aëtius simply lacked the means to preserve the declining Western Empire in its entirety, while Norwich concludes that he guarded the Empire for three decades and that the after-effects of Aëtius's death lie at the feet of the Emperor who foolishly killed him. At a time when Romans did little or none of their own fighting, and no effective navy existed in the West, Aëtius had all he could do to preserve some vestige of order in continental Europe.

One could argue that later Emperors Majorian, Leo I and Anthemius saw the necessity of regaining the African provinces. Should Aëtius have concentrated his efforts on saving Africa, to the detriment of maintaining some vestige of Empire in Europe? Michael Grant in his History of Rome states flatly that Aëtius was powerless to stop the loss of Africa. Aëtius had begun to move against the Vandals when the forces he sent had to be recalled to fight Attila. Since Aëtius relied on barbarian federates, and as no other Roman General had the respect of those barbarian troops, his death left the Empire bereft of virtually any army in the west.

It is notable that Bury, whilst not believing the Battle of Chalons was significant, did believe in the significance of Aëtius's rule in general, saying "From the end of the regency to his own death, Aëtius was master of the Empire in the west, and it must be imputed to his policy and arms that Imperial rule did not break down in all the provinces by the middle of the fifth century."

In the end, there is some disagreement among historians as to the historical place of Aëtius. Was he the protector of Rome for three decades described by Gibbon, Norwich and Bury, the hero of Chalons described by Sir Edward Creasy, or should he be condemned for the loss of Africa, though most historians say he was powerless to stop that loss? Although Bury is cited as a critic of Aëtius, he was not, and said of Aëtius's death: "Who was now to save Italy from the Vandals?" The answer was no one. There was not one figure in the Empire able to take Aëtius's place as the champion and defender of the West. The certain thing about Aëtius's place in history is that he will forever be remembered as the last great Western Roman General, and the General who defeated the dreaded Attila the Hun. [1]

 Aëtius in the arts

Aëtius is the protagonist of Handel's opera Ezio.

Aëtius is played by Powers Boothe in the 2001 American TV Miniseries Attila. Here he is portrayed as an antagonist whose methods are contrasted with Attila. Aëtius is portrayed as the heroic 'Last of the Romans' in William Napier's Attila trilogy (2005), uniting the Romans and the Goths in one final, titanic battle to stop the Huns in their tracks, in the epochal Battle of the Catalaunian Fields.

While he does not appear in person, Aëtius' battle with Attila is documented in detail in Jack Whyte's book The Eagle, during a conversation between King Arthur and Seur Clothar.

Aëtius, Galla Placidia and Stilicho all appear as central characters in Jose Gomez-Rivera's historical novel Flavius Aëtius: The Last Conqueror, published in 2004.

Aëtius, Attila and Theodoric all appear in Michael Curtis Ford's fourth novel entitled The Sword of Attila, published by Thomas Dunne Books in 2005.

 See also

• Groans of the Britons

 References

Bibliography

Primary sources

• Additamenta ad chron. Prosperi Hauniensis
• Annales Ravennates
• Cassiodorus, Chronica and Variae
• Chronica gallica anno 452
• Chronica gallica anno 511
• Chronicon Paschale
• Gregory of Tours, Historia Francorum ii.8, gives a condensed version of Aëtius' character and career, using a lost history of Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus.
• Hydatius, Chronicle
• John of Antioch, Chronicle
• John Malalas, Chronographia
• Jordanes, Getica and Romana
• Marcellinus Comes, Chronicle
• Merobaudes, Carmina and Panegyrici
• Philostorgius, Ecclesiastical History
• Priscus, History
• Procopius, Vandal War
• Prosper of Aquitaine, Epitoma chronicon
• Sidonius Apollinaris, Carmina
• Suda
• Zosimus, New History

Secondary sources

• Jones, Arnold Hugh Martin, John Robert Martindale, John Morris, "Fl. Aetius 7", The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, volume 2, Cambridge University Press, 1980, ISBN 0521201594, pp. 21-29.

Further readengs

• Cameron, Averil The Later Roman Empire (Harvard University Press 2007) ISBN 0674511948.
• Cameron, Averil The Cambridge Ancient History: the Late Empire (Cambridge University Press 1998) ISBN 0521302005.
• Clover, Frank M Flavius Merobaudes (American Philosophical Society 1971).
• Creasy, Sir Edward, Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World,
• Drinkwater, John, Fifth-Century Gaul: A Crisis of Identity? (Cambridge University Press 1992) ISBN 0521414857.
• Elton, Hugh Warfare in Roman Europe, AD 350-425 (Oxford University Press 1998) ISBN 0198152418.
• Ferrill, Arther, The Fall of the Roman Empire: The Military Explanation. Thames and Hudson, London, 1986.
• Jones, A.H.M., The Later Roman Empire 284-602. Oxford Press, Cambridge, 1964.
• Norwich, John J. Byzantium: The Early Centuries. The Fall of the West. Knopf, New York, 1997
• O'Flynn, John Michael Generalissimos of the Western Roman Empire (The University of Alberta Press 1983) ISBN 0888640315.
• Oost, Stewart I., Galla Placidia Augusta. Chicago, 1968.

 The Huns and the Byzantine Empire

at the Lower Danube

By 432 the Huns were united under Rugila as Rua. His death in 434 left his nephews Bleda and Attila (the sons of his brother Mundzuk) in control over all the united Hun tribes. At the time of their accession, the Huns were bargaining with Byzantine emperor Theodosius II's envoys over the return of several renegade tribes who had taken refuge within the Byzantine Empire. The following year Attila and Bleda met with the imperial legation at Margus (present-day Požarevac) and, all seated on horseback in the Hunnic manner, negotiated a successful treaty: the Romans agreed not only to return the fugitive tribes (who had been a welcome aid against the Vandals), but also to double their previous tribute of 350 Roman pounds (ca. 114.5 kg) of gold, open their markets to Hunnish traders, and pay a ransom of eight solidi for each Roman taken prisoner by the Huns. The Huns, satisfied with the treaty, decamped from the empire and returned to their home, perhaps to consolidate and strengthen their empire. Theodosius used this opportunity to strengthen the walls of Constantinople, building the city's first sea wall, and to build up his border defenses along the Danube.

The Huns remained out of Roman sight for the next five years as they tried to invade the Persian Empire. A defeat in Armenia caused them to abandon this attempt and return their attentions to Europe. In 440 they reappeared on the borders of the Roman Empire, attacking the merchants at the market on the north bank of the Danube that had been established by the treaty. Attila and Bleda threatened further war, claiming that the Romans had failed to fulfill their treaty obligations and that the bishop of Margus had crossed the Danube to ransack and desecrate the royal Hun graves on the Danube's north bank. They crossed the Danube and laid waste to Illyrian cities and forts on the river, among them, according to Priscus, Viminacium, which was a city of the Moesians in Illyria. Their advance began at Margus, for when the Romans discussed handing over the offending bishop, he slipped away secretly to the Huns and betrayed the city to them.

Theodosius had stripped the river's defenses in response to the Vandal Gaiseric's capture of Carthage in 440 and the Sassanid Yazdegerd II's invasion of Armenia in 441. This left Attila and Bleda a clear path through Illyria into the Balkans, which they invaded in 441. The Hunnish army, having sacked Margus and Viminacium, took Singidunum (modern Belgrade) and Sirmium before halting. A lull followed in 442 and during this time Theodosius recalled his troops from North Africa and ordered a large new issue of coins to finance operations against the Huns. Having made these preparations, he thought it safe to refuse the Hunnish kings' demands.

Attila and Bleda responded by renewing their campaign in 443. Striking along the Danube, they overran the military centers of Ratiaria and successfully besieged Naissus (modern Niš) with battering rams and rolling towers (military sophistication that was new to the Hun repertory), then pushing along the Nisava they took Serdica (Sofia), Philippopolis (Plovdiv) and Arcadiopolis (Luleburgaz). They encountered and destroyed the Roman force outside Constantinople and were only halted by their lack of siege equipment capable of breaching the city's massive walls. Theodosius admitted defeat and sent the court official Anatolius to negotiate peace terms, which were harsher than the previous treaty: the Emperor agreed to hand over 6,000 Roman pounds (ca. 1,963 kg) of gold as punishment for having disobeyed the terms of the treaty during the invasion; the yearly tribute was tripled, rising to 2,100 Roman pounds (ca. 687 kg) in gold; and the ransom for each Roman prisoner rose to twelve solidi.

Their demands met for a time, the Hun kings withdrew into the interior of their empire. According to Jordanes (following Priscus), sometime during the peace following the Huns' withdrawal from Byzantium (probably around 445), Bleda died (killed by his younger brother, according to the classical sources), and Attila took the throne for himself.

The Hun Invasions of the Balkan Peninsula (A.D. 441‑448)

At the beginning of the reign of Theodosius an invasion of the peninsula by a host of Huns was a prelude and a warning. They were led by Uldin, who boasted that he could subdue the whole earth or even the sun. He captured Castra Martis,12 but as he advanced against Thrace he was deserted by a large multitude of his followers, who joined the Romans in driving their king beyond the Danube. The Romans followed up their victory by defensive precautions. The strong cities in Illyricum were fortified, and new walls were built to protect Byzantium; the fleet on the Danube was increased and improved. But a payment of money was a more effectual barrier against the barbarians than walls, and about A.D. 424 Theodosius consented to pay 350 lbs. of gold to King Rugila.

The tribes of the Huns were ruled each by its own chieftain, but Rugila seems to have brought together all the tribes into a p272 sort of political unity.13 He had established himself between the Theiss and the Danube. The treaty which the government of Ravenna made with Rugila, when the Huns withdrew from Italy in A.D. 425 after the subjugation of the tyrant John, seems to have included the provision that the Huns should evacuate the Pannonian province of Valeria which they had occupied for forty-five years.14 But soon afterwards a new arrangement was made by which another part of Pannonia was surrendered to them, apparently districts on the lower Save,15 but not including Sirmium. We may conjecture that this concession was made by Aetius in return for Rugila's help in A.D. 433.16

Rugila died soon after this,17 and he was succeeded by his nephews Bleda and Attila,18 the sons of Mundiuch, as joint rulers. Bleda played no part on the stage of history. Attila was a leading actor for twenty years, and his name is still almost a household word. He was not well favoured. His features, according to a Gothic historian, "bore the stamp of his origin; and the portrait of Attila exhibited the genuine deformity of a modern Kalmuck: a large head, a swarthy complexion, small, deep-seated eyes, a flat nose, a few hairs in the place of a beard, broad shoulders, and a short square body of nervous strength though of a disproportioned form. The haughty step and demeanour of the king of the Huns expressed the consciousness of his superiority above the rest of mankind, and he had the custom of fiercely rolling his eyes as if he wished to enjoy the terror which he inspired."19 He was versed in all the arts of diplomacy, but p273 the chief aim of his policy was plunder. He was far less cruel than the great Mongolian conqueror of the thirteenth century, Chingiz Khan, with whom he has sometimes been compared; he was capable of pity and could sometimes pardon his enemies.

Attila had some reason for his haughty disdain if he could trace his line of ancestry back for a thousand years and was directly descended from the great chieftains of the Hiung‑nu,20 whose names have been recorded by early Chinese writers. And if we accept this descent as a genuine tradition, we can infer that he was not of pure Turkish blood. Some of his forefathers had married Chinese princesses, and there may also have been an admixture of the blood of Indo-Scythians.21

At the beginning of the new reign several points of dispute which had arisen between Rugila and Theodosius were settled. The settlement was entirely to the advantage of the Huns. The Imperial government undertook to double the annual payment, which was thus raised to 700 lbs. of gold; not to receive Hun deserters; to surrender all those who had already deserted; to restore or pay a ransom for Roman prisoners who had escaped; not to form an alliance with any barbarian people at war with the Huns; and to place no restrictions on the trade between the two peoples. The prohibition of receiving fugitives from Attila's empire was particularly important, because the Roman army was largely recruited from barbarians beyond the Danube.

During the early years of his reign, from A.D. 434 to 441, he seems to have been engaged in extending his power in the east towards the Caucasian Mountains. But in A.D. 441 an irresistible opportunity offered itself for attacking the provinces of Theodosius, for in that year the Imperial armies were engaged in operations against both the Vandals and the Persians.

He condescended to allege reasons for his aggression. He complained that the tribute had not been regularly paid, and p274 that deserters had not been restored. When the Imperial government disregarded his complaints,22 he appeared on the Danube and laid siege to Ratiaria. Here Roman ambassadors arrived to remonstrate with him for breaking the peace. He replied by alleging that the bishop of Margus had entered the land of the Huns and robbed treasures from the tombs of their kings, and he demanded the surrender of these treasures as well as of deserters. The negotiations broke down, and, having captured and plundered Ratiaria, the Hunnic horsemen rode up the course of the Danube to take the great towns on the banks. Viminacium and Singidunum itself were overwhelmed in the onslaught. Margus, which faces Constantia on the opposite side of the river, fell by treachery; the same bishop whom Attila accused as a grave-robber betrayed a Roman town and its Christian inhabitants to the cruelty of the heathen destroyer. Advancing up the valley of the Margus, the invaders halted before the walls of Naissus, and though the inhabitants made a brave defence, the place yielded to the machines of Attila and the missiles of a countless host. Then the marauders rode south-eastward and approached Constantinople. He did not venture to attack the capital, but he took Philippopolis and Arcadiopolis and the fort of Athyras.23

The strong fortress of Asemus on the Danube, in Lower Moesia,24 won high praise for its valiant resistance to Hunnic squadrons, which separating from the main body had invaded Lower Moesia. They besieged Asemus, and the garrison so effectually harassed them by sallies that they were forced to retreat. A successful defence was not enough for the men of Asemus. Their scouts discovered the times when plundering bands were returning to the camp with spoils, and these moments were seized by the garrison, who unexpectedly assailed these small bodies of Huns and rescued many Roman prisoners.

The Imperial troops, which had been operating against the Persians and the Vandals, must have been available for operations against the Huns in A.D. 442 or 443, but it is not recorded p275 that Aspar or Areobindus took the field when they returned from Persia and Sicily. We hear that a battle was fought in the Thracian Chersonese and that Attila was victorious, and after this a peace was negotiated by Anatolius (A.D. 443). The terms were humiliating for the Emperor. Henceforward the annual Hun-tribute of 700 lbs. of gold was to be trebled, and an additional payment of 6000 lbs. was to be made at once. All Hun deserters were to be surrendered to Attila, while Roman deserters were to be handed over to the Emperor for a payment of ten solidi a head.

Hitherto the realm of the Huns had been divided between the two brothers, Bleda and Attila. Of Bleda's government and deeds we hear nothing. We may conjecture that he ruled in the east, from the Lower Danube to the Volga, and Attila in the west. Soon after the Peace of Anatolius, Attila found means to put Bleda to death and unite all the Huns and vassal peoples under his own sway. For the next nine years (A.D. 444‑453) he was the most powerful man in Europe.

The Illyrian and Thracian provinces enjoyed a respite from invasion for three years. But in A.D. 447 the Huns appeared again south of the Danube. The provinces of Lower Moesia and Scythia, which had suffered less in the previous incursions, were now devastated. Marcianopolis was taken, and the Roman general Arnegisclus fell in a battle on the banks of the river Utus (Wid). At the same time, another host of the enemy descended the valley of the Vardar and advanced, it is said, to Thermopylae.25 Others approached Constantinople, and many of its inhabitants fled from it in terror. So we are told by a contemporary, who says that more than a hundred towns were taken, and that the monks and nuns in the monasteries near the capital were slain, if they had not already fled.26

Attila was now in a position to enlarge his demands. A new peace was concluded (A.D. 448) by which a district, along the right bank of the Danube, extending from Singidunum eastward to Novae, and of a breadth of five days' journey, should be left waste and uninhabited, as a march region between the two realms, and Naissus, which was now desolate, should mark the p276 frontier.27 But Attila continued to vex the government at Constantinople with embassies, complaints, and demands, and as the drain on the treasury was becoming enormous, the eunuch Chrysaphius conceived the base idea of bribing an envoy of Attila to murder his master. Edecon, the principal minister of Attila, accepted the money and returned to his master's residence, which was somewhere between the rivers Theiss and Körös, in company of a Roman embassy the head of which was Maximin. But the plot was revealed to Attila. He respected the person of the ambassador, but he sent to Constantinople Orestes (a Roman provincial of Pannonia who served him as secretary) with the bag which had held the bribe tied round his neck, and ordered him to ask Chrysaphius in the Emperor's presence whether he recognised it. The punishment of the eunuch was to be demanded. The Emperor then sent two men of patrician rank, Anatolius (Master of Soldiers in praesenti) and Nomus (formerly Master of Offices), to pacify the anger of the Hun. Attila treated them haughtily at first, but then showed surprising magnanimity and no longer insisted on the punishment of Chrysaphius. He promised to observe the treaty and not to cross the Danube (A.D. 449‑450).

Until the end of the reign of Theodosius the oppressive Hun-money was paid to Attila, but, as we saw, Marcian refused to pay it any longer. It seemed that the Illyrian provinces would again be trampled under the horse-hoofs of the Hun cavalry, though little spoil can have been left to take. But Attila turned his eyes westward, where there was hope of richer plunder, and the realm of Valentinian, not that of Marcian, was now to be exposed to the fury of the destroyer.

 John Bagnall Bury:
History of the Later Roman Empire

Chapter IX

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/BURLAT/9*.html

§ 3. The Empire and Court of Attila

Under the rule of Rugila and Attila the Hunnic empire had assumed an imposing size and seemed a formidable power. The extent of Attila's dominion has doubtless been exaggerated, but his sway was effective in the lands (to use modern names) of Austria, Hungary, Roumania, and Southern Russia. How p277 far northward it may have reached cannot be decided. The most important of the German peoples who were subject to Attila were the Gepids (apparently in the mountainous regions of northern Dacia),28 the Ostrogoths (who had migrated westward from their old homes on the Euxine),29 and the Rugians (somewhere near the Theiss)30 — all in the neighbourhood of the lands where the Huns themselves had settled. The Gepid king, Ardaric, was Attila's most trusted counsellor, and next to him, Walamir, one of the Ostrogothic kings. On these peoples he could rely in his military enterprises. Before A.D. 440 the Huns had made an incursion into the Persian empire, and such was the prestige of their arms and Attila's power eight years later that the Roman officers talked of the chances of the overthrow of Persia and the possible consequences of such an event for the Roman world.

Attila indeed looked upon himself as overlord of all Europe, including the Roman Empire. Theodosius paid him a huge sum yearly, Valentinian paid him gold too; were they not then his tributaries and slaves? He dreamed of an empire reaching to the islands of the Ocean,31 and he was soon to make an attempt to extend it actually to the shores of the Atlantic.32 In his dealings with the Empire he had one great military advantage. We have already seen how the Imperial government depended on the Huns and on the Germans beyond the frontier for the recruiting of its armies. Without his Hunnic auxiliaries Aetius would hardly have been able to save as much of Gaul as he succeeded in saving from the rapacity of the German settlers. Attila was in a position to stop these sources of supply. He could refuse to send Hunnic contingents to help the Romans again their enemies; he could forbid individual Huns to leave p278 their country and enter Roman service; and he could bring pressure to bear on his vassal German kings to issue a similar prohibition to their subjects. That he was fully conscious of this power and made it a feature of his policy, is shown by his stern insistence, in negotiating with Theodosius, that all Hun deserters should be surrendered; perhaps by the device of keeping a strip of neutral territory south of the Danube in order to make it more difficult for his own subjects to pass into the Roman provinces; and particularly by the fact that when his empire was broken up after his death, the empire was inundated by Germans seeking to make their fortunes in Roman service.

Since their entry into Europe the Huns had changed in some important ways their life and institutions. They were still a pastoral people, they did not learn to practise tillage, but on the Danube and the Theiss the nomadic habits of the Asiatic steppes were no longer appropriate or necessary. And when they became a political power and had dealings with the Roman Empire — dealings in which diplomacy was required as well as the sword — they found themselves compelled to adapt themselves, however crudely, to the habits of more civilised communities. Attila found that a private secretary who knew Latin was indispensable, and Roman subjects were hired to fill the post. But the most notable fact in the history of the Huns at this period is the ascendancy which their German subjects appear to have gained over them. The most telling sign of this influence is the curious circumstance that some of their kings were called by German names. The names of Rugila,33 Mundiuch (Attila's father), and Attila are German or Germanised. This fact clearly points to intermarriages, but it is also an unconscious acknowledgment of the Huns that their vassals were higher in the scale of civilisation. If the political situation had remained unchanged for another fifty years the Asiatic invader would probably have been as thoroughly p279 Teutonised as the Alans, whom the Romans had now come to class among the Germanic peoples.34

Of Attila himself we have a clearer impression than of any of the German kings who played leading parts in the period of the Wandering of the Nations. The historian Priscus, who accompanied his friend Maximin, the ambassador to Attila, in A.D. 448, and wrote a full account of the embassy, drew a vivid portrait of the monarch and described his court. The story is so interesting that it will be best to reproduce it in a free translation of the original.35

  SITES: 

http://web.raex.com/~obsidian/siberia.html