The Huns and South Pannonia

The Huns and South Pannonia Hrvoje GRACANIN (Zagreb) Introduction The appearance of the Huns on the farthest edge of eastern Europe, in the area north of the Black Sea, during the second half of the 4‘ century A.D. created a string of events that proved to be crucial for the history of the Later Roman Empire.! Storming in like @ blizeard from high mountains, as a contemporary historian put it graphically, these nomadic warrior horsemen of Mongolian descent first pushed into the Iranian Alans who lived in the area around the river of Don. Not long afterwards, in 370’s, the Huns successfully demonstrated their forcefulness against the Greuthungian Ostrogoths, partially conquering them as well as the Alans, Soon after this, the unstoppable Hunnic torrent swept over the Tervingian Visigoths who were defeated decisively and forced to retreat. The final breakdown of the Ostrogoths is usually dated as 375, and of the Visigoths as 376," although it seems quite appropriate to move the chronology back one year, at least in the case of the 1 For the history and archaeology of the Huns ef. A. SOLARI, Aitila e i Unni, Pisa 1916; E. A. THOMPSON, A History of the Attila and the Huns, Oxford 1948; F. ALTHEIM, Attila und die Hunnen, Baden-Baden 1951; J. WERNER, Beitrdge zur Archdologie des Attila-Reiches LII (= Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Neue Folge 38 A-B), Miinchen 1956; L. HamBis, Attila et les Huns, Paris 1972; O. J. MAENCHEN-HELFEN, The World of the Huns, Studies in Their History and Culture, Berkley - Los Angeles - London 1973; idem, Die Welt der Hunnen. Eine Analyse ihrer historischen Dimension, Wien ~ Koln - Graz 1978; I. Bona, Das Hunnenreich, Stuttgart 1991; E. A. THOMPSON — P. J. Heater, The Huns, Oxford - Cambridge 1996; G. Wirth, Attila. Das Hunnenreich und Europa, Stuttgart 1999. 2 Amm. Marc., 31.3.8: nivium ut turbo montibus celsis. 3 L, ScHMIDT, Geschichte der deutschen Stéimme bis zum Augang der Vélkerwanderung: Die Ostgermanen, Miinchen 19342, pp. 249-258, 400-401; THomrson 1948, pp. 22- 24; ALTHEIM 1951, pp. 79-80; MAENCHEN-HELFEN 1973, pp. 18-26, 1978, pp. 15-20; M. BRANDT, Srednjoujekouno doba povijesnog razvitka (The History of Middle Ages], Zagreb 1980, p. 43; A. DEMANDT, Die Spatantike. Rémische Geschichte von Diocletian bis Justinian 284-565 n. Chr., Miinchen 1989, pp. 120-121; H. WOLFRAM, Die Goten: von den Anfangen bis zur Mille des sechsten Jahrhunderts. Entwurf einer historischen Ethnographie, Manchen 19903, pp. 79-81, 250-251; BONA 1991, pp. 9-17. + Cf. L. VArapy, Das letzte Jahrhundert Pannoniens (376-476), Budapest 1969, p. 29; MAENCHEN-HELFEN 1973, p. 26, 1978, p. 20; WOLFRAM 1990, p. 250; I. BONA, Die Hunnen in Norikum und Pannonien. Ihre Geschichte im Rahmen der Vilkerwanderung, in: Severin zwischen Romerzeit und Volkerwanderung, ed. D. Straub (= Katalog Ausstellung Enns), Linz 1982, p. 180; idem 1991, pp. 9, 18. 2930 Hrvoje Graganin Visigoths.> One defeat after another which the Hunnic attackers inflicted on their enemies by their irresistible cavalry charges spurred the migration of peoples.* A portion of the Goths sought refuge from the Huns on the Roman soil: the Tervingian-Visigothic group headed by Alavivus and Fritigern, the Greuthungian-Ostrogothic group with portions of the Alans and the Huns commanded by Alatheus and Safrax, and the Taifali-Gothic group led by Farnobius may have already crossed the lower Danube in late spring of 376.7 Among them, the most important for the purpose of this study is the Ostrogothic-Alanic-Hunnic group whose cavalry played a crucial role in the Roman defeat at Hadrianople in Thrace on August 9, 378. Namely, the Hunnic elements from the Alatheus’ and Safrax’ group were the first Huns who entered the territory of the Roman Empire. Soon, they would have great influence on the conditions in the Late Antique Pannonia. The first Huns in Pannonia SITUATION IN ILLYRICUM AFTER THE ROMAN DEFEAT AT HADRIANOPLE The crisis which befell the Empire after the disastrous late summer of 378 seemed almost insurmountable. Neither the next year brought any significant improvement, although the new Emperor Theodosius I, who was nominated for the East and proclaimed at Sirmium on January 19, 379 with a single purpose of curbing the Gothic revolt, had a limited success in Thrace and Eastern Illyricum (the dioceses of Dacia and Macedonia respectively).8 Moreover, from late 378 and early 379, the bar- 3S. KRAUTSCHICK, Hunnensturm und Germanenflut, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 92 (1999) 65-66. Cf. also P. J. HEATHER, Goths and Romans 332-489, Oxford 1994, p. 122, who says that, around 375, the Gothic kingdoms collapsed in upon themselves. © For contemporary understanding of the migrational ,mechanics, as one German historian has put it (DEMANDT 1989, p. 121), cf. a testimony of bishop Ambrosius of Mediolanum in the Expositio evangelii secundum Lucan, 10.10: Chuni in Halanos, Halani in Gothos, Gothi in Taifalos et Sarmatas insurrexerunt. A testimony for the Gothic fear of the Huns is provided by Eunap., fr. 42 (240.19-20): Tepietoriker 58 & Yoov ASyov [the Gothic uprising in Thrace] xai ExbGa¢ [the Goths] Oiwov pn déperv dvoua Kai 'Pwpaiovg CKvdav, 7 Cf. KRAUTSCHICK (1999) 28. The crossing of the Danube is dated as the autumn of 376 by O. SEECK, Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt V, Berlin 1913, p. 100, ScHMivt 1934, pp. 258, 402, THOMPSON 1948, p. 24, ALTITEM 1951, p. 80, DEMANDT 1989, p. 121, WOLFRAM 1990, p. 125, to the summer by MAENCHEN HELFEN 1973, p. 26, 1978, p. 21, and to early summer by HFATHER 1994, p. 122. 8 Seeck 1913, p. 125; ScHMIDT 1934, p. 259; WoLFRAM 1990, p. 138; HEATHER 1994, pp. 149-150. On November 17, 379, the imperial government announced the victories over the Goths, Alans and Huns, but the final peace was achieved in three-year time. Cf. Cons. Const., s.a. 380.23: Ipso anno multa bella Romani cum Gothis commiserunt. Deinde victoriae nuntiatae sunt adversus Gothos, Alanos, atqueThe Huns and South Pannonia barian invaders would spread throughout the provinces of the Balkan Peninsula, looting and ravaging all the way to the Julian Alps, i.e. in Pannonian regions also.2 So the first penetration of the Huns into Pannonia, that is, into both Southpannonian provinces and the Northpannonian province of Valeria, must have happened in late 378 and early 379.29 For their subsequent raids which reached the threshold of Italy, the invaders used the main Roman traffic routes in the Sava-Drava- Danube region. It is for that reason that this whole area came under particular pressure. The initial attacks on Pannonia were temporarily checked by general Maiorianus who, at the time, was in command of both Illyrici. Maiorianus led the operations from Aquincum in Valeria, but his command over the entire Illyricum was only of short duration. Afterwards, he held a command post in Eastern Illyricum, and he distinguished himself in fightings across the Danube.!! Hunos die XV kalendas Decembres; Paul. Oros., 7.34.5: Iaque Theodosius adflictam rem- publicam ira Dei reparandam credidit misericordia Dei; omnem fiduciam sui ad operam Christi conferens maximas illas Scythicas gentes formidatasque cunctis maioribus, Alexandro quoque illi Magno, sicut Pompeius Corneliusque testati sunt, evitatas, nunc autem extincto Romano exercitu. Romanis equis armisque instructissimas, hoc est Alanos Hunos e Gothos, incunclanter adgressus magnis multisque proeliis vicit; Marcelin., s.a. 379.2: Halanos, Hunnos, Gothos, gentes Scythicas magnis multisque proeliis. [sc. Theodosius] vicit. Cf, Philostorg., 9.19, 1-4: "O11 @coBdai0¢ 6 facdeds Kate TO Lépuiov toic PapBépor ovnBakdv (Exel yap avrixa Tod AoBeiv THY apyAY Tic Xpeiag anarrosong mapeyévero) Kai viKnoas payn, eKeiBev AauMpaG Eni TV Kavotavrivotmoav dveiow; Epitome de Caesaribus, 48.5: Nam Hunmos et Gothos, qui eam [sc. rem publicam] sub Valente defatigassent, diversis proeliis [sc. Theodosius] vical © Amm, Marc., 31.16.7: exinde digressi sunt effusorie per arctoas provincias, quas per agravere licenter ad usque radices Alpium Tuliarum, quas Venetas appellabat antiquitas. It seems only reasonable to assume that Ammianus Marcellinus is here summa- rizing the events occuring over several years (378-380), and not dating them all as the winter of 378/379. In his poem entitled Precatio consulis designati pridie Kalendas Ianuarias fascibus sumptis, which belongs chronologically to late 378, Decimus Magnus Ausonius also mentions the movements of the Sarmatians, Huns, Goths and Alans (cf, note 11). A testimony for an early penetration of barbarians into Illyricum is provided by Themistiuis in a speech he held in the spring of 379 (Oratio 14 (261, a, 4-b, 91). 10 Cf. T. Nacy, The Last Century of Pannonia in the Judgement of a New Monograph, in: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 19 (1971) 316318. Cf. also Ambros., De fide Il, 139ff, where the situation in late 378 is described: (...) de Thraciae partibus per Ripensem Daciam et Mysiam, omnemque Valeriam Pannoniorum, totum illum limitem sacrilegis pariter vocibus [sc. Arrianis] et barbaricis motibus audi- vimus inhorrentem. 1A. ALFOLDI, Der Untergang der Rémerherrschaft in Pannonien II, Berlin - Leipzig 1926, p. 60; PLRE I, 537 s.v, Maiorianus; W. ENBLIN, RE XTV I, Stutigart 1928, 589- 590 sv. Maiorianus 2; idem, Zum Heermeisteramt des spdtrimischen Reiches II. Die ma- gistri militum des 4. Jahrhunderts, Klio 23 (1931) 137; A. DEMANDT, RE $ XII, Stuttgart 1970, 602, 716 s.v. magister militum; A. Mécsy, Pannonia and Upper Moesia. A History of the Middle Danube Provinces of the Roman Empire, London — Boston 1974, p. 340; J. Fitz, Die Verwaltung Pannoniens in der Rémeneit Ul, Budapest 1994, pp. 1251-1252. Cf. Sidon. Apollinar., Carmina 5.107-115: Fertur, Pannoniae qua Martia pollet Acincus, / Illyricum rexisse solum cum tractibus Histri / huius (sc. Maioriani impera- 3132 Hrvoje Graganin However, after Theodosius I was taken rather ill in late 379, the situation became critical again. Fritigern's Goths launched new attacks in Illyricum in early 380, probably in the spring, and they were also joined by Alatheus and Safrax attacking Pannonia with their bands. It was at that time that the military commander of Western Ilyricum (comes zei militaris or possibly magister militum) Vitalianus suffered what must have been’a crushing defeat in an attempt to drive them out from Pannonian provinces.!3 The magnitude of the disaster became obvious very soon tors] avus; nam Theodosius, quo lempore Sirmi / Augustum sumpsit nomen, per utramque magistrum / militiam ad partes regni venturus Eoas / Maiorianum habuit Latiis sunt condita fastis / facta ducis quotiens Seythicis illata colonis / classica presserunt Hypanim, Peucenque rigentem / mente salutatis irrisit lixa pruinis, The Western Em- peror Gratianus was also successful against the barbarians on the Danube in late 378 and in 379, which is confirmed by Decimus Magnus Ausonius. In the Precatio consulis designati pridie Kalendas lanuarias fascibus sumplis, 28-35, he says: lane, veni: novus anne, veni: renovate veni Sol. / Hostibus edomitis, qua Francia mixta Suebis / cer tat ad obsequium, Latiis ut militet armis, / qua vaga Sauromates sibi iunxerat agmina Chuni / quaque Geles sociis Histrum adsullabat Alanis. / Hoc mihi praepetibus Victoria nuntiat alis: / iam venit Augustus, nostros ut comat honores, / officio exornans, quos par- ticipare cupisset. In the Gratiarum actio dicta domino Gratiano Augusto, 2.7-8, written in late 379, Ausonius expresses gratitude for his appointment as an ordinary con- sul and praises the young emperor: Aguntur enim gratiae non propter maiestatis ambi- tum nec sine argumentis imperatori fortissimo: testis est uno pacatus in anno et Danuvii limes et Rheni (...) Possum ire per ones appellationes tuas, quas olim virtus dedit, quas proxime fortuna concessit, quas adhuc indulgentia divina meditatur, vocare Germanicum deditione gentilium, Alamannicum traductione caplorum, vincendo et ignoscendo Sarmaticum. In an epigram written in 379 (Epigrammata, 1.5-10), Ausonius praises the Emperor Gratianus once more: Bellandi fandique potens Augustus honorem / bis meret, ut geminet titulos, qui proclia Musis / lemperat et Geticum moderatur Apolline Martem. / Arma inter Chunosque truces furtoque nocentes / Sauromatas, quantum cessal de tempera belli, / indulget Clariis tantum inter castra Camenis. A testimony for the victories of both Gratianus and Theodoius is also provided by Quintus Aurelius Symmachus in a letter written to Flavius Syagrius in 379 (Epistulae, 1.95.2): Nunc, si me amas, vel quia me amas - nam referri mihi confido, quod defero -, comtestare aprud invictos principes gaudium meum, qui humanae voci divinas litteras crediderunt, quorum viclorias ex mei oris promptario senatus audivit, Cf. also Socrat., 5.6,7-8: ‘Yad Bé tov abrav xpdvov [when Gregory Nazianzen became bishop of Constantinople} of Basireic Tpanavac Kai Ozodsa10¢ Karc BapBapwv fipavto vikas. 12 ALFOLDI 1926, p. 60; ScHMIDT 1934, p. 259; E. STEIN, Histoire du BasEmpire |, Paris ~ Bruxelles ~ Amsterdam 1989, p. 198; Mocsy 1974, p. 341; DeManoT 1989, p. 126; HEATHER 1994, pp. 152-153. Some believe that these attacks occured already in 379 (MAENCHEN-HELFEN 1973, pp. 34-35, 1978, pp. 26-27, VARADY 1969, p. 37, L. BARKOCZI, History of Pannonia, in: The Archeology of Roman Pannonia, eds, A. Lengyel - G. T. B. Radan, Lexington - Budapest 1980, p. 117). A testimony for this change for the worse is directly provided by Jordanes, Getica 140: (...) sed Theodosio principe pene tunc usque ad disperationem egrotanti datur iterum Gothis audacia divisoque exercitu Fritigenus ad Thessaliam praedandam, Epiros et Achaiam digressus est, Alatheus vero et Safrac cum residuis coptis Pannoniam petierunt. At the same time, Zosimus does not mention the Alatheus’ and Saphrax’ attack on Pannonia, and his account of these events is rather obscure and confused (cf. 4.34.2-3; see also note 16). 13° On Vitalianus cf. PLRE I, 969-970 s.v. Vitalianus 3; ENsLIN (1931) 133; idem, RE IX A, Stuttgart 1961, 373 s.v. Vitalianus 1; Nacy (1971) 318-319; Firz 1994, p.The Huns and South Pannonia because nothing stood in the way of Alatheus’ and Saphrax’ forces anymore. All the Pannonian regions as well as the bordering territories of the neighboring provinces were now open for ravaging. The sources mention explicitly the heavy damage inflicted on Southpannonian towns of Mursa (Osijek, Croatia) and Stridon (presumably in the vicinity of Rijeka, Croatia),!4 and it appears that Poetovio (Ptuj, Slovenia) was also taken and pillaged.!> The threat was so great that the Emperor Gratianus came down to Pannonia in person, after he had previously sent an army led by generals Bauto and Arbogastes to assist Theodosius who had been defeated in Macedonia, and the joint western and eastern forces managed to check Fritigern.16 1252. Vitalianus is considered magister militum by ENBLIN (1931) 138, idem 1961, 373 (magister equitum per Illyricum), DEMANDT 1970, 602-603, 716 (although with some reservation), and a military count (comes rei mililaris) by ALFOLDI 1926, p. 60, Nacy (1971) 318, PLRE I, 970, BaRkéczt 1980, p. 117, Fitz 1994, p. 1252. It appears that the sources confirm both hypotheses. Amm. Marc., 25.10.9 states about Vitalianus: (...) Vidalianus (...) qui multo postea auctus comitis dignitate, male rem per Mlyricum gessil. On the other hand, Zosim., 4.34.1 says: (...) Fpariavoc 6 Baoeds éxréumet toig Kata TO TAAvpIOV KAiNa oTpoTWTIKOIG TéyLaG! OT; Spa TEMOvHKda! TIC MpdyLaa! Kat’ ObBEv dpKécar Buvduevov. 14 For the ubication of Stridon cf. M. SUIC, Hijeronim Stridonjanin ~ gradanin Tarsatike [Hieronymus of Stridon - a citizen of Tarsatica], Rad Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti 426 (1986) 213-278, R. BRaToz, Die Geschichte des frihen Christentums im Gebiet zwischen Sirmium und Aquileia im Licht der neueren Forschungen, Klio 72 (1990) 533-536. 15 ALFOLDI 1926, p. 60, note 9; ScHMIDT 1934, p. 259; VARaDy 1969, p. 37 (misdated), BaRkOcz! 1980, p. 117 (misdated), WOLFRAM 1990, p. 251, F. LoTTER, Valkerverschiebungen im Ostalpen-MitteldonawRaum zwischen Antike und Mittelalter (375-600), Berlin ~ New York 2003, pp. 72-73, note 260. The raiding of Mursa is mentioned in a letter sent by the Emperor Magnus Maximus to Valentinian Il (Collectio Avellana, 39.4 [= CSEL 35, 89]), and a testimony for the destruction of Stridon is provided by St. Jerome writing in 392 (De viris illustribus, 125): Hieronymus, natus patre Eusebio, oppido Stridonis, quod a Gothis eversum Dalmatiae quondam Pannoniaeque confinium fuit, usque in praesentem annum, id est, Theodosii principis XIV, haec scripsi. The panegyrist Pacatus also provides a testimony for the distress of Pannonia, in the Panegyricus dictus Theodosio, 11.4: Quidquid atterit Gothus, quidquid rapit Chunus, quidquid aufert Halanus, id olim desiderabit Arcadius. Perdidi (sc. res publica] infortunata Pannonias, lugeo funus Ilyrici, specto excidium Galliarum. About possible fall of Poetovio cf. Ambros., Ep. 2 (Maur. 10), 10: Nam primo Pelavione superpositus fuerat sancto viro Marco admirabilis memoriae sacerdoti, sed posteaquam deformiter deiectus a plebe est, qui Petavione esse non potuit, is nunc ‘Mediolani post eversionem patriae dicamus proditionem inequitavit. The opposite view is maintained by R. EGER, Die Zerstérung Pettaus durch die Goten, Jahreshefte des Osterreichischen archaeologischen Instituts 18 (1915), Beiblatt, 253-266, and VaRapy 1969, pp. 418-419. 16 Scumpt 1934, pp. 259-260, 416-418; STEIN 1959, p. 193; DEMANDT 1989, p. 126; WouFraM 1990, p. 139. Gratianus stayed in Pannonia in August and September of 380 (cf. O. SEECK, Regesten der Kaiser und Papste fiir die Jahre 311 bis 476 n. Chr.: Vorarbeit zu einer Prosopographie der christlichen Kaiserzeit, Stuttgart 1919, p. 252). The imperial government announced the victories again in the autumn of 380, confirmed by Cons. Const., s.a. 380.1-2: Victoriae nuntiatae sunt amborum Augustorum. Et ipso anno ingressus est Theodosius Augustus Constantinopolim die XVII 3334 Hrvoje Graganin SETTLEMENT OF THE OSTROGOTHIC-ALANIC-HUNNIC GROUP IN PANNONIA. Itseems that the situation in Pannonia could not be resolved on a bat- Uefield for the sources, as traditionally interpreted in modern historiography, inform us of Gratianus concluding a treaty with the invaders there.!7 So the Alatheus’ and Safrax’ Ostrogoths, Alans and Huns would be granted a permission to settle in the Roman territory, and obliged to accept the duties of the foederai, i.e. to protect the Roman frontier in return for a yearly pay and regular food supply, and, if required, to place their troops at Roman disposal for a limited duration.!8 The new foederati would be settled primarily in the Northpannonian provinces, in Valeria and Pannonia Prima, but possibly also in the frontier Danubian section of Pannonia Secunda, notably in northern part of the province.!9 It is quite kalendas Decembres, and Marcelin., s.a. 380: (...) his consulibus (sc. Gratiano V et Theodosio I) Theodosius Magnus postquam de Soythicis gentibus triumphavit (...) nos- tris catholicis orthodoxus restituit imperator mense Decembrio. 17 Jordan., Getica 141: (...) quod cum Gratianus imperator, qui tunc a Roma in Gallis ob incursione Vandalorum (sc. Alamannorum; cf. SCHMIDT 1934, p. 107, note 2] recessevat, conperisset, quia Theodosio fatali desperatione succumbente Gothi maius sacvis- sent, mox ad eos collecto venit exercitu, nec tamen fretus in armis, sed gratia eos mune ribusque victurus pacemque victualia illis concedens, cum ipsis inito foedere fecit, Getica 142: Ubi vero post haec Theodosius convaluit imperator repperitque cum Gothis et Romanis Gratiano imperatore pepigisse quod ipse optaverat, admodum grato animo ferens et ipse in hac pace consensit; Zosim., 4.34.2: Tovtov [Vitalianus’] 6¢ fyovpévov 30 poipa tav bmép Tov ‘Pivov Teppavixiv éOvav, i pév Hyenovi Dprnyépvw xpwpevn, H SE tnd “AMO0eov Kai Edbpaxa tetaypevn, toig Kednikoicg ESveow Emeipever karéoTnoay sic dvéryxny tov Baorkéa Fpariaviv évdodvan odiaw, cmorwovcaic Ta év Kedtoig, 51k Tod “lorpov Maioviay Kai tiv dvw Mvoiav Kxatadapeiv. 18 ALFOLDI 1926, p. 60; ScHMIDT 1934, p. 260; STEIN 1959, p. 193; VArapy 1969, p. 36 (misdated); Nacy (1971) 319; Mocsy 1974, p. 341; J. SASEL, Antigui Barbani. Zur Besiedlungsgeschichle Ostnoricums und Pannoniens im 5. und 6. Jahrhundert nach den Schrifiquellen, im: Von der Spatantike zum frihen Mittélalter. Aktuelle Probleme in historischer und archaologischer Sicht, ed. J. Werner ~ E. Ewig (= Vortrage und Forschungen 25), Sigmaringen 1979, 125 (misdated, which is fol lowed by V. Popovic, Desintegration und Ruralisation der Stadt im Ost-lllyricum vom 5 bis 7. Jahrhundert n. Chr., in: Palast und Hite. Beitrage zum Bauen und Wohnen im Aitertum von Archdologen, Vor- und Frithegeschichtlern, ed. D. Papenfus V. M. Strocka, Mainz 1982, p. 547, Bona 1980, p. 180, BaRkOcz1 1980, p. 117 (misdated), A. Satamon ~ A’'Cs. $65, Pannonia ~ Fifth to Ninth Centures, in: The Archeology of Roman Pannonia, eds. A. Lengyel = G. T. B, Radan, Lexington — Budapest 1980, p. 397, WoLFRAM 1990, p. 251, P. Toma, Kurzer Abrif der hunnischen Geschichte, in: Reitervolker aus dem Osten. Hunnen’+ Awaren, eds. F. Daim ~M. Frohlich ~ M. Misar G. Schlag ~ P. Tomka (= Katalog der Burgenlindischen Landesausstellung 1996), Eisenstadt 1996, p. 67, WiRTH 1999, p. 28, LOTTER 2003, p. 73, HEATHER 1994, pp. 153, 334-340 suspects the existence of such a treaty for Pannonia, and leaves an open possibility that the invaders were defeated (cf. pp. 339-340). According to him, the treaty described by Jordanes really refers to the treaty of 382 whose terms may have encompassed, in addition to the Visigoths and Ostrogoths, the Huns and Alans (p. 157). 19 Cf. S. SOPRONI, Die letzten Jahrzehnte des pannonischen Limes (= Minchener Beitrage zur Vor- und Frithgeschichte 38), Minchen 1985, pp. 86-93; LoTTER 2003, pp. 72:74.The Huns and South Pannonia reasonable to assume that the imperial government would not allow the foederati who were bitter enemies of the Empire until just recently to settle in a territory vital for traffic communication between the Western and Eastern Roman provinces, i.e. in Pannonia Savia and Pannonia Secunda.2° In modern historiography, there are various opinions regarding where the foederati were actually settled. VARADY and BARKOCZI maintain that they were settled in Pannonia Secunda and in a portion of Savia, ‘WoLFraM has Pannonia Secunda, Savia and Valeria or just Valeria and Pannonia Secunda, Saget. sees the Hunnic-Alanic foederati settled in Pannonia Secunda and the Visigothic (!) foederati in Savia, BONA assumes that the area of their settlement was limited to the southern part of Pannonia, Mocsy infers that the foederati were settled along the Drava valley in Savia, EADIE also has Savia, while Nay deduces that the dwelling place of the faederati was in present day Hungarian counties of Baranya and Tolna, i.e. in northern section of Pannonia Secunda and southern section of Valeria, in any case, north of the Drava.2! Vardpy even makes an attempt to pinpoint the area where the Huns were settled, and finds them north of the Sava, in northeastern part of the dwelling place of the ‘foederati2® although there is not any corroboration in sources or in archaeological finds for such an assumption. BARKOczI follows VARADY asserting that the foederati were at first settled in South Pannonia, while Tomicic, drawing from these assumptions, says that the Alanic-Hunnic foederati were settled in Pannonia Secunda, i.e. around Sirmium, and the Visigoths (!) in Savia, around Jovia Botivo and Poetovio.23 On the other hand, ALFOLDI even discards the possibility that the Huns were settled in Pannonia as the foederati.2+ Scum1T also believes that the treaty was concluded with the Ostrogoths and Alans, and omits the Huns. 5 However, it 20 SopRont 1985, p. 88. The traffic importance of Southpannonian provinces is well illustrated by ALFOLDI 1926, p. 91, note 3. 21 Vérapy 1969, p. 36; BARKOCZI 1980, p. 117; WoLFRAM 1990, p. 139; SaSeL 1979, pp- 125-126; BONA 1980, p. 180; Mocsy 1974, pp. 341-342; J. W. EADIE, City and countryside in Late Roman Pannonia: the Regio Sirmiensis, in: City, Town and Countryside in the Early Byzantine Era, ed. R. L. Hohlfelder, New York 1982, p. 97; Nacy (1971) 320-321 22 VARaby 1969, p. 522. 23° Barkoczl 1980, p. 118; Z. Tomicic, Der Untergang der Antike und deren Nachlebensformen in Siidpannonien (Nordkroatien), in: Slovenija in sosednje dezele med antiko in karolinsko dobo. Zaéetki slovenske emogeneze / Slowenien und die Nachbarlinder zwischen Antike und karolingischer Epoche. Anfange der slowenischen Ethnogenese I, ed. R. Bratod [= Situla 39], Ljubljana 2000, pp. 263- 264. 24 ArpOLpI 1926, pp. 67-68. He says that sie [the Huns] wohl nicht viel Lust hatten, sich and die Scholle xu binden; vielmehr streifen die Hunnen nach der Befriedung der Goten ungescheut weiter umher, oft in die Donauprovinzen des Ostreiches einbrechend, gemeinsam mit anderen germanischen Nachbarn. 25° ScHMIDT 1934, p. 260. 3536 Hrvoje Graéanin seems that the subsequent use of Pannonian foederati, among which the Huns are mentioned specifically, and the archaeological finds in particular, strongly suggest that the Huns were also settled in Pannonia as part of the Alathaeus’ and Safrax’ tripartite group of peoples.26 It would seem that immediately afterwards, or in 381 at the latest, the imperial government ordered a Christian mission to be sent among the barbarian new- comers to effect their conversion, under direct supervision of Amantius, the Bishop of Jovia (Hétenypuszta) in Valeria, and the auspices of the Aquileian metropolitan (Valerianus at that time).27 There is little doubt that the Roman authorities sought to assimilate the foederati into the Roman society by Christianization, but this did not have a permanent success as the future events would reveal. USE OF THE PANNONIAN FOEDERATI After the settlement of the Pannonian foederati, their cavalry units, especially the Hunnic ones, readily responded to the calls of the imperial government and its representatives for several times, but the presence of the foederati was constantly a potential threat to the peace of Pannonian regions. However, they did afford a brief respite from external danger to Pannonia as some source material would indicate.?8 In early 384, the 26 For the archaeology of the Ostrogothic-Alanic-Hunnic group cf. Germanen am Plattensee, eds. R. Miller ~ P. Straub (= Katalog der Ausstellung des Balatoni Museums Keszthely im Museum fiir Friigeschichte des Landes Niederésterreich, Schloss Traismauer), Traismauer 2002, especially R. MULLER, Die ersten Germanen: Die Goten des Alatheus und Saphrax, ibidem, pp. 7-8, and P. Strave, Die Hinterlassenschaft. der Oslgoten in Fenekpuseta, ibidem, pp. 9-12. Cf. also SOPRONI 1985, pp. 91-93. 27 Lorrer 2003, pp. 73-74. As the recent research has shown rather convincing- ly, the see of the Bishop Amantius of Jovia should not be looked for in Jovia Botivo, the present day town of Ludbreg in Croatia, but in Jovia in Valeria, the present day Alschetény, ic Hétenypuszta in Hungary, at about 50 km distance from the Balaton Lake, where a Late Antique fortress with a significant civilian settlement was discovered (cf. Nay (1971) 320; SoPRont 1985, pp. 21-23; LOTTER 2003, pp. 49, 56). According to B. Micormi, Evidence for Christianity in Roman Southern Pannonia (Northen Croatia). A catalogue of finds and sites (= British Archaeological Reports, International Series 684), Oxford 1997, p. 23, the question of identification of the see of Jovia is still unresolved (either Hétenypuszta or Ludbreg). The first to identify Jovia with the town of Ludbreg situated south of the Drava was R. EcceR in Historich-epigraphische Studien in Venezien. Amantius, Bischof von Iovia, Jabreshefie des Osterreichischen archacologischen Instituts 21- 22 (1922-1924), Beiblatt, 309-344. It is worth mentioning that Egger has not included the Huns in the Pannonian foederati, but he says that the Alatheus’ and Saphrax’ peoples were settled in the territory of the episcopal diocese of Jovia (idem, 327ff). The subsequent researchers accepted Egger's identification, which led them to place wrongly the settlement of the Ostrogothic-Alanic-Hunnic group in the province of Savia. 28 Cf. Mocsy 1974, p. 342, P. Tomka, Pannonien unter hunnischer Herrschaft, in: Reitervalker aus dem Osten. Hunnen + Awaren, eds. F. Daim — M. Frohlich - M. Misar — G. Schlag - P. Tomka (= Katalog der Burgenlindischen Landesaus-The Huns and South Pannonia Western Roman general Bauto stemmed an incursion of the Alamannic Juthungi into Raetia with the help of Hunnic and Alanic horsemen, and it appears that he also tried to use the Hunnic foederati as to scare off the Western usurper Magnus Maximus, but had to discontinue this demonstration of force because of an inferior number of troops at his disposal, and was forced to induce the Huns by a payment of gold to return to their Pannonian settlements.*? And when the Sarmatians crossed the Danube and invaded Pannonia in late 384, they were most probably beaten off with an active help on the part of Pannonian foederati, too.3? However, the relationship of sensitive balance between the imperial authorities and the Pannonian foederati was soon to be spoiled for we discover that, in 387, the inhabitants of Pannonia found themselves threatened by the unnamed barbarians, which created a situation the usurper Magnus Maximus used for gaining an access to Italy.3! This could mean that the foederati did not stellung 1996), Eisenstadt 1996, p. 90; LorTeR 2003, pp. 80, 82. There is a comment by Ambrosius (/p. 73 [Maur. 18}, 21) that, in 383, Pannonia had so a rich harvest that the corn surplus was traded for wine in Italy. Also, Valerius Dalmatius, a former praeses of the Gallic province Lugdunensis Tertia, could retire to his estates in southern Valeria after the completion of the term of his office in late 380's (cf. ALFOLDI 1926, p. 61; E. B. THOMAS, Rémiche Villen in Pannonien. Beitrage zur pannonischen Siedlungsgeschichte, Budapest 1964, p. 395; idem, Villa settlements, in: The Archeology of Roman Pannonia, eds. A. Lengyel — G. T. B. Radan, Lexington - Budapest 1980, p. 318; VARabY 1969, p. 321 with the date correction by A. Mocsy, Review of VArapy 1969, in: Acta archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 23 (1971) 357, PLRE I, 241 sw. Valerius Dalmatius 8; Firz 1994, p. 1310). 29 Stein 1959, p. 202; VARADY 1969, pp. 42-43; MAENCHEN-HELFEN 1973, pp. 42- 44, 1978, p. 31; BARKOCzi 1980, p. 117; DEMANDT 1989, p. 129; WOLFRAM 1990, p. 251; Lorrer 2003, pp. 82-83). Cf. Ambros., Ep. 30 (Maur. 24), 8fF (...) Valentinianus Hunnos atque Alanos appropinquantes Galliae per Alemanniae terras reflexit. (...) et ideo adversus Juthungum Hlunnus accitus est. (...) Tu [sc. Magnus Maximus] fecisti incursari Rhaetias, Valentinianus suo tibi auro pacem redemit. 30 Sexck 1913, p. 208 (dated as 385); ALFOLD! 1926, p. 63 (dated as 385); STEIN 1959, p. 204; VARaby 1969, pp. 39-40; MAENCHEN-HELFEN 1973, p. 40, 1978, p. 30 (dated as 384, but prior to the campaign against the Juthungi); BARKGCzI 1980, p. 117 (dated as 385); DEMANDT 1989, p. 131; WoLFRAM 1990, p. 251 (dated as 385) VaRaby 1969, p. 40 and Bark6c7t 1980, pp. 117-118 maintain that the Sarmatians were joined by the Pannonian foederati in devastation of Pannonia, which would severely affect the economic situation in Pannonia, but this is a speculation without foundation in sources. The fact that the Sarmatians penetrated the limes on the Danube does not necessarily mean that they were supported by the foederati who, at the Empire’s bidding, fought the Juthungi earlier the same year. Furthermore, it is hard to imagine that the victory over the Sarmatians could be won without military assistance of the foederati. A testimony for this victory is provided by Quintus Aurelius Symmachus, Relationes ad principes 2.47, who was a prefect of Rome in 384 and saw the victory celebration in Colosseum: Vidimus cate- natum agmen victae gentis induci illosque tam truces vultus misero pallore. 31 Vérapy 1969, pp. 44-45; LOTTER 2003, p. 83. ALFOLDI 1926, p. 63, Stein 1959, pp. 204-205, MAENCHEN-HELFEN 1973, p. 44, 1978, p. 32, and DEMANDT 1989, p. 131 believe that this ,barbarians* crossed the Danube and invaded Pannonia. The only testimony for them is provided by Zosim., 4.42.5: Tosovtov 5é ioxvaev 6 3738 Hrvoje Graganin fulfill their duty as frontier soldiers, or even that they were themselves a source of disturbance, which is in any case an obvious indication of increased tensions between them and the imperial court at Mediolanum. The Pannonian foederati did not support Magnus Maximus as the new ruler of Italy,32 but showed open hostility toward him, and joined Theodosius I when he moved against the usurper in early summer of 388, marching through the Sava-Drava-Danube region.33 In the battle of Siscia, which was fought probably in July of 388, the Hunnic and Alanic horsemen had a decisive role in the defeat of usurper’s forces, whereas their part in a victory Theodosius won in the subsequent battle of Poetovio was apparently smaller.54 It seems that Theodosius I sent all the foederati back to their settlements soon after his victory over Magnus Maximus - of course, the Pannonian foederati were among them — because he did not want to enter Italy with an army made of barbarians but only with the Roman troops.*® Although the Pannonian foederali are not specifically Médipiog [Magnus Maximus] Tov Aouvivov [an envoy of Valentinian II] napa- yayeiv ote Kai népoc fic elxe otpanid¢ cupmapantupal, ovvoicov cic émkoupiav TH Paordel KoT& TOV EmKeyEvwv Toic bx? adtdv [Valentinian’s] Maioc: BapBapwv. Zosimus does not say that the BépBapo1 came from the area beyond the Danube, although this is quite possible giving the then situation along the Pannonian limes. However, it seems that a danger from within is more likely since our source singles out the Pannonian subjects of Valentinian II who were threatened. Pacatus could also refer to the questionable behaviour of the foederatiin his Panegyricus dictus Theodosio, 32.3 when he mentions ,a suspicious troop" (suspecta manus) which was removed from the frontier (limiti decederet) as to assist the army of Theodosius I (militi auxitiator accederel). Due to the fact that Pacatus also mentions omnes Scythicae nationes, these would surely encompass the Visigothic foederati from the area along the lower Danube (cf. NAcy [1971] 323) 32 Mocsy 1974, p. 342 suggests that Magnus Maximus had, as he puts it, consid- erable influence with the foederati in Pannonia, but this is erroneous. 33. STEIN 1959, p. 207, VARaDy 1969, pp. 47-58 (however, he erroneously tries to locate the Pacatus’ limes in Savia and Pannonia Secunda), BARKOcZI 1980, p. 118, DEMANDT 1989, p. 132, LoTTER 2003, pp. 83-84. ALFOLDI 1926, p. 68, SCHMIDT 1934, p. 261 and MAENCHEN-HELFEN 1973, p. 45, note 134, 1978, pp. 33, 358, note 134 dismisses the possibility that the Pannonian foederati participated in ‘Theodosius’ campaign, and believe that the Emperor recruited the barbarians from the area beyond the Danube. But Pacatus is actually quite clear about this in his Panegyricus dictus Theodosio, 32.3-4: Postremo populis barbarorum ultroneam tibi (sc. Theodosio] operam ferre voventibus commilitum munus indulges, ut et limiti manus suspecta decederet et militi auxiliator accederet; qua tua benignitate pellectae omnes Scythicae nationes tantis examinibus confluebant, ul quem remiseras tuis, barbaris videreris imperasse dilectum. O res digna memoratu! Ibat sub ducibus vexillisque Romanis hostis ali- quando Romanus, et signa contra quae steterat sequebatur, urbesque Pannoniae quas inimica dudum populatione vacuaverat miles implebat. Gothus ille et Chunus et Halanus responedabat ad nomen et alternabat excubias et notari infrequens verebatur. 34 _Varapy 1969, pp. 58-61; R. BRaTO2, Aquileia tra Teodosio ¢ i Longobardi (379- 568), in: Aquileia dalle origini alla costituzione del ducato longobardo. Storia - amministrazione - societa (= Antichita altoadriatiche 54, 2003) 503; LorTER 2003, pp. 84-85. 35 VArapy 1969, pp. 62-63; Lorrer 2003, p. 85. Cf. Ambros., Ep. 74 (Maur. 40), 22: Ego (sc. Deus] cum periculum summum esset ne Alpes infida barbarorum penetrarentThe Huns and South Pannonia mentioned by the sources, they probably took part in Theodosius’ campaign against the new Western Roman usurper Eugenius, who was decisively defeated in a battle fought in early September of 394 at the river Frigidus (Vipava in Slovenia), for the Emperor moved through the Sava- Drava-Danube region once again.26 TROUBLE WITH THE FOEDERATI Soon after Theodosius had died on January 17, 395, the foederati rebelled being displeased with how they were threated by the Roman authorities during and after the campaign against Eugenius. The insurrection involved primarily the Visigoths (they were settled in the diocese of Thrace, more precisely in the provinces of Dacia Ripensis and Moesia Secunda),27 but it is quite reasonable to assume that the Pannonian foederati also rose since no one opposed or tried to stem the Marcomanni, Quadi, Vandals and Sarmatians who, probably in 395, crossed the middle Danube and raided Pannonia.28 This would mean that the Ostrogothic- Alanic-Hunnic foederati, to say the least, neglected their principal duty. Some historians doubt the possibility of simultaneous rebellion of the Pannonian foederati,39 while the others, although believing that there was an insurrection, attempt to prove that the invasion of Pannonia in 395 did not happen at all. However, it seems that the extant sources indicate otherwise. In one of his famous passages, Jerome enumerates the barbarian peoples (Goths, Sarmatians, Quadi, Alans, Huns, Vandals, Marcomanni) and the Roman provinces they devastated.4! Eventhough consilia, intra ipsum Alpium vallum victoriam libi [sc. Theodosio] contuli, ut sine damno vinceres. 36 VARApy 1969, pp. 78-87; LoTTER 2003, pp. 85-86. The sources mention the Alanic chief Saulus who may have commanded the Alanic cavalry troops of the Pannonian foederati as a successor to Safrax (cf. Zosim., 4.57.2, John of Antioch, fr. 187 [FAG 4, 609], gentis pracfectus Alanae in Claud, Claudian., Bellum Geticum, 583) 37 About this cf. SEECK 1913, pp. 273-275; ScHMuDT 1934, pp. 425-432; J. B. BURY, History of the Later Roman Empire (from the Death of Theodosius I to the Death of Justinian A.D. 395 to A.D. 565) I, New York 1958, pp. 109-110; STEIN 1959, p. 23 DEMANDT 1989, pp. 140-141; Wotrram 1990, pp. 145-150; HEATHER 1994, pp. 199 206. 38 LorTeR 2003, pp. 87, 100, About this incursion in Pannonia cf. ALFOLD! 1926, p. 63, SCHMIDT 1934, p. 428, idem, Geschichte der deutschen Stiimme bis zum Ausgang Mer Viikerwanderung: Die Weslgermanen, Munchen 19882, p. 184, BURY 1958, p. 110, note 2, STEIN 1959, 228. 39 Nacy (1971) 328-329. 49 VAapy 1969, pp. 87-94, 115-127. 41 Cf. Hieron., Ep. 60, written in 396: (...) viginti et eo amplius anni sunt, quod inter Constantinopolim et Alpes lulias cotidie Romanus sanguis effunditur. Scythiam, Thraciam, Macedoniam, Thessaliam, Dardaniam, Daciam, Epiros, Dalmatiam cunc- tasque Pannonias Gothus, Sarmata, Quadus, Alanus, Huni, Vandali, Marcomanni vas- tunt, trahunt, rapiunt. 3940 Hrvoje Graganin Jerome describes the events extending over two decades; there is not any known incursion of the Vandals and Marcomanni, which happened during that period of time, and prior to 395. We know of an incursion of the Quadi into Pannonia together with the Sarmatians in 374, but it seems that the Macomanni were quiet at that time.*? Our only source for this invasion does not mention the Marcomanni attacking along with the Quadi,*5 although is aware of the fact that both of these nations invaded the Empire together in the time of Marcus Aurelius (161-180).*4 Further support for the hypothesis of the Marcomannic attack in 395 is provided by subsequent events: around 397, the Western Roman general Flavius Stilicho made a treaty with the Marcomanni who were settled in Pannonia Prima, which would presuppose their unrest along the frontier. As far as the Vandals are concern, we know that they invaded Pannonia, Noricum and Raetia in 401.#° It is also possible that yet another source refers to the crossing of the Danube and the invasion of 395.47 In our opinion, these 42 Scamp 1938, pp. 182-184. 4 Amm. Marc., 29.6.1-14. VAraby 1969, pp. 94, 437, note 232 believes that the expression of Ammianus Marcellinus, 29.6.6 et gentes circumsitas with regard to the invasion of the Quadi in 374 includes also the Marcomanni and Vandals, although the Sarmatian peoples of Jazyges and Argaragantes are actually ment (ScuMIDT 1938, p. 182; contra VARADY 1969, pp. 121-122). 44 Amm,. Marc., 29.6.1, cf. also 22.5.5. 45 Scumipr 1938, pp. 184-185; STEIN 1959, p. 231; LoTTER 2003, pp. 100-101. A direct testimony for this is provided by Paulinus in the Vita Ambrosii, 36, giving the important role bishop Ambrosius (died on April 4th, 397) had in this affair: (...) Fritigil quaedam regina Marcomannorum (...) Christo credidit (...) Qua accepta epistola [sc. Ambrosiana] mulier suasit viro, ul cum populo suo se Romanis traderet (...). CE. also Claud. Claudian., De consulatu Stilichonis 1.190-191: Non Marte Suebos [sc. Marcomannos| / contudimus, quis tura damus. 46 ScumipT 1934, pp. 107-108; Srein 1959, p. 248; Mocsy 1974, p. 347; DEMANDT 1989, p. 142; LoTTER 2003, p. 101. 47 Claud. Claudian., In Rufinum 2.26-28: Alii per lerga ferocis / Danuvii solidata ruunt expertaque remos / frangunt stagna rotis. In subsequent verses, Claudian refers to another barbarians (alii in original text) who crossed the Caucasus and invaded the Eastern Roman provinces (idem, 28-30), VARADY 1969, pp. 90, 117-119 asserts that it is the Huns who are meant in both cases. However, at the beginning of the passage, Claudianus speaks of the peoples (gentes) who were allegedly allowed by the pracfectus pretorio Orientis and Stilicho’s bitter opponent Rufinus to invade the Empire (idem, 23), so it could not be just the Huns. Also, in the Jn Rufinum 1.308-310 he says: (...) iam Gelas Histramque movet Scythiamque receptat au- xilio te (1.319-321) coniuratus Getarum / distulit instantes eluso principe (sc. Arcadio) pugnas / Hunorum laturus (sc. Rufinus) opem. MAENCHEN-HELFEN 1973, p. 53, 1978, p. 39 dismisses the possibility that the Huns invaded Thrace in 395, while the invasion is accepted by SEECK 1913, p. 274, THOMPSON 1948, p. 26, STEIN 1959, p. 228, WirtH 1999, p. 30. In the Jn Rufinum 2.269-271, Claudianus surely does not mean the Huns and Alans that were already within the Empire, ic. the Pannonian ‘foederati, when he says (in the words of the Eastern Roman soldiers whom Stilicho sent back to Arcadius at Rufinus’ request): (...) qui (sc. Rufinus) forte nefandas iam parat insidias, qui nos (sc. milites Romanos) aut turpibus Hunis aul impacatis famulos praebebit Alanis. Cf. VARaby 1969, pp. 121, 445, note 297; LorrER 2003, p. 87.The Huns and South Pannonia all strongly suggest that there was an invasion of Pannonia in 395, and that the Pannonian foederati failed to prevent it. Stilicho managed to pacify the middle Danube area in 399 and made it liable for tax collection once again,*® but the peace did not last for long.*® Some historians even believe that Stilicho resettled the Pannonian Soederati after he had made separate treaties with them: the Ostrogoths would be resettled to Italy and Pannonia Prima, the Alans to Valeria, and partially to Italy together with some Huns, while the majority of Huns would remain in Pannonia Secunda.*° Yet, this is a mere construction based on an erroneous interpretation of sources.*! END OF THE UNITED OSTROGOTHIC-ALANIC-HUNNIG GROUP It seems that, during the incursion of the Vandals (and Alans with them) into Pannonia, Noricum and Raetia in 401, there was a new insurrection of the foederati, this time the ones settled in Noricum and Ractia, which very likely affected the Ostrogothic-Alanic-Hunnic group, too.5 Such a situation enabled Alaric and his Visigoths to pass through the Sava- Drava-Danube region in the autumn of 401 without meeting any resistance, reach the Julian Alps and invade Italy.53 The Ostrogothic-Alanic- 48 Varapy 1969, pp. 127-144, 160-170; LotTeR 2003, p. 87. A testimony of Stilicho’s actions in the middle Danube area is provided by Claud. Claud, De consulatu Stilichonis, 2.191-207 (written in 399): (...) Hinc obsidione solutus / Pannonius potorque Savi, quid clausa tot annis / oppida laxatis ausus iam pandere portis / (...) agnoscitque casas et collibus oscula notis / figit (...) exsectis inculta dabant quas saecula, silvis / restituit terras et opacum vitibus Histrum / conserit et patrium vectigal solvere gaudet, / immunis qui clade fuit, De consulatu Stilichonis, 3.12-13 (written in 400): (...) Hic est felix bellator ubique, / defensor Lybiae, Rheni pacator et Histri. 49 The southwestern Pannonia must have been secure even before since St. ‘Jerome could find a purchaser for his father’s estate at Stridon in 397 (Hieron., Ep. 66; cf. A. ALFOLDI, Der Untergang der Rémerherrschaft in Pannonien 1, Berlin — Leipzig 1924, p. 4; VAraby 1969, pp. 91, 124; Mocsy 1974, p. 344; ToMKa 1996b, p. 90). 50 V4raby 1969, pp. 162-178. This is more or less accepted by BARKOcz! 1980, p. 118 who says that the Alans were placed in Valeria and the Goths in Pannonia Prima, while the Huns remained between the two rivers, presumably meaning the Drava and Sava. 51 Cf. Nacy (1971) 330-335. 52 Lotter 2008, p. 88. Cf. Claud. Claudian., Bellum Geticum, 363-380, 400-403, 414415: lam foedera gentes / exuerant Latiique audita clade feroces / Vindelicos saltus et Norica claustra tenebant. / (...) sic ducis aspectu cuncti stupuere rebelles. 53 About Alaric’s attack on Italy cf. SEEK 1913, pp. 328-334, ScrimipT 1934, pp. 437-441, BuRY 1958, pp. 160-162, STEIN 1959, pp. 247-249, DEMANDT 1989, p. 142, WoLrRraM 1990, pp. 158-160, HEATHER 1994, pp. 208-209. A testimony for Alaric’s undisturbed passage through south Pannonia is provided by Jordan., Getica 147: (...) mox ergo antefatus Halaricus creatus est rex, cum suis deliberans swasit eos suo labore quaerere regna quam alienis per olium subiacere, et sumpto exercitu per Pannonias Stilicone et Aureliano consulibus (A.D. 400 !) et per Sirmium dextroque latere quasi viris vacuam intravit Haliam nulloque penitus obsistente ad pontem applicavit Candidiani, qui tertio miliario ab urbe aberat regia Ravennate. 4142 Hrvoje Graganin Hunnic group was not united anymore, and Alaric’s invasion triggered further separation of the foederati.4 The Hunnic warriors, together with the Ostrogoths, mostly chose to support Alaric, while only a small fraction of them joined Stilicho who, however, could count on significant support of the Alans.®5 Alaric’s retreat from Italy to a distant border area between Pannonia and Dalmatia and a treaty Stilicho made with him in 405 did not save the Western Roman Empire from new disturbances since the middle Danube area was afflicted already in the autumn of 405 by the largest barbarian invasion so far. The barbarian multitude, headed by their war leader Radagaisus and composed chiefly of the Goths, penetrated the limes on the Danube, rushed through Pannonia and forced an entry into northern Italy and Raetia.5° This tribal avalanche pushed forward other nations who, on the last day of 406, crossed the middle Rhine and invaded Gaul (primarily the Vandals, Alans and Suevi, and they were followed by other groups).57 This was a new migrational impetus initiated by the Huns who were already approaching the middle Danube area by then.58 54 VArapy 1969, pp. 210-213, LorTER 2003, p. 89. A testimony for the conflicts among the Pannonian foederati is provided by Paul. Oros., 7.37.3: Taceo de ipsorum inter se barbarorum crebris dilacerationibus, cum se invicem Gothorum cunei duo, deinde Alani atque Huni variis caedibus popwlabantur. 55 Lorrer 2003, p. 89. These are the Goths and Huns who were already employed as the buccellanii or served in the Roman army. The Alans under Saulus helped Stilicho to overcome Alaric in Italy (the battle of Pollentia in April of 402). The relations between the Ostrogothic-Hunnic foederati and Alaric’s Visigoths could originate from the time they fought together Magnus Maximus and Eugenius for Theodosius I. It is possible that Athaulf commanded the Ostrogothic-Hunnic foederati even prior to 408 when the sources mention him to be the leader of the Goths and Huns in Pannonia (LOTTER 2003, pp. 89, 94ff; contra HEATHER 1994, pp. 343-344). 56 About Radagaisus’ invasion cf. SEECK 1913, pp. 375-377, ScHMipT 1934, pp. 265-267, STEIN 1959, pp. 249-250, BuRY 1958, pp. 167-168, DEMANDT 1989, pp. 142- 143. Itis usually believed that Radagaisus’ invaders were the Ostrogoths but probably there were some Visigoths among them also (MAENCHEN-HELFEN 1973, p. 61, 1978, p. 45; LoTrer 2003, pp. 92-93). 57 Cf, LoTTER 2003, pp. 32, 90. A testimony for this is provided by Jerome in a letter written in 409 (Ep. 123.16): Innumerabiles et ferocissimae nationes Gallias occu- parunt. Quidguid inter’ Alpes et Pyrenaeum est, quod Oceano et Rheno concluditur, Quadus, Vandalus, Sarmata, Halani, Gepides, Heruli, Saxones, Burgundiones, Alamanni et - 0 lugenda respublica! - hostes Pannonii vastaverunt. The hostes Pannonii are not the Pannonian foederali as asserted by VARapy 1969, pp. 218-223 (cf. also Bury 1958, p. 167 who believes the hostes Pannonit to be the barbarians who were within), because they were never assimilated, so Jerome would not consider them to be the Roman subjects in Pannonia, but provincial inhabitants who were set in motion under the pressure from the barbarians and who joined the invaders (Steck 1913, p. 377; ALFOLDI 1924, p. 4, note 19, 1926, p. 70, note 2; STEIN 1959, p. 250; Mocsy 1974, p. 347; DeMANDr 1989, p. 143; LoTreR 2003, p. 32, note 190). 58 THOMSON 1948, p. 28; ALTHEIM 1951, p. 82; Mocsy 1974, p. 349; HEATHER 1994, p. 228; WikTH 1999, pp. 32-33; LOTTER 2003, 90. Contra VARADY 1969, pp. 189-190, 194; MAENCHEN-HELFEN 1973, pp. 60-61, 1978, p. 44.The Huns and South Pannonia It is impossible to determine the attitude of the Pannonian foederati toward Radagaisus’ invasion, although one can assume that they did not offer a resistance.59 The Alans may have even joined the invaders since they are not mentioned in Pannonia after 405/406, while the majority of the Ostrogothic-Hunnic foederati presumably remained neutral.® This crisis offered an opportunity for the so-called Great Huns to interfere in the Western Roman affairs for the first time. In order to oppose Radagaisus, Stilicho turned for help to the Hunnic ruler Uldin who undoubtedly passed, leading his forces, through the Sava-Drava-Danube region.6! Uldin and a Gothic leader Sarus who was in command of the Ostrogoths and Huns, those were already in Stilicho’s service,®2 won a victory over 59 VArapy 1969, pp. 201, 390 speaks of a betrayal on the part of the Pannonian ‘foederati, while BARKGCZ! 1980, p. 119 believes that Radagaisus’ invasion could not happen without the consent of the Hunnic foederati, The imperial edict from March 24, 406 provides a testimony for the abandonment of frontier defensive posts: Idem AAA [sc. Arcadius, Honorius, Theodosius Iunior]. Longiniano praefecto practorio. Qui relictis militaribus castris se ad depraedationes vel latrocinium contulerint, severitatem publicam non evadant. Datum viiii_kalendas apriles Ravenna Arcadio Augusto. VI et Probo v. c. consulibus (CTh. 7.18.15). The edicts from February, July and October of 403 also disclose the fact that the abandonment of military posts was a rather regular occurrence in the time of crisis at the frontier (CTh. 7.18.11.2, 12, 13, 14, 14.2) 60 LoTTER 2003, pp. 90-91, 93-94. 61 Trompson 1948, p. 33; MAENCHEN-HELFEN 1973, pp. 59-60, 1978, p. 44; BONA 1991, p. 20; WiRTH 1999, p. 34. Already in 400, Uldin assisted the Eastern Roman Empire to supress the insurrection of general Gainas (THOMPSON 1948, p. 32; MAENGHEN-HELFEN 1973, p. 59, 1978, p. 44; BONA 1991, pp. 18-19; WirTH 1999, p 31). VAraby 1969, pp. 201-207 suspects the Uldin’s intervention on behalf of the Western Roman Empire. Zosim., 5.26.4 says that Stilicho used against Radagaisus, aside from his regular troops, doov of6¢ te yéyove ouupoyikov é “Adavaw Kai Oiwuv mepirorjoco0ar, but does not mention either Uldin or Sarus. VARADY 1969, p. 297 believes of Zosimus’ Alans and Huns to be the Pannonian foederati, but it is much more likely that they were Uldin's troops. 82 CE Lorrer 2003, pp. 93-94 who believes that Sarus was Ostrogothic, probably relying on VARADY 1969, pp. 207-210, 217-218 who argues that Sarus was Ostrogothic, a leader of the Ostrogothic horsemen transferred from Pannonia to Italy, and the supreme commander of Stilicho's foederati troops. NAGY (1971) 382- 338 assumes that Sarus was Visigothic and rejects the hypothesis that he commanded the Pannonian Ostrogothic foederati, SCHMIDT 1934, p. 266 also infers that Sarus was Visigothic who may have separated from Alaric during the latter’s first campaign against Italy (A.D. 402) and went over to the Romans. WOLFRAM 1990, pp. 172-173 does not dwell on Sarus’ ethnic background, but tries to elucidate the reasons for implacable enmity between Athaulf and Sarus. He considers Athaulf to be a commander of Goths and Huns in Pannonia (pp. 161-162) and believes that he was sent there by Alaric as to bring the Goths with him, but does not see him as a leader of the Pannonian Ostrogothic-Hunnic feederati because they were allegedly settled in Lower Pannonia while the Athaulf's troops were in Upper Pannonia (p. 171). However, the conclusion that Athaulf was indeed a leader of the Pannonian Ostrogothic-Hunnic foederati rather imposes itself (cf. LOTTER 2003, pp. 95-98). Therefore, it is possible that the conflict between Sarus and Athaulf originated from their days in Pannonia when they may have quarreled over leadership. To be true, another hypothesis seems equally probable, that 43Hnoje Graganin Radagaisus in August of 406. This employment of Uldin by the Western Roman government clearly shows that the influence of the Great Huns already extended relatively close to the middle Danube area, although the center of their territory was still situated along the lower Danube. Finally, when Alaric started for his second invasion of Italy in the autumn of 408 - naturally, he again moved through the Sava-Drava- Danube region — he was joined by a presumable leader of the Pannonian Ostrogothic and Hunnic foederati, Athaulf, who took mainly the Ostrogoths with him, while the majority of the Huns would remain in Pannonia.®3 This was a final end of the once united group of the Ostrogothic-Alanic-Hunnic foederati who had so strong an influence on the conditions in Pannonia in late 4" and early 5' century. Retaking of Pannonia from the Hunnic foederati EARLY ROLE OF THE GREAT HUNS IN WESTERN ROMAN AFFAIRS. In the next two decades, almost nothing is known about the Hunnic foederati who remained in Pannonia. The Western Roman Emperor Honorius invited some Huns as allies against Alaric in the summer of 409, but these came from the area beyond the Danube.*4 Of course, they had to pass through the Sava-Drava-Danube region on their way to Italy. We do not know exactly what had become of them, but it seems that they did not fulfill their task completely for Alaric was able to conquer Rome in August Sarus actually separated from Alaric and that their conflict was then extended to Athaulf as Alaric’s brother-in-law (cf. HEATHER 1994, pp. 197-198). Be that as it may, it is highly probable that Sarus commanded the troops of the Gothic foederali already stationed in Italy and composed primarily of the Goths (and Huns) from Pannonia. 63 LorTer 2003, pp. 94, 98. Cf. also VARADY 1969, pp. 241-247. To Athaulf as a leader of the Pannonian Goths and Huns is referred by Zosim., 5.37.1: "Enei_ & heyioto1 obtw< [Alaric] mpdypaow obx éx Tod iov HOvov GAA Kai EK peiZovos tmepoyiic éyxeipiiout Stevociro, weranéumetar Tov Tg yanETHIG ddEddv 'ATaOUAbOV ex Tic dvetéTw Taioviac, we av abt} KoWwwvigor Tic mpatews, Odwav Kai Tor0wv mAiGog odK eiKxatappovntoy exw. To Alaric’s and Athaulf’s departure from Illyricum as an end to an epoch is apparently alluded by Jerome in his already mentioned letter written in 409 (Ep. 123.17): Olim a mari Pontico usque ad Alpes Iulias non erant nostra, quae nostra sunt, et per annos triginta fracto Danubii li- mite in mediis Romani imperii regionibus pugnabatur. Aruerunt velustate lacrimae; praeter paucos senes omnes in captivitate et obsidione generati non desiderabant, quam non ‘noverant, libertatem. 64 Cf. SeEcK 1913, p. 402; THoMPson 1948, p. 34; BuRY 1958, p. 179; STEIN 1959, p. 257; DeManpr 1989, p. 145; Zosim., 5.50.1: pupioug cig “ovppaxiav Odwoug Enexodeito. In these Huns, VARApy 1969, pp. 254-257 wrongly sees the Pannonian Hunnic foederati (cf. Nacy (1971) 342). The number is undoubtedly exaggerated (MAENCHEN-HELFEN 1973, p. 69, 1978, p. 50; WIRTH 1999, p. 34). It seems more likely that these Huns arrived with the consent of their supreme King Uldin, as suggested by WiRTH 1999, p. 34, and that they are not a group of Huns who defected from Uldin after his military failure in the diocese of Thrace (A.D. 408- 409), as maintained by MAENCHEN-HELFEN 1973, p. 69, 1978, p. 50.The Huns and South Pannonia of 410. However, the presence of these Huns must have influenced Alaric to mitigate the demands he imposed on Honorius’ government. Naturally, the Huns were employed for a limited duration, and probably for the primary purpose of defending the northern Italy where Honorius’ residence, Ravenna, was located. Perhaps precisely for that reason, that is, the desire to avoid the Huns, Alaric did not attack Ravenna but, instead, turned against Rome in late 409. The Huns probably returned to their territory already in late 409 or early 410, presumably after their mercenary contract had expired. The situation in Pannonia, Noricum and Raetia where the foederati — the Huns also - were settled possibly became more stable at that time, which was owing to the capable general Generidus who was appointed commander of the entire Western Illyricum in 409.67 The Huns from the area beyond the Danube were also recruited under the Honorius’ succes- 65 Cf. Bury 1958, p. 179; STEIN 1959, p. 257. 55 Itseems that the alleged contact of Honorius with the Hunnic ruler Charietto in late 412 or early 413 should be atributed to the Eastern Roman government (cf. THomPson 1948, p. 34; BONA 1991, p. 46; WikTH 1999, pp. 36-37), rather than the Western Roman government (so MAENCHEN-HeLFEN 1973, pp. 73-74, 1978, pp. 53-54; B. CRoxE, Evidence for the Hun Invasion of Thrace in A.D. 422, Greek, Roman. and Byzantine Studies 18 (1977) 353). The information of the embassy to the Huns is contained in the largely lost history of Olympiodorus (fr. 19 Blockley). The historian himself participated in the embassy, and he mentions a dangerous voyage across the sea, which, as argued by MAENCHEN-HELFEN 1973, p. 74, 1978, p. 54, was the Adriatic Sea rather than the Black Sea. CROKE (1977) 353 even says that the embassy travelled probably along the Dalmatian coast to Aquileia, thence to Pannonia overland, but this does not make much sense. Namely, if this were a Western Roman embassy, the starting point would surely be Ravenna. It would be pointless to cross the Adriatic first and then to sail along the Dalmatian coast to Aquileia only to continue the voyage by land. Therefore, the direct Ravenna- Aquileia sea route along the west Adriatic coast would only seem appropriate. However, if this were the case, one could ask why risking an unsafe voyage by sea for such a short distance from Ravenna, and then taking the old Roman road that led to Pannonia anyway? These illogicalities could be avoided if we suppose that this was the Eastern Roman embassy that set out from Constantinople by sea, and out of necessity since a voyage by land was far unsafer. Namely, the diocese of Thrace was under constant threat from barbarian incursions at that time (cf. THOMPSON 1948, pp. 29-30; MAENCHEN-HELFEN 1973, p. 74, 1978, p. 54; BONA 1991, p. 23; WixTH 1999, p. 36). 57 About Generidus’ command post in Western Illyricum cf. PLRE I, 500-501 sv. Generidus, DeMaNoT 1970, 646-647, FiTz 1994, p. 1392. Zosim., 5.46.2 says that Generidus commanded Upper Pannonia, Noricum, Raetia and the regions as far as the Alps at first, and afterwards received also the command over the troops in Dalmatia. Zosimus ended his passage on Generidus with a comment (5.46.5) that the general filled ,the neighboring barbarians“ (toig mAnoidZovar apPépotc) with fear and brought ,complete security" (ndcav dapddeav) to the provinces he watched over. MAENCHEN-HELFEN 1973, p. 71, 1978, p. 51 believes that these ,adja- cent barbarians" were actually the Great Huns, but it is possible that they were the ‘foederati (cf. note 30 for a similar situation in the time of Valentinian II), For the Teorganization of the defence of Western Mlyricom under Generidus ef. Soproni 4546 Hrvoje Graéanin sor John, who had to face a military intervention from the East. The army that Theodosius II, acting in behalf of his aunt Aelia Galla Placidia and her six-year old son Valentinian III, sent against John moved by way of Salonae in Dalmatia where it arrived in mid-spring of 425. Thence the cavalry went to Aquileia by land, crossing the Julian Alps, while the infantry was transported to Ravenna by sea. This clearly shows that the Eastern Roman government considered South Pannonia unsufficiently secure for passage of the troops, which made it necessary to choose more perilous sea route and then longer land route along the Dalmatian coast. There is no doubt that it was the proximity of the Huns that rendered the traffic communications in Upper Moesia and South Pannonia unsafe. In early 425, John ordered the future supreme western Roman general, Flavius Actius, to go to the Huns and secure their help so he could muster sufficient troops to oppose the Eastern Romans. The choice of Aetius for this task was not unusual because he had spent some time as a hostage among the Huns some 15 years ago.®§ A rich reward the Huns were to receive as a pay for their service guaranteed the success of the mission. On his way back, Aetius rushed through South Pannonia and soon appeared in Italy leading a large Hunnic army. Nevertheless, he came too late since John 68 It is not known precisely when Aetius lived as a hostage among the Huns, but his sending to the Hunnic court is usually dated as 409/410 (cf. O. SEECK, Geschichte des Uniergangs der antiken Welt VI, Stutigart 1920, pp. 104-105; THOMPSON 1948, pp. 33:34; STFIN 1959, pp. 257, 283; BONA 1991, p. 47; WirTH 1999, p. 34). However, some historians are somewhat vague: PLRE Il, 22 sv. Actius 7 has some lime afterwards, DEMANDT 1989, p. 151 wenig spéter, M. Sabe1. Kos, The Embassy of Romulus to Attila, Tyche 9 (1994) 105 several years later, i.e. after he had lived as a hostage in Alaric’s camp in 405-408. BURY says in one place (1958, p. 180, note 3) that Aetius was delivered as a hostage to Alaric possibly in 409, and in another (1958, p. 241, note 2) that this may have occurred either in 405-406 or after the first siege of Rome in 408. In any case, Bury also believes that Aetius was sent to the Huns several years after he was a hostage in Alaric’s camp. MAENCHEN-HELFEN 1973, p. 68, note 266, 1978, pp. 50, 364, note 266 argues, relying on ALFOLDI 1926, p. 87, note 5, that Aetius was a hostage in Alaric’s camp in 402-404/405 and that he may have been sent to the Huns already in 406 or some time afterwards. ALFOLDI 1996, ibidem interprets Aetius’ stay as a hostage among the Huns in connection with his (erroneous) theory that Stilicho concluded a treaty with the Huns in 406 and settled them as the foederati in Valeria. VARADY 1969, pp. 257-262 assumes that Aetius went as a hostage to the Huns as part of a Western Roman- Hunnic alliance concluded in 416, after a similar alliance was concluded between the Western Empire and the Visigoths, He argues that the relations between Aetius and the Huns had to be noch frisch und stark genug in 425 so he could successfully intervene with the Huns in John’s behalf, which would require a later date for his stay among the Huns (1969, p. 258). However, it is quite obvious that Aetius regularly kept in touch with the Huns for he sought help from them also in 432. Thus his contacts with the Huns must have extended over longer period of time, and it is equally possible that they originated from 409/410. After all, our source (Greg. Tur., 2.8) clearly states that Aetius and the Huns were bonded by a close friendship (familiari amicicia divinctos). Undoubtedly, Aetius carefully nur- tured this friendship. Even his son Carpilio spent some time as a hostage among the Huns (PLRE Il, 262 s.v. Carpilio 2).The Huns and South Pannonia was already executed in Aquileia three days before, in early June, after being captured at Ravenna in late May. At first, Actius engaged the Eastern Roman army, but then immediately struck an agreement with the new Western Roman government, while the Huns returned to their territory via South Pannonia after they had received their pay, delivered hostages and exchanged oaths.®? REMOVAL OF THE PANNONIAN HUNNIG FOEDERATI The new agreement between the Western Roman Empire and the Huns rendered itself very useful because, for the next four years, Aetius campaigned against the Visigoths and Francs in Gaul chiefly with the aid of the Hunnic mercenaries.” Also, the treaty had a favorable impact on the conditions in northern part of Western Illyricum, i.e. in Pannonia. It seems that, as a direct result of this amicable relations, the Western Romans succeeded in regaining temporarily the control over the Pannonian regions in 427. The contemporaries perceived the removal of the Hunnic foederati as a liberation of Pannonia after 50 years of foreign domination.”! Modern historians interpret variously this event and the historical circumstances that surround it. SEECK assumes that the then supreme Western Roman general Flavius Constantius Felix, aided by the Gothic troops, repelled the Huns from Pannonia. Bury believes that the Huns left Valeria which they held for 45 years after they concluded a treaty with the Western Romans in 425. ALFOLDI speculates that the Eastern Romans out of Pannonia Secunda and Savia drove the Huns, after they had taken over these provinces by an agreement with the Western Roman Empire, while the Huns kept Valeria, which they held from 406; consequently, he rejects the 50 years date. SCHMIDT asserts that the Eastern Romans cleared Pannonia Secunda, which was ceded to them by the western Roman government and invaded by the Huns, and that the information provided by Jordanes about involvement of the Goths is arbi- © Seeck 1920, pp. 93-95; THOMPSON 1948, p. 35; BuRY 1958, pp. 222-224; Srein 1959, pp. 283-284; MarNCHEN-HELFEN 1973, p. 77, 1978, pp. 56-57; DEMANDT 1989, p. 151; Bona 1991, pp. 47-50; WiRTH 1999, pp. 41-43. The sources say that the Hunnish army numbered as many as 10,000 woops (Philostorg., 12.14, 2 Socrat., 7.23, 25-26 has several tens of thousands), but the number is surely exa, gerated. 79 Script 1934, pp. 463-464; BuRY 1958, pp. 242-244; STRIN 1959, p. 318; WoFRam 1990, p. 180; BONA 1991, p. 50. a Marcelinus and Jordanes, who both lived in the 6" century, provide our only extant testimony for this. Marcelin., s.a. 427.1 says: Pannoniae, quae per quinquaginta annos ab Hunnis retinebantur, a Romanis receptae sunt. Similar information is offered by Jordan., Getica 166: Nam duodecimo anno regni Valiae [A.D, 427], quando et Hunni post pene quinquaginta annorum invasam Pannoniam a Romanis et Gothis puts sunt (...) eo fere tempore, quo Hierius et Ardabures consules processissent (A.D. 427). 4748 Hrvoje Graganin trary and worthless. THOMPSON speculates that the Eastern Roman troops retook Pannonia Secunda from the Huns. STEIN deduces that general Felix recaptured the northeastern part of Pannonia, which was already detached from the Empire since the days of Alatheus and Safrax, and kept by the Huns in recent decades, i.e. Valeria. MAENCHEN-HELFEN believes that the Western Romans defeated the Huns in Pannonia, i.e. the Hunnic bands that came to close to Noricum, which, regarding to him, was a testimony for a transient weakening of the Hunnic confederation due to unknown reasons. CROKE says that the Huns were driven back across the Danube, and assumes that this action was initiated by the Eastern Roman court, which was a direct consequence of an agreement concluded in 424 about a transfer of authority over Pannonia from the West to the East. Popovic asserts that this military enterprise was carried out by general Flavius Ardabur Aspar and that a starting point of the campaign was Sirmium. DEMANDT briefly states that general Felix succeeded in recapture of Pannonia from the Huns, while WoLFRAM mentions the forces of the Great Huns, general Aetius’ allies, which were repelled by the Romans across the Danube in 427.7? In most of these instances, it is presumed that the Huns that were driven back or expelled were the so-called Great Huns from the area beyond the Danube, which devalues the statement of the sources that these were the Huns who had lived in Pannonia for 50 years. The first who proposed that the Huns in question were the Pannonian Hunnic foederati was Varaby,’3 but he went too far with his hypotheses, asserting that the Western Roman Empire revoked the Pannonian Huns’ status of the foederati, allegedly in keeping with the treaty of A.D. 425, and that Marcellinus’ expression Pannoniae could only refer to Pannonia Secunda.”4 Mocsy rejects the notion that the Huns who held Pannonia until 427 were the Hunnic foederati, and says that they were the Huns from the area beyond the Danube, arguing that, in 427, the Eastern Roman Empire most probably recaptured the parts of Pannonia from the Huns after a military intervention in the Sava-Drava region, i.e. Savia.7° Relying 72 Speck 1920, p. 106; Bury 1958, p. 272; ALFOLDI 1926, pp. 86-88, 94-95; ScHMIDT 1934, pp. 261-262 and note 1; THOMPSON 1948, p. 64; STEIN 1959, pp. 318, 322; MAENCHEN-HELFEN 1973, pp. 77-81, 1978, pp. 57-59; CROKE (1977) 354 and note 25; V. Popovic, Die siiddanubischen Provinzen in der Spdtantike vom Ende des 4. bis zur Mitte des 5. Jahrhunderts, in: Die Volker Sidosteuropas im 6. bis 8. Jahrhundert, ed. B. Hansel (= Siidosteuropa Jahrbuch 17), Miinchen ~ Berlin 1987, pp. 102, 107; DeManbT 1989, p. 150; Wolfram 1990, p. 257, 73 VARADy 1969, pp. 278-299. 74 For refutation of VARAbY's arguments cf. NaGy (1971) 342-343. Unfortunately, NacY’s paper that deals with Marcellinus' record, Reoccupation of Pannonia from the Huns in 427, in: Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 15 (1967) 159- 186, has nothing to say about the event itself. Instead, it is devoted solely to the source analysis. 75 Mocsy 1974, pp. 849-850.The Huns and South Pannonia on VARADY'’s arguments, POPOVIC assumes that the Eastern Romans expelled the Hunnic foederati from Pannonia, and BONA infers that the Eastern Romans, after they had received Pannonia Secunda from the Western Roman Empire, forced the Western Roman barbarian foederati, and the Huns also, out from Pannonia.”6 It seems that, in recent times, the more logical assumption that the expelled Huns were the Pannonian {foederati has prevailed. Such is also the argument of WiRTH who openly questions the involvement of the Goths, rejects the Eastern Roman intervention, strongly doubts that the Western Roman Empire would choose to follow an aggressive military solution, and suggests instead that the action taken was either political or diplomatic, while LOTTER says that the Western Romans, i.e. Aetius expelled the local Hunnic foederati from Pannonia.”7 The assumption of SALAMON - Sos that, in 427, Pannonia Secunda and Savia became part of the territory occupied by the Huns is erroneous and misleading.”* In our opinion, the Western Roman government succeeded in expelling the Hunnic foederati from Pannonia, undoubtedly with a tacit consent of the Great Huns, with whom a treaty was concluded in 425. This was probably carried out by general Felix since Aetius was chiefly in Gaul at that time, eventhough it is possible that he was in Ravenna in 427.79 The action was limited and presumably did not mean a large-scale military operation. The participation of the Goths is not likely, especially since the Western Romans fought them in Gaul at the same time. Although we can assume that there were a number of Gothic mercenaries in the Roman troops that may have been used for the operation in Pannonia, this is hardly what Jordanes had in mind when he cred- ited this success to the Goths. Thus the history of the Ostrogothic-Alanic- Hunnic group that was settled in Pannonia under the leadership of Alatheus and Saphrax in 380 now came to its final end. We do not know what happened to the former Hunnic foederati. They may have retreated across the Danube and joined their ethnic brethren.8 Surrender of Pannonia to the Huns GREAT HUNS AS THE IMPERIAL FOEDERATI The Romans did not retain the control over the Pannonian provinces for long. Aetius who found himself in a difficult position during the fight 76 Popovic 1987, p. 107, BONA 1991, p. 50. 77 WirTH 1999, pp. 43-44; LoTTER 2003, pp. 33, 51, 98. 78 SALAMON — Sos 1980, p. 398. 79 Cf. PLREM, 22 sx. Aetius 7. 80 WirTH 1999, p. 44. VArapy 1969, pp. 300-303, 396-397 argues that the Hunnic (and Alanic) foederati were partially accepted in the Roman army, partially left in Pannonia, and partially selected for the buccelarii, but this is unfounded (cf. NAGY (1971) 343-344). 4950 Hrvoje Graganin for supremacy in the Western Roman Empire was forced to escape to the Huns in 432. We know his itinerary: after he had left Rome, he crossed to Dalmatia in a boat, and thence came to the Huns by the way of South Pannonia.®! Thanks to Aetius’ good connections with the Huns, a large Hunnish army was placed at his disposal. Leading his troops, Aetius marched through the Sava-Drava-Danube region, appeared before Ravenna and forced Galla Placidia and Valentinian III to agree to his appointment as the supreme Western Roman general.®? In this new capa- city, Aetius was in a position to further his dealings with the Huns and reward them for their support, thus binding them even more to himself. Consequently, he made a treaty with the Huns in 433. They became the imperial foederati under usual terms, and were granted the right to settle on the Roman territory with the obligation to provide a military assistance for the Empire, which Actius would know how to use.83 The Western Roman-Hunnic relations were advanced to a new phase. DATE OF THE TREATY Modern historiography has more or less accepted the year 433 as a date for the conclusion of the treaty between the Western Romans and the Huns. It is maintained by ALFOLDI, SCHMIDT, THOMPSON, STEIN, VARADY, Mocsy who asserts that it was only the Hunnic conquest that was sanc- tioned in this year, BARKOCZI, SALAMON — SOs, Fitz, WIRTH, ANDRIC, and Lorrer.§4 SEECK dates the treaty as 431, MIRKOVIC as 432, and NIKOLANCI as 430, MAENCHEN-HELFEN did not affix a precise date, even though he assumes that Priscus’ barbarian with whom Aetius concluded a treaty was 81 Cf. Prosp. Tir., s.a. 432: Aetius vero cum deposita potestate in agro suo degeret ibique P. eposita pr igre Be gq eum quidam inimici ius repentino incursu opprimere temptassent, profugus ad urbem alque illinc ad Dalmatiam, deinde per Pannonias ad Chunos pervenit, quorum amicitia auxilioque usus pacem principum et ius interpolatae potestatis optinuit. On the circumstances cf. SEECK 1920, pp. 115-117, Bury 1958, p. 248, STEIN 1959, pp. 321-322, Demanpt 1989, pp. 151-152. 82 PLREIL, 24 sw. Aetius 7. 83° The Hunnic troops would make up the main Aetius’ force with which he fought the Burgundians, Visigoths and Bagaudae in Gaul in the second half of 430s (cf. SCHMIDT 1934, pp. 466-468; BuRY 1958, pp. 249-250; STEIN 1959, pp. 322- 324; DEMANDT 1989, p. 154; WOLFRAM 1990, pp. 181-182). A testimony for the con clusion of the treaty with the Huns is provided by Chron. Gall,, s.a. 434: Aetius in sratian respi. Rugila, rex Chunorum, cum quo pax firmata, moritur, cui Bleda suc 2 2 (...) OV “Opéotp, S¢ Tod ‘PuyaiKob yévoug tag ‘Actiov otpatnyod TOV gonepiuv ‘Pupaivv ovvOfiKac dnaKovovoay. 34 ALFOLDI 1926, p. 90; SCHMIDT 1934, p. 262; 1938, p. 185; THOMPSON 1948, p. 64; STEIN 1959, p. 322; VARADY 1969, pp. 303-309; Mocsy 1974, p. 350; BARKOCZi 1980, p. 119; SALAMON — SOs 1980, p. 398; Fitz 1994, pp. 1324, 1328; Wirt 1967, p. 44, 1999, p. 47; S. ANDRIC, Judna Panonija u doba velike seobe narodé [South Pannonia in the time of the great migration of peoples], Scrinia Slavonica 2 (2002) 131; Lorrer 2003, pp. 16, 51The Huns and South Pannonia Attila (he says in another place that the Eastern Romans rather than the Western Romans concluded a peace treaty with the Hunnic king Ru/g/a), WozNIAK dates the treaty as 435, SasEL Kos as 433/434, Popovic and Tomicic both as 434, while BONA has 432/434 and 434/435.85 It can be assumed that Aetius made the treaty as soon as he acquired the leading position in the Western Roman Empire and while the Hunnic King Ru/g/a whom he also asked for help in 425 was still alive, and that the treaty was confirmed by Ru/g/a’s successors Bleda and Attila to whom a Western Roman embassy with Aetius’ son Carpilio and Cassiodorus, grandfather of the famous Flavius Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator was sent in 434/435.86 There is another historiographic issue connected to the question of the treaty: Attila’s appointment as magister militum. VARADY, SaseL Kos, and Lotrer argue that Aetius had Attila appointed magister mi- 4itum at the time of the conclusion of the treaty,87 while WirTH has initially assumed that Attila was appointed by the Eastern Roman Emperor after the settlement of Margus in 435, but afterwards proposed that he was appointed by the Western Roman Emperor.8® However, this is not very likely, since it would mean a devaluation of Bleda’s senior position. MAENCHEN-HELFEN believes that Attila became a magister militum after 445, and that Aetius appointed him.®? A similar view is maintained by BONA 85 SEECK 1920, p. 115; M. MIRKOVIC, Sirmium — its history from the I century A. D. to 582 A. D. [= Sirmium I), Beograd 1971, p. 48; M. NIKOLANCI, ,Dalmatinska dinastija" i propast Zapadnog Rimskog Carstva [The Dalmatian dynasty* and the fall of the Western Roman Empire], Radovi Zavoda za hrvatsku povijest 18 (1985) 5; MAENCHEN-HELFEN 1973, pp. 89-90, 93, 1978, pp. 65-66, 69; FE. Wozniak, East Rome, Ravenna and Western Iyricum, Historia 30 (1981) 352; Sase.-Kos (1994) 105; Porovié 1987, p. 103; ToMcic 2000, p. 266; BONA 1980, p. 181, 1991, p. 52. 86 Cf VARADY 1969, pp. 309-312. He asserts that only Attila dealt with the embassy, which cannot be right since Bleda was senior in their dual kingship. The assumption of VARADY is based on Cassiodorus’ letter written in 507 (Variae, 1.4.10-12), our only extant source for this embassy, which has Attila as a sole recip- nt of the Western Roman envoys. It seems that this should be attributed rather to the fact that Attila later surpassed Bleda due to his legendary fame and historical significance, and that Cassiodorus sought to overemphasize the role and success of his grandfather in the embassy, thus portraiting Attila and the circumstances much more difficult than they really were. MAENCHEN-HELFEN 1973, pp. 105-107, 1978, pp. 78-79 argues that the embassy must have happened after the year 445, i.e. after Bleda’s death, and connects it to the deterioration of the relations between the Western Roman Empire and the Huns, but he never mentions Romulus’ embassy in 449. The deterioration of the Western Roman-Hunnic relations can be first detected in around 448 (ef. VARaDy 1969, p. 315ff; BONA 1991, p. 89ff, H. GRACANIN, The Western Roman Embassy to the Court of Attila in A.D. 449, Byzantinoslavica 61 (2003) 54). After all, Attila would not have risked an open rupture with the West when he still waged war on the East in 447, although he may have contemplated a campaign in Gaul as early as 447. 87 Varapy 1969, pp. 308, 397; Sasel. Kos (1994) 106; Lorrer 2003, pp. 17, 51. 88 inti 1967, p. 49, 1999, p. 142. 89 MarNCHEN-HELFEN 1973, p. 107, 1978, p. 79. 5152 Hrvoje Graganin who says that the Western Roman Emperor appointed Attila in 445/446.9 Attila’s magisterium militum is mentioned by Priscus,9! in a passage that describes the Eastern Roman embassy to Attila in 449. Some historians believe that this was the year when Attila received an honorary magisterium militum from the Emperor Valentinian III since Priscus was informed of this by the Western Roman envoys.%? But BLOCKLEY has already pointed out that Priscus may have equally meant Theodosius II when saying that the Emperor conferred the title on Attila.3 This seems even more likely if we bear in mind that Priscus explains how the fact of a tribute being payed to the king of the Huns was concealed by Attila’s appointment to the rank of a Roman general, and we know that it was the Eastern Roman Empire that payed the tribute. DEMANDT also accepts that Theodosius II bestowed the honorary magisterium militum on Attila.°4 The appointment must have occured after Bleda’s death in 445, possibly in 447 when the Eastern Roman Emperor had to conclude a new peace treaty with the Huns and was forced to pay a considerably increased yearly tribute. WHICH PANNONIAN PROVINCES WERE SURRENDERED TO THE HUNS? By the provisions of the treaty made with Aetius in 433, a large section of Pannonia, probably the provinces of Valeria and Pannonia Secunda, and possibly Pannonia Prima also were ceded to the Huns, but large towns were excluded from this, at least those in Pannonia Secunda. A testimony for cession of the Pannonian provinces is provided by Priscus who mentions ,a region of Pannonia close to the river Sava which was subject to the barbarian by the treaty made with Aetius‘.°5 This could mean both Southpannonian provinces along the river Sava, i.e. Pannonia Secunda and Savia. However, such a solution is unlikely. The Huns were not mas- ters of all the Pannonian provinces as we also discover from Priscus when he mentions certain Constantiolus who was ,a man from the region of Pannonia subject to Attila*.°° The statement would only make sense if there were parts of Pannonia not subject to Attila. In any case, Priscus uses singular, ,a region“, xdpa. Consequently, it can be deduced that the Huns were given control over substantial part of Pannonia Secunda since this 9° Bona 1991, pp. 81-82. 91 Prisc., fr. 11.2, 627-631 Blockley. 92 PLRE II, 182-183 s.v, Attila. °3 RC. BLOcKLEY, Notes to Priscus rhetor Panites, Fragmenta, in: The Fragmentary classicising historians of the later Roman Empire: Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus and Malchus II, ed. R. C. Blockley (= ARCA. Classical and Medieval Texts, Papers and Monographs 6), Liverpool 1983, p. 387, note 69.- 4 DEMANpT 1989, p. 168. 9% Prisc., fr. 11.1, 3-5 Blockley. For the text cf. note 83. 96 Prisc., fr. 11.2, 578-579: avbpoc éx Tig Maiovwy xapac tic bmd “AtTHAG TaTTO- hévec.The Huns and South Pannonia was the closest region to the Hunnic territory across the Danube. Apart from large towns, the strategically significant traffic routes along the rivers Sava and Drava, which connected Italy and the eastern provinces may have also been excluded from the arrangement. Valeria was undoubtedly handed over to the Huns for the same reason as Pannonia Secunda: it was the closest region to the Hunnic territory across the Danube. With regard to Pannonia Prima, it is quite possible that this province was also surrendered, although there is not a direct confirmation for this in sources. However, it must be remembered that the Ostrogothic-Alanic-Hunnic foederati were also partially settled in Pannonia Prima. Such an assumption also seems to be supported by archaeological finds in the area.°7 In modern historiography, there are rather differing opinions on which Pannonian provinces were surrendered to the Huns by the treaty of 433. Some believe that it was the entire Pannonia,°® while others opt for Pannonia Prima, Valeria and Savia,°? Pannonia Prima and Savia,!0° Valeria and Pannonia Secunda,!°! Valeria and Pannonia Prima,!0? Valeria and the eastern part of Pannonia Prima, but not Savia nor Pannonia Secunda,!°3 Valeria and Savia,!°4 Pannonia Secunda,! or Pannonia Prima.!°* One historian even doubts if Aetius surrendered the parts of Pannonia to the Huns at all, and argues that they were only acknowledged an official right to the Pannonian regions they already held,!©7 although he also says that Aetius ceded the area along the Sava to Attila after the year 445.!98 Yet another historian infers that Pannonia Prima and Valeria came entirely under the Hunnic control in 427, while Savia and Pannonia Secunda were surrendered to the Eastern Roman Empire,!©9 but this is an erroneous assumption. 97 Cf. Bona 1991, pp. 200-202, WiRTH 1999, p. 45. 98 Sreck 1920, p. 115; ScHMmDT 1934, p. 262, 1938, p. 185; ANDRIC (2002) 131; LotTeR 2003, p. 16 and note 46, p. 51. 99 Mocsy 1974, p. 350; WiRTH 1999, pp. 45-46. 100 Bona 1980, p. 181. 101 Bury 1958, p. 272 and note 3; STEIN 1959, p. 322; SaseL 1979, p. 128; Sse. Kos (1994) 105-106. 102 ALTHEIM 1951, p. 84; BONA 1991, p. 52. 103 Frrz 1994, pp. 1324, 1328. 104 Mmexovié 1971, p. 43; WozNiaK (1981) 352. 105 VArapy 1969, pp. 303ff, 397. 106 AL FOLDI 1926, p. 90 who asserts that Priscus mistook the Sava for the Drava, THOMPSON 1948, p. 64, Mdcsy 1962, p. 582, and SaLAMON ~ Sés 1980, p. 398 who believe that Pannonia Secunda and Savia were already ceded to the Huns in 427. 107 MAENCHEN-HELFEN 1973, pp. 89-90, 1978, pp. 65-66. 108 MaeNCHEN-HELFEN 1973, p. 107, 1978, p. 79. 103 V. Posavec, Pogled na proilost rimske Dalmacije u prvoj polovici V. stoljeca [A look at the past of the Roman Dalmatia in the first half of the 5'" century], Historijski zbornik 50 (1997) 11. 5354 Hroje Graganin CESSION OF WESTERN ILLYRICUM TO THE EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE, It is not a coincidence that probably the only province that was not ceded to the Huns was Savia and that they were imposed certain limita- tions with regard to Pannonia Secunda. Both of these Southpannonian provinces were extremely important because of their traffic and strategic significance, and the Eastern Roman Empire was naturally very much interested in them. Thus it is possible to conjecture that Aetius did not have a full freedom of action in deciding which Pannonian provinces and in what extent would be ceded to the Huns, i.e. he could not surrender all the provinces even if he wanted to. It seems that in 424, while Aelia Galla Placidia stayed as a refugee in Constantinople with her son Valentinian who was then five years old, there was an agreement made between the East and the West by which the question of the supreme authority over the prefecture of Illyricum was to be finally resolved. In exchange for the Eastern military help, Galla Placidia renounced the Western Roman rights to Eastern Illyricum.!!® On this occasion, Valentinian was betrothed to the two-year old Licinia Eudoxia, a daughter of his cousin Theodosius II, which was probably also a part of the settlement!!! Thirteen years later, at the wedding of Valentinian IIT and Licinia Eudoxia in Constantinople on October 29, 437,112 the Western Roman renounciation of the rights to the Eastillyrian regions was not only solemnly confirmed, but the western Roman government surrendered officialy a large portion of the Illyrian or Pannonian diocese, i.e. the Pannonian provinces, and perhaps even Dalmatia, to the East.!3 By this, the West tried to avoid any possible complication with regard to the Huns and the middle Danube area in the future. Thus the dangerous proximity of the Huns and their growing appetite had an immediate effect on administrative and political changes in Western Illyricum. By acquiring the authority over Pannonia, reduced now in reality to Southpannonian provinces, the Eastern Roman Empire assumed control over the strategi- 110 About this cf. E. Stein, Der Verzicht der Galla Placidia auf die Priifektur Myricum, Wiener Studien 36 (1914) 344-347, 1 Markovic 1971, p. 42 dates erroneously the betrothal of Valentinian III to Eudoxia as 426. Marcelin,, s.a. 424.2 has it clearly under the year 424 U2 SEECK 1920, p. 121; W. ENGLIN, RE VII A, Stuttgart 1939, 2235 s.v. Valentinianus 4; Bury 1958, p. 225; PLRE Il, 1139 sv. Valentinianus 4; DEMANDT 1989, p. 150 (however, misdated as October, 28). The date was surely not accidental for Valentinian III was acclaimed Caesar in Thessalonica on October 23, 424, and Augustus in Rome on October 23, 425 (SEECK 1920, pp. 93, 97; STEIN 1959, p. 284; DeManorT 1989, p. 150). 113 A testimony for this is provided by Cassiod., Variae 11.1.9: Nurum denique sibi amissione Myrick comparavit factaque est coniunctio regnantis divisio dolenda provinais, and Jordan., Romana 328: Post haec (A.D. 434] I anno Valentinianus imperator a Roma Constantinopolim ob suscipiendam in matrimonio Eudoxiam Theodosii principis fi- liam venit datamgue pro munere soceri sui tolam Hiyricum celebratis nuptiis ad sua regna cum uxore secessil.The Huns and South Pannonia cally vital area along the river Sava with Sirmium as a main defensive post. The historians have variously sought to explain the assertion of sources that the Western Empire ceded Illyricum to the Eastern Empire. STEIN assumes that the Western Roman government renounced its rights to Eastern Illyricum in 437, and ceded Sirmium to the Eastern Roman Empire at the same time.!!4 Such an assumption is accepted by ALFOLDI (Sirmium was ceded in 424), ScHmwT (Sirmium and a part of Pannonia Secunda were ceded in 424), ENBLIN, SARIA, FERJANCIG (Pannonia Secunda), VARApy (Sirmium), Mocsy (Sirmium), and Lotter (Sirmium while Dalmatia, Raetia and Noricum were retained by the West).!!5 On the other hand, SEECK maintains that the entire Illyricum was ceded in 427, which is followed by DEMANDT and WIRTH (the entire Illyricum).!16 ZEILLER believes that the entire Western Illyricum was surendered except the provinces of Noricum, and that Pannonia may have been ceded in 424, while Bury asserts that Dalmatia and Eastern Pannonia were surely surrendered in 424.!!7 The surrender of Western Illyricum together with Dalmatia is accepted by WILKES (a substantial part of Western Illyricum and a major part, if not all, of Dalmatia was ceded), MATHISEN (the West may have been left with only the provinces of Noricum), WoznNtAK, Popovic (Dalmatia and Pannonia were already under the Eastern Roman control from 424/425), and Fitz (Dalmatia and Sirmium).!!8 Mirkovic speculates about a gradual diminishing of the territory under the control of the Eastern Roman government to only Sirmium, which is erroneous.!19 In Croatian historiography, the researchers have opted for a surrender of only Dalmatia (SisI¢ relying on GULDENPENNING), for a sur render of Dalmatia after some Pannonian provinces had already been ceded (Posavec), for a surrender of the entire Illyricum with Dalmatia (Novak), for a surrender of only Pannonia (ANDRIC, who leaves an open possibility for a cession of only a part of Pannonia, i.e. Pannonia Secunda or Sirmium with its environs), or have even expressed the opinion that a part of Western Illyricum was not ceded to the East at all but the East was 114 E, STEIN, Untersuchungen zur spdtromischen Verwaltungsgeschichte, Rheinisches Museum fiir Philologie 74 (1925) 354ff, idem 1959, pp. 285, 322. 15 ALFOLDI 1926, p. 93 and note 1; SCHMIDT 1934, pp. 261-262, 305-306; ENBLIN 1939, 2236 s.v. Valentinianus 4; B. SaRIA, RES VIII, Stuttgart 1956, 28 s.v. Dalmatia; B, FERJANCIC, Sirmijum w doba Vizantije (Sirmium in the time of Byzantium], i Sremska Mitrovica, ed. R. Prica, Sremska Mitrovica 1969, p. 40; VARADY 1969, pp. 308, 331-332; Mocsy 1974, p. 350; LoTTER 2003, p. 17, 116 SeEcK 1920, pp. 121-122; DEMANDT 1989, p. 150; WixtH 1999, p. 47. U7 J. ZEILLER, Les origines chrétiennes dans les provinces danubiennes de l'Empire romain, Paris 1918, pp. 6-7, 371, 373; BURY 1958, 225-226. 18 J. J. Winks, Dalmatia, London 1969, p. 419; R. W. MATHISEN, Avitus, Italy and the East in A.D. 455-456, Byzantion 51 (1981) 238, note 27; Wozniak (1981) 353ff; Porovic 1987, pp. 103, 111; Fitz 1994, pp. 1319, 1324. 119 Mirkovic 1971, pp. 42-48. 5556 Hrvoje Graéanin only recognized its rights to the prefecture of Illyricum, i.e. Eastern Illyricum, while Aetius surrendered Sirmium and Pannonia to the Huns, which is an altogether unacceptible assertion (RoGOSI¢).!2° The hypothesis about the surrender of Dalmatia is maintained by FERLUGA and NIKOLANCI, too.!2! The interpretation of sources (Cassiodorus) !22 that Illyricum was lost for the West has been usually seen as to reflect a disapproval of the Ostrogothic court with the former Western government ceding its rights to Eastern Illyricum, which would become a matter of contention between. the Ostrogoths and the Eastern Romans with regard to Sirmium.!23 The Ostrogoths recaptured Sirmium from the Gepids in 504, and the Gepids tried to win it back with the help of the Eastern Romans in 530, but suffered a defeat after which the Ostrogothic rule was consolidated in the Syrmian region.!24 So when Cassiodorus speaks of a ruler (Amalasuentha) who defends the frontiers of her kingdom and who contra Orientis principis votum Romanum [i.e. Italian, Ostrogothic] fecit esse Danuvium,!*5 while another ruler (Galla Placidia) was to blame for the loss of Ilyricum, he has primarily in mind the concrete possesion of Pannonia Secunda and Sirmium (and also the middle Danube area), and not the rights to Eastern Illyricum. In another words, Cassiodorus essen- tially criticizes the surrender of the parts of Western Illyricum that de jure belonged to the Western Empire until 437. It also seems that he distin- guishes between two events: the earlier one when the division of Illyricum was agreed upon (it was then that Galla Placidia ceded the Western Roman rights to Eastern Illyricum), and the later one when the agreement was finally realized with a further division of the Westillyrian provinces. Since Cassiodorus uses the plural (provinciis), it is clear that several provinces, and not just Pannonia Secunda with Sirmium must have been formally ceded to the East. The solution may be provided if we suppose that all the four Pannonian provinces were surrendered. It seems that the later events 120 F, Sisi¢, Povijest Hruata u urijeme narodnih vladara [The history of Croats in the time of their national rulers}, Zagreb 1925, pp. 161-162; A. GULDENPENNING, Geschichte des ostromischen Reiches unter den Kaisern Arcadius und Theodosius I, Halle 1885, pp. 310, 311 and note 23; Posavec (1997) 11; G. Novak, Proilost Dalmacije I (The History of Dalmatia], Zagreb 1944, p. 86; ANDRIC (2002) 131-132; R. ROGOSG, Veliki Ilirik (284-395) i njegova konatna dioba (396-437). Kriticna istrazivanja Mirika iz kasnije povijesti Rimskog Carstua, (The Greater Mlyricum (A.D. 284-395) and its final division (A.D. 396-437). Critical research of Illyricum in the history of the Later Roman Empire], Zagreb 1962, pp. 173, 175. 121 J, Fer.uca, Vizantisha uprava u Dalmaciji (The Byzantine rule in Dalmatia), Beograd 1957, p. 21; NIKOLANCI (1985) 5. 122 For the text see note 113. 123 Cf. Sremn (1925) 356-357; ALFOLD! 1926, p. 93, note 1. 124 ScriapT 1934, pp. 348, 534; STEIN 1949, p. 807; WOLFRAM 1990, pp. 320-323. 125 Cassiod., Variae 1.1.10.The Huns and South Pannonia confirm this assumption. After the disintegration of Attila’s megastate, it is the Eastern Roman Emperor Marcian who concludes a treaty with the Ostrogoths and allows them to settle in Pannonia.!26 The supposed intervention of the Western Emperor Avitus in Pannonia in 455, which is based solely on the verses of Sidonius Apollinaris,!2” is by no means certain, and it is possible that Sidonius actually alluded to the western edge of the diocese of Illyricum, i.e. the provinces of Noricum that bordered with Pannonia and through which Avitus passed on his voyage from Gaul to Rome in July to September of 455.128 The assumptions that Avitus (or one of his generals) actually intervened in Pannonia and subdued it partially or even entirely to the West,!*? or that he granted the Ostrogoths position of the foederati in Pannonia which then would be confirmed by Marcian!5° cannot be accepted. Mocsy argues that Avitus was the last of the Western emperors who tried to win back Pannonia, but his demonstration of force did not have any real effect, which is more or less accepted by Wirtu.!3! Lotter also believes that certain parts of Pannonia were re- united with the Western Empire thanks to Avitus’ intervention, and tries to substantiate this assumption by claiming that die italischen Konsularfasten hditten némlich kaum die Zerstorung der Stadt Sabaria in der Pannonia I durch ein Erdbeben am 7. September 456 verzeichnet, wenn diese Stadt nicht damals noch bewohnt und civitas des westromischen Reiches gewesen wédre.'32 This is based on achronicle record from the Fasti Vindobonenses priores.!*3 The same record has been used by MAENCHEN-HELFEN for a similar argumentation,!*4 but this is not a sufficient corroboration since both eastern and western Roman chronicles and fasti often recorded events such as earthquakes 126 Arrorpt 1926, pp. 100-101; Bury 1958, p. 297; STFIN 1959, p. 353; VARADY 1969, pp. 331-332; SALAMON ~ Sos 1980, pp. 400, 402; DEMANDT 1989, p. 184; WOLFRAM 1990, p. 261; LoTTER 2003, pp. 17, 104. 187 Sidon. Apollinar., Panegyricus dictus Avito Augusto (= Carmina 7.588-589): et cuius solum amissas post saecula multa / Pannonias revocauit iter. 128 Cf, MarHisen (1981) 237-240. 129 Cf. SEECK 1920, p. 328; ALFOLDI 1926, p. 100; ScHMIDT 1934, pp. 262, 269; STEIN 1959, p. 369; VARaby 1969, p. 331 (Pannonia Secunda); MAENCHEN-HELFEN 1973, pp. 144-147, 1978, pp. 108-110 (Pannonia Prima and one more Pannonian province); BONA 1991, pp. 114-115 (a part of Pannonia); A. ScHWARCZ, Die Goten in Pannonien und auf dem Balkan nach dem Ende des Hunnenreiches bis zum Italienzug Theoderichs des Grofen, in: Mitteilungen des Instituts far Osterreichische Geschichtsforschung 100 (1992) 51-52 (Pannonia Savia). 130 Cf, ScMIDT 1934, p. 269. 131A, Mocsy, RES IX, Stutigart 1962, 582 s.v. Pannonia, idem 1974, p. 350; WiRTH 1999, pp. 47, 119. 182 Lorrer 2003, pp. 20, 106. 133. Fasti Vindobonenses priores, s.a. 455: et eversa est Sabaria a terrae motu VII idus September, die Veneris. 134 MAENCHEN-HELFEN 1973, p. 146, 1978, p. 109. S758 Hrvoje Graéanin regardless of which part of the Empire they had occured in, i.e. an Eastern chronicle would record an event that occured in the West, and vice versa. Thus the assumption that the Western Empire restored its control over the western part of Pannonia in 455 cannot be accepted but we have to assume that the authority over Pannonia rested with the Eastern Empire as established in 437. The fact that Majorian recruited an army in the middle Danube area in 458, for which a testimony is provided by Sidonius Apollinaris who singles out the Pannonians among various barbarian peoples (Bastarnae, Suevi, Huns, Getae, Dacians, Alans, Rugians, Ostrogoths, and Sarmatians),!*° is not contrary to the assertion that Pannonia de jure belonged to the East, and thus it cannot be used as a supporting evidence for the assumption that the West ruled the western part of Pannonia once again.!36 For Majorian enjoyed a partial recognition from the Eastern court,!37 and he must have received a permission from Constantinople for the recruitment of troops, which is even more likely if we bear in mind that he was preparing for a campaign against the Vandals in North Africa. ANDRIC also suspects Avitus’ intervention and rejects the possibility that there was a renewal of Western Roman authority in Pannonia.!38 As to the assumption that Dalmatia was also surrendered to the East, this is based on Jordanes’ narrative.!89 He says that, in 437, ,the entire Illyricum* (totam Mlyricum) was surrendered, which some researchers discard as a chronicler’s mistake,“° or that, by this expression, he actually means the ecclesiastical Ilyricum, i.e. the prefecture of Illyricum divided in_,the Justinianoprimic Illyricum in the diocese of Dacia“ and the Macedonian Illyricum in the diocese of Macedonia*.!4! However, it is quite possible that the West also ceded Dalmatia. This could additionally explain the special relations of the Dalmatian general Marcellinus and his successor in the command over this province, Julius Nepos, with the Eastern Roman court, i.e. the fact that they both recognized the suzerainty of the Eastern Empire.!42 185 Sidon. Apollinar., Panegyricus dictus Maioriano Augusto (= Carmina 5.470-488). 136 ‘This is maintained by Scuwarcz (1992) 52, and LoTTER 2003, p. 108. 137 Gf. Marcelin., s.a. 457. Ravennam Caesar est ordinatus. 138 ANpRic (2002) 134. 139 For the text see note 113. 140 Cf, Srein 1914, p. 314ff; ALFOLDI 1926, p. 93, note 1. 141 Rocosié 1962, p. 173. 142 Cf, NIKOLANCT (1985) 5ff. Cuius [sc. Leonis senioris] voluntate Maiorianus aputThe Huns and South Pannonia The fall of Sirmium to the Huns NEW WAR BETWEEN THE HUNS AND EASTERN EMPIRE Just three years after the Eastern Empire took over Sirmium and other parts of Southpannonian provinces, the eastern Roman-Hunnic relations reached a critical point. According to the peace treaty concluded in 435 near the town of Margum in Moesia Prima (Oraije near Dubravica, Serbia), situated at the mouth of the river Morava into the Danube, the Eastern Roman government had to agree to double the amount of the tribute paid to the Huns in gold, abstain from conclusion of alliances with the ,barbarian“ enemies of the Huns, pay a ransom of eight solidi per head (which was a double yearly pay of a Roman trooper, and twice as much as it was paid before) for every runaway or delivered prisoner of war, open a marketplace for mutual commercial exchange whose safety would be guaranteed by both sides, and return all the fugi- tives who escaped from under the Hunnic authority into the Roman territory.!43 However, in 440, the Huns decided that the Eastern Romans broke the conditions of the treaty and, taking advantage of the imperial army being engaged in the war against the Persians and in the prepara- tion for the upcoming campaign against the Vandals, the Hunnic forces crossed the Danube under the leadership of both their kings, invaded the Roman territory, and took Viminacium (Kostolac, Serbia) in the autumn of 440. Following this, in 441, they continued advancing without meeting any real resistance, and captured Margum, Singidunum (Belgrade, Serbia) and Sirmium (Srijemska Mitrovica, Serbia) in one direction, and also penetrated through the Morava valley all the way to Naissus (Nis, Serbia) in another direction. At this point, the one-year truce with the Huns was arranged by magister militum praesentalis Aspar in behalf of the imperial government. This enabled the Eastern troops to be recalled from Sicily where they awaited for an order to attack the Vandals in Africa, and to be deployed in Illyricum and Thrace. At the same time, a peace was concluded with the Persians which was due to magister militum per Orientem Anatolius. Although these actions improved the Empire’s military situa- 148 About the treaty cf. THOMPSON 1948, pp. 74-75; ALTHEIM 1951, pp. 101-102, 110; MAENCHEN-HELFEN 1973, pp. 90-91, 1978, pp. 66-67; BONA 1991, pp. 54-55; Wikt 1999, pp. 50-51. MAENCHEN-HELFEN 1973, pp. 93-94, 1978, p. 69 dates the treaty as late 430’s (around 438), which is repeated by W. BAYLEss, The Treaty with the Huns of 443, American Journal of Philology 97 (1976) 176ff, Porovic 1987, p. 109 and Demanpr 1989, p. 167. The tribute according to the treaty of 422 that was concluded prior to Ru/g/a’s invasion of Thrace amounted to 350 Ib. (ca. 114,5 kg) gold or 25,200 solidi (cf. CRoKE (1977) 347-367; BONA 1991, p. 47; WiRTIE 1999, pp. 39-40), and now it was raised to 700 Ib. (ca. 229 kg) gold or 50,400 solidi, Itwould be even tripled in 447 (SeEcK 1920, p. 295; THOMPSON 1948, p. 85: misdated; ALTHEIM 1951, p. 110: misdated; BURY 1959, p. 292: misdated; MAENCHEN- HELFEN 1973, pp. 123-124, 1978, p. 92; DeMANDT 1989, p. 168; BONA 1991, 58: misdated; WiRTH 1999, p. 75). 5960 Hrvoje Graéanin tion, the Huns were not at rest but attacked once again in 442 and ravaged. both Illyricum and Thrace. Moving along the Danube, the Huns took Ratiaria (Aréar, Bulgaria) and Oescus (Gigen, Bulgaria) in Ilyricum, and presumably a number of towns in northern Thrace, in the same direction of attack. Probably in late 442 (or early 443, at the latest), a new peace was concluded. Magister militum praesentalis Areobindus, one of the comman- ders in the never finished campaign against the Vandals, participated in the negotiations that led to a cease of hostilities, and a peace treaty was concluded by the newly appointed master of offices (magister officiorum) Nomus.!#4 HUNNIC CONQUEST OF SIRMIUM Afier the fall of Sirmium in 441,15 the Hunnic conquest of Pannonia Secunda was brought to an end. There is not doubt that, at the same time, the town of Bassiana (Donji Petrovci, Serbia) on the Roman road con- necting Sirmium with Naissus via Singidunum, Margum and Viminacium fell to the Huns.!46 However, there is no reason to suppose that the Huns captured Pannonia Savia as some historians maintain. So 518¢ believes that, after the Hunnic conquest of 441, ,only the environs of Siscia were still Roman*,!47 and Posavec says that the Huns penetrated into Pannonia Secunda and Savia, and conquered both provinces, while the environs of Siscia and parts of Pannonia south of the Sava remained under the Roman control.!48 It is quite clear from the course of the Hunnic campaign of 441 that their conquest followed the Danube upward, and that 144 For these events cf. SEECK 1920, pp. 120, 246, 291-293; THomPson 1948, pp. 78-86; ALTHEIM 1951, pp. 111-112; P. LEMERLE, Invasions et migrations dans les Balkans depuis la fin de Uépoque romaine jusqu'au VILE sitcle, Revue historique 211 (1954) 279-280; Bury 1958, pp. 255, 273-274; STEIN 1959, pp. 291-292; MAENCHEN- Hetren 1973, pp. 108-117, 1978, pp. 80-86; Popovic 1987, p. 123; DEMANDT 1989, pp. 167-168; BONA 1991, pp. 55-60; WIRTH 1999, pp. 58-62. The chronology and details according to B. CRORE, Anatolius and Nomus: Envoys to Attila, Byzantinoslavica 42 (1981) 159-170 145 The date of the fall of Sirmium as 441 is generally accepted, and the first to bring it up in Croatian historiography was $1516 1925, p. 160. The fall of Sirmium is erroneously dated as 448 by ZEILLER 1918, p. 146, idem, Sur ancien évéché de Sirmum, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 13 (1947) 674, and BuRY 1958, p. 276, note 1. By an unusual oversight, it is dated by Tomaci¢ 2000, pp. 266-267 as 442. 146 For the fall of Bassiana to the Huns cf. S. DUSANIC, Bassianae and Its Territory, Archaeologia Tugostavica (1967) 74; SaseL Kos (1996) 106, 147 S116 1995, p. 160. 148 Posavec (1997) 11. He refers to BARKOczI 1980, pp. 117-119, but there is not any mention of these assumptions there. ToMICIC 2000, p. 266 asserts that, in 446, Valentinian III ceded Pannonia Savia to Attila, but does not say what his assumption is based on, He actually follows BONA 1991, p. 81, who erroneously assumes that Priscus’ entry on Aetius’ surrender of ,a region of Pannonia close to the river Sava" refers to the year 445/446 (see pp. 20-21). This was not possible since the ‘West renounced its rights to the Pannonian provinces in favour of the East in 437.The Huns and South Pannonia Sirmium was the farthest point of conquest, i.e. there was no further advancement toward the west. To be sure, one should not think that the Huns firmly observed the Roman administrative division: the provincial borders did not mean much to them, as it is demonstrated by Attila’s request in 448 that an area five days’ journey wide and extending along the Danube from the edge of Pannonia to the town of Novae in Thrace (Svistov, Bulgaria) should be emptied, and that the new border point between the Huns and the Romans is at Naissus.!49 In any case, the Huns would not gain much strategically by acquisition of Pannonia Savia since they had already interrupted the traffic communication between Italy and the prefecture of Illyricum by capturing Sirmium and the entire Pannonia Secunda. Up to that time, their raids were always directed against the lower Danube area (the prefecture of Illyricum and diocese of Thrace), which would make the annexation of the western part of the area along the Sava, whence no threat could come, indeed unnecessary and useless. A direct control over the middle Danube area was something different because the Huns could thus attack the Eastern Empire, setting out from its very territory, without any difficulty. Pannonia Savia must have remained as a sort of no man’s land, although under nominal Eastern Roman suzerainty. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE HUNNIC CONQUEST OF SIRMIUM Sirmius gave in to the Huns after a siege but there is no reason to believe that it was exposed to a large-scale destruction.!5° Some inhabitants of Sirmium escaped before the invaders, some were enslaved, while some remained in the town,1! It seems that the highest representatives 149 Cf. Prisc., fr. 11.1, 5-14 Blockley. 150 A testimony for the circumstances of the Hunnic attack is provided by Prisc., fr. 11.2, 332-333 Blockley (= Vizantiski izvori za istoriju naroda Jugoslavije - Fonles Byzantini historiam populorum Jugoslaviae spectantes I, eds. F. Barigi¢ — M. Rajkovié - B. Krekié — L. Tomi, Beograd 1955, pp. 9-10): Kata 8¢ tov xpovov, ev @ ond ExvOGv ev tH Moidvov émodopxeito 1d Lipiov (..) wer tov tig mdAews avbpanodiopov (...), and Justinian, Novellae 11.1: (...) postea autem Attilanis temporibus eiusdem [sc. Illyrici] locis devastatis (...) (see also note 152). On the presumable extent of destruction cf. ANDRIC (2002) 132. FeRJANCIG 1969, p. 40 assumes that the troops stationed at Sirmium offered virtually no resistance, so Attila easily captured the town, while Mixkovic 1971, p. 48 believes that Sirmium was destroyed, which is followed by P. MiLoSevic ~ R. PRica, Kroz vekove Sirmiuma [Through the centuries of Sirmium], Sremska Mitrovica 1978, p. 11 who speculate that ,the Roman civil and military government perished in the Hunnic slaughter and fire“, and Lj. MaKsimMovic, Sevei Mlirik u VI veku [North Illyricum in the 6" century], Zbornik radova Vizantoloskog instituta (1980) 21, who mentions the destruction of Sirmium. On the other hand, Rocosié 1962, p. 133 speaks of ,a mild conquest of Sirmium" in around 433 or even sooner (1), in the time of the King Ru/g/a, ie. that Sirmium was forced into surrender by starvation and that the Huns did not make any further conquest in Pannonia Secunda. 151 Prisc,, fr. 11.2, 333-336 Blockley describes how, during the siege of Sirmium, 6162 Hrvoje Graganin of civil and ecclesiastic authorities in Ilyricum, i.e. the prefect of Illyricum and the metropolitan of Ilyricum, were also among the refugees. The Joss of Sirmium marked the final collapse of the Roman civil and military organization in the Pannonian provinces,!53 and the city remained under the Hunnic sway for more than a decade. One particular matter in connection to the fall of Sirmium to the Huns has drawn attention of the researchers. It is the assertion of a single source that Sirmium was, in the time of the Hunnic conquest, the administrative and ecclesiastical capital of Illyricum, which has been variously interpreted. STEIN rejects the possibility that the city was centre of the prefecture and see of the Illyrian metropolitan, which is accepted by Varaby.!54 However, DUCHESNE has already expressed the opinion that a previous transfer of the capital of Illyricum from Thessalonica to Sirmium may have really happened, although with some reservation.!5 The flight of the prefect of Illyricum, i.e. a new transfer of the capital of Illyricum from Sirmium to Thessalonica in 441 is accepted by 5181¢, ALFOLDI, BuRY, FERJANCIC, MIRKOVIC, VICKERS, MAKSIMOVIC, and BRATOZ,156 while the flight of the bishop of Sirmium is emphasized by S1SIG, FeRjancic, and Anpri¢.!57 Furthermore, BURY asserts that the capital of Illyricum was transferred from Thessalonica to Sirmium in 437, and then transferred the city bishop gave golden liturgical bowls to certain Constantius, a secretary of Bleda and Attila, for the purpose of ransoming him if he were to survive the siege, or, if he were killed, of buying the freedom of those citizens who were being led off into captivity. Priscus also records (fr. 11.2, 368-369 Blockley) that the builder of a bath that was commissioned by Attila’s closest confidant Onegesius was brought from Sirmium as a prisoner. 152 The only extant testimony for Sirmium as the capital of the prefecture of Tllyricum is to be found in Justinian's edict from April 14, 535 (Novellae 11.1 = F. SisiC, Priruénik izvora hrvatske historije. Dio I. cest 1. (do god. 1107.) [A sourcebook for Croatian history. Part 1, section 1: to A.D. 1107], Zagreb 1914, p. 167): Cum enim in antiquis lemporibus Sirmii praefectura fueral constitula, ibique omne fueral Mlyrici Jfastigium tam in civilibus quam in episcopalibus causis, pastea autem Altilanis temporibus eiusdem locis devastatis Apraeemius praefectus practorio de Sirmitana civitate in Thessalonicam profugus veneral, tunc ipsam praefecturam et sacerdolalis honor secutus est, et Thessalonicensis episcopus non sua auctoritate, sed sub umbra praefecturae meruit ali- quam praerogativam. 155 ALFOLDI 1926, p. 97. 154 Sem (1925) 355-359, VARADY 1969, pp. 500-501, note 766. 155 L, DUCHESNE, L'Ilyricum ecclésiastique, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 1 (1892) 536, note 1 156 Sisi¢ 1925, p. 160; ALFOLDI 1926, p. 96; BuRY 195 8, p. 276, note 1; FERJANCIC 1969, p. 41; Mirkovic 1971, pp. 43, 48; M. VICKERS, Sirmium or Thessaloniki? A critical examination of the St. Demetrius legend, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 67 (1974) 34566, Maxsimovié. (1980) 21-22 and note 20; R. BRATO?, Razvoj organizacije xgod- njekricanske cerkve na oremlju Jugoslavije od 3. do 6. stoletja (The development of the late antique ecclesiastical organization in the territory of Yugoslavia from 3° to 6 century], Zgodovinski Easopis 40 (1986) 375. 157 S181¢ 1925, p. 160; FERJANCIG (1969) 40; ANDRIG (2000) 132.The Huns and South Pannonia back in 441.158 On the other hand, STEIN argues that a transfer of an administrative centre so close to the frontier area in those perilous times, rendered so especially because of the Huns, would make no sense.!59 But FERJANCIG has used the opposite argument: Theodosius II wanted to emphasize the importance of the city that once was the imperial residence, and so he ordered the transfer.!© This really seems probable if we bear in mind that peaceful relations between the Huns and the Eastern Roman Empire, which were established in 435, were not compromised in 437 nor it was expected that they would be in the near future. As far as the question whether Sirmium could have been a formal ecclesiastical capital of Illyricum from 437 to 441 is concerned, one has to bear in mind that the city was the ecclesiastical caput Iyrici in early 380’s, while the bishops of Salonae and Thessalonica became the metropolitans of Western and Eastern Illyricum respectively not earlier than at the beginning of the 5 century. 161 The effects of the Hunnic rule in South Pannonia The appearance of the Great Huns in Pannonia marked a new period in the late antique history of that area. Apart from a single aggressive act in 441 (final conquest of Pannonia Secunda), the Huns restrained from any violent actions against Pannonia, so that modern historians have felt compelled to describe the period of the Hunnic rule in Pannonia as the pax Hunnica.'©2 This rather peaceful attitude of the Huns toward Pannonia is quite understandable since they did not actually have to conquer the entire Pannonian area but were primarily introduced to it as the imperial foederati. Finally, after the authority over Pannonia passed from the West to the East in 437, the Huns could finish the subjugation of Pannonia Secunda without breaching their agreement with the Western Romans, In late 4" and early 5 century, Pannonia suffered one blow after another, delivered by various barbarian groups that crossed the middle Danube in the given period. This spured a massive flight of the romanized inhabitants, not the least from South Pannonia, eventhough that par- 158 Bury 1958, p. 276, note 1. 159 STEIN (1925) 358-359. Similar argument is used by Popovic 1987, p. 108. V. Porovic, Le demier évéque de Sirmium, Revue des études augustiniennes 21 (1975) 103-106 suspects that this transfer ever happened, saying that our source refers to a so-called first conquest of Sirmium (after A.D. 379), but there was not such a conquest at all (cf. also Porovic 1987, pp. 107-108, where it is stated that the expression Altilanis temporibus from the edict of Justinian actually alludes to the Huns of A.D. 376/380, and that the Syrmian prefecture of the second quarter of the 5" century is an invention of modern researchers). 160 FeRjancié 1969, p. 40. 161 Cf. BraToz (1986) 373 and notes 61-62. 162 TomKa 1996b, p. 90. 63Hrvoje Graéanin ticular region was not so strongly affected by the great migration of peoples in early 5' century.!63 People escaped in three directions: to the southwest (Noricum, Italy), south (Dalmatia), and later on to the southeast (Eastern Illyricum),!©4 and they took with them anything they deemed of personal or communal value, such as the relics of saints.!® It might have been as a result of these depopulation factors and strategic reasons that, in early 430's, a new province was created along the southwestern border of Pannonia Savia, probably around Poetovio — this was the so-called Valeria Media — in an attempt to strengthen the Roman posi- tions in south Pannonia and improve the defense of Italy. 16° A part of Southpannonian inhabitants fell under the Hunnic sway (conclusively after the fall of Sirmium in 441), while some Pannonians later even served under the Huns; either forced to do so or voluntarily. There are three known examples from the sources: an anonymous mason who built a bath for a Hunnic dignitary Onegesius believing that he would gain his freedom as a reward for his work, but was made the bath attendant instead and had to wait upon Onegesius,!67 Constantiolus!® who was in Attila’s service, and Attila’s secretary Orestes!® who may have voluntarily enter upon service of the king if we accept as reliable the expression of the source that he had , joined“ the king.!7° Undoubtedly, the Huns relied on the services of many other Pannonians, particularly those with special skills.!7! 163 Lorrer 2003, p. 166. 164 Cf, Mocsy 1974, pp. 347-348, 353-354; Fitz 1994, p. 1825; Tomicic 2000, p. 263, Among these refugees was probably also Tatulus, father of Attila’s secretary in charge of the king’s correspondance, Orestes, and grandfather of the last Western Roman Emperor in Italy, who, by his origin, was presumably from Pannonia Secunda (cf, Sassi Kos (1994) 109; contra BONA 1991, p. 111 who believes that Orestes came from Pannonia Savia, and Tatulus from Noricum Mediterraneum, which is less likely). 165 Attested for St. Pollio of Cibalae and St. Quirinus of Siscia (who suffered his martyrdom in Savaria), whose relics were transferred to Rome, and for St Anastasia of Sirmium and St. Demetrius of Sirmium, whose relics were transferred to Thessalonica (cf. D. BASLER, Kricanska arheologija [The Christian archaeology], Mostar 1986, pp. 34-36; Tomicic 2000, p. 263). 166 Cf, E, TorH, Provincia Valeria Media, in: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 41 (1989) 197-226. 167 Cf. Prisc., fr. 11.2, 368-372 Blockley. 168 Cf. Prisc., fr. 11.2, 578-579 Blockley. 169 Cf. Prisc., fr. 11.21 2-5 Blockley. 170 Cf. Anon. Vales., 8.38. See note 173. 171 G, ScHRAMM, Ein Damm bricht. Die rimische Donaugrenze und die Invasionen des 5.-7. Jahrhunderts im Lichte von Namen und Wortern (= Stidosteuropaische Arbeiten 100); Miinchen 1997, p. 97ff argues that the attendants that accompanied and waited the members of the Eastern Roman embassy to Attila in 449 and the inhabitants of the villages the envoys visited (Prisc., fr. 11.2, 277-280 Blockley) were also Pannonians because they drank kdmon, which is a Pannonian drink made fromThe Huns and South Pannonia The Huns also exploited Pannonia economically. We know that the stone used for the building of Onegesius’ bath was brought from Pannonia.!72 It was probably transported from the Fruka Gora quarries by a water-way.!73 Many Pannonians surely found their economic interest in cooperation with the Huns, and ,the Hunnic alternative“!74 meant for some people a way to escape from the oppresive fiscal and governing system of the later Roman Empire.!75 Be that as it may, the Hunnic rule cer- tainly had one major favorable impact on the conditions in late antique Pannonia: it offered two decades of respite from the barbarian raids. The disintegration of the Hunnic rule in South Pannonia After a rather intense and destructive war that the Huns waged against the Eastern Roman Empire in 447, Attila started shifting his expansionistic interest to the West. A clear sign of this was the stay of the Western Roman embassy at the court of the Hunnic king in the summer of 449.176 This was caused by the affair with the golden ecclesiastic bowls that, in 441, the bishop of Sirmium entrusted with the secretary of the Hunnic kings, Constantius, who later pawned the bowls in Rome and received money from a banker named Silvanus. Although Constantius was subsequently executed by Bleda and Attila for treason, the Hunnic king (Attila was a sole ruler from 445) discovered about Constantius’ trade only several years later. Thus he demanded Silvanus to be handed over to him because he had allegedly kept the king’s own possesion. The deterioration of the relations between the Huns and the Western Romans finally developed into an open war, with which Attila had already threatened in 449.177 However, the Gallic campaign of 451 did not bring the mighty Hunnic king the outcome he had hoped for because he was forced to barley, ic. a sort of beer (on the drink cf. E. A. THOMPSON (1947) 62, MAENCHEN- HELFEN 1973, pp. 424-495, 1978, p. 288), but Priscus explicitly says that it is the barbarians (01 f&pBap01) who call that drink kdmon (fr. 11.2, 280 Blockley). Some believe that these were the Slavs, which does not scem so unfounded (cf. F. BARISIC, Prisk kao izuor 2a najstariju istoriju Juznih Slovena [Priscus as a source for the earliest history of the South Slavs], Zbornik radova Vizantologkog instituta 1 (1952) 58ff). In any case, the envoys, having crossed the Danube, did not travel through the Roman Pannonia. Thus the inhabitants there could not be the romanized Pannonians; otherwise Priscus would not call them ,barbarians* 172 Cf. Prisc., fr. 11.2, 364-866 Blockley = Vizantiski izvori, p. 15. 173 Vizantiski izvori, p. 15, note 22, MIRKOVIC 1971, 48, ANDRIC (2002) 132. 174 The expression by TOMKA 1996b, p. 91. 17 Cf. the story of a Greek merchant from Viminacium in: Prisc., fr. 11.2, 407- 510 Blockley. 176 For details of the embassy cf. SaSEL Kos (1994) 99-111; GRACANIN (2003) 53- 74. 177 Cf. Prisc., 11.2, 584-585 Blockley. 6566 Hrvoje Graéanin retreat without accomplishing his objective.178 But the fierce Hun would not give up so easily. In late spring of 452, Attila directly attacked Italy, destroying Aquileia on July 18". He moved through Pannonia, passing also through the Sava-Drava-Danube region.!79 But neither the Italian campaign proved to be particularly successful since the final goal was not achieved.!8 Although Attila returned to his Pannonian headquarters loaded with booty - undoubtedly, the same way he set out for the campaign - the circumstances changed completely: now he was in open hostility with both parts of the Empire.!8! The outcome of the forthcoming struggle was decided by Attila’s sudden death in 453. His sons were not able to hold the vast tribal alliance together, and the Hunnic megastate fell apart in an insurrection started by their Germanic subjects. In 454, the Hunnic domination in Pannonia was utterly crushed, and their place was filled by the Germans.182 178 Greg. Tur., 2.6 says explicitly that the Chuni a Pannoniis egressi as they set out for the Gallic campaign, which means that they also passed through Nortpannonian regions. Jordan., Getica 227 offers more details and says: igitur ab Dacia et Pannonia provinciis, in quibus tunc Hunni cum diversis subditis nationibus insidebant, egrediens Aliila in Alanos movit procinctum, 179 Cf. Prosp. Tir., s.a. 452: Attila redintegratis viribus, quas in Gallia amiseral, Italiam ingredi per Pannonias intendit (...). 180 About the Italian campaign cf. SEECK 1920, pp. 311-312 (the campaign misdated as the winter of 451), THoeson 1948, pp. 144-147, ALTHEIM 1951, pp, 148 146, BuRY 1958, pp. 294-296, STEIN 1959, pp. 335-336, MAENCHEN-HELFEN 1973, pp. 132-141, 1978, pp. 99-106, V-M. Duval, Aquilée sur la route des invasions (350-452), Antichitd altoadriatiche 9 (1976) 291-296 (for Aquileia), DrMaNDT 1989, p. 155 (for the date of the sack of Aquileia), BONA 1991, p. 98-99, WorTH 1999, pp. 105- 111, Bratoz (2003) 512-517 (for Aquileia). This was the only time for certain that Attila came to Italy. Therefore, the entry in Anon. Vales., 8.38 that the father of the last Western Roman Emperor in Iialy, Romulus Augustu(lu)s, was Orestes Pannonius, qui eo tempore quando Attila ad laliam venit se illi iunxit et eius nolarius ‘factus fuerat is rather puzzling. MANCHEN-HELFEN 1973, pp. 106-107, 1978, p. 79 assumes that Attila really went to Italy on a previous occasion (before his Italian campaign) and then engaged in negotiations with Aetius, but does not provide any date for it. PLRE Il, 811 s.v. Orestes 2 dates the entry as 452. However, it is much more probable that this is a mistake of the source. While the secretaries Constantius of Gaul and Constantius of Italy were sent to the Hunnic king by Aetius (cf. PLRE Il, 319 s.v. Constantius 6-7), it seems that Orestes was a personal choice of Attila, presumably to serve as a counterbalance for Constantius of Italy who was Aetius’ choice. Orestes’ appointment must have occured somewhere between 445 and 449. 181 The Eastern Roman Emperor Marcian, who succeeded Theodosius II in 450, cancelled the payment of tribute to the Huns (SFECK 1920, pp. 299-300; ALTHEIM 1951, pp. 131-132; Bury 1958, p. 290; STEIN 1959, p. 333; DEMANDT 1989, p. 154; BONA 1991, p. 89; WintH 1999, p. 88), and, in the late summer of 451, he appeared personally at the head of an army in Thrace, in an effort to suppress the invaders that penetrated the Eastern Roman territory at Attila's command (cf. SkECK 1920, p. 301; THOMPSON 1948, pp. 143-144; BuRY 1958, p. 295; STEIN 1959, p. 334; MAENCHEN-HELFEN 1973, p. 131, 1978, p. 98; WirTH 1999, p. 97). 182 About the end of the Hunnic rule and the rise of the Germans cf. SEECK 1920, pp. 314315, ALFoupr 1926, p. 97ff, ScHMmpT 1934, pp. 268ff, 532ff, THomesonThe Huns and South Pannonia Conclusion The first appearance of the Huns in Southpannonian regions is connected with the tripartite group of peoples headed by Alatheus and Saphrax in late 370's. Probably not a single Pannonian province was spared their raids, nor were the parts of neighbouring regions (the raiding of Mursa, Stridon and Poetovio). Soon the situation abated, after Alatheus’ and Saphrax’ Ostrogoths, Alans, and Huns probably settled in Pannonia as the imperial foederati (in 380). Assuming the duties of frontier soldiers, they were able to provide a short respite from external dan- gers in Pannonia, although their presence was always felt to be a potential source of instability because of their violent bursts of dissatisfaction, their general unreliability and even their intercine feuds. From the second half of the 390’s, the crisis practically never ceased to exist in the middle Danube area, the Hunnic foederati largely contributing to such a condi- tion. Their first significant withdrawal from Pannonia can be seen as a result of Athaulf’s joining in Alaric’s raid against Italy in 408. They were finally forced to abandon the area nineteen years later (in 427). That was the time when Pannonia was already under threat from the so-called Great Huns, who as early as from the beginnings of the 5 century (especially given the great barbarian invasion across the middle Danube in 405/406) were exercising a great impact on Pannonia. The year 433 was, of course, the crucial year, when the Western imperial government let the Huns take over probably three of four Pannonian provinces (Pannonia Prima, Valeria and Pannonia Secunda). The perilous vicinity of the Huns and the West's interest in avoiding any conflict with them contributed sig- nificantly to the decision that the major portion of Western Illyricum (all the four Pannonian provinces, and perhaps Dalmatia as well) be surrendered to the Eastern Empire. It is possible that around that time, in early 430’s, a new province was established, the so-called Valeria Media, along the southwestern border of Savia, probably around Poetovio. It was to serve as the pre-Alpic portion of the defensive system of the Western 1948, p. 152ff, ALTHEIM 1951, p. 153ff, BuRY 1958, pp. 296-298, Sreny 1959, pp. 336-337, VARADY 1969, p. 324ff, MAENCHEN-HELFEN 1973, p. 143ff, 1978, p. 10 7H, BONA 1980, p. 183, 1991, p. 207, SALAMON - S6s 1980, p. 399, DEMANDT 1989, p. 155, WoLFRAM 1990, p. 259ff, WirTHt 1999, p. 112ff, LoTrER 2003, p. 103ff. The Huns did not entirely disappeared from the vicinity of Pannonia, We know that the Dalmatian general Marcellinus also used them as mercenaries, taking exam- ple of Actius, under whose command he finished his military training (cf. NiKOLANc! (1985) 8-7). Furthermore, Attila’s son and the Hunnic King Dengizic- Dinzic, setting out from the area north of the lower Danube against’ the Ostrogoths, attacked Bassiana as the most forward Ostrogothic stronghold in the southeastern section of their territory in 466 at the latest, but was decidedly defeated by the Ostrogothic King Valamir (Jordan., Getica 272-273; cf. SCHMIDT 1934, p. 274, THOMPSON 1948, p. 156; DUSANIC 1967, 74; MAENCHEN-HELFEN 1973, pp. 162-165, 1978, pp. 122-124; WOLFRAM 1990, p. 264; BONA 1991, pp. 208-209; ScHwarcz (1992) 59; LOTTER 2003, p. 109). 6768 Hrvoje Graganin Roman Empire. A direct Hunnic impact in Southpannonian area was marked only once, in 441, when the Huns, having captured Sirmium, succeeded in their violent takeover of Pannonia Secunda. This also marked the end of the outstanding role this Southpannonian city had for a long time as an administrative centre in military and civil matters in the history of the Roman Empire. The transition of Attila’s forces in 452 through the Sava-Drava-Danube region did not leave any damage behind as no resistance was met in Southpannonian provinces. The fear of the Huns and other barbarian tribes as they stormed through Pannonia, sparked off as of the end of the 4" century, and especially in the first half of the 5 century, a massive flight of the romanized inhabitants to the southwest (Noricum, Italy) and south (Dalmatia), and later on to the southeast (Eastern Illyricum). The Pannonian area conquered not only served the Huns their military-strategic purposes, but it was also economically exploited. Although South Pannonia (the provinces of Pannonia Secunda and Savia) were only partially or marginally affected by the great migration of peoples in the first half of the 5" century and by the Hunnic raids, the circumstances still radically changed in the aftermath. The Hunnic impact indirectly influenced the fate of the Western Illyricum and opened the gate for the Germanic peoples who eventually captured Pannonia after the breakdown of the Hunnic megastate. Bibliography Abbreviations AAAd: Antichita altoadriatiche, Trieste 1972ff AAntH: Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, Budapest 1951f0 AArchH: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, Budapest 1951ff AJPh: American Journal of Philology, Baltimore 1880ff Archlug: Archaeologia Iugoslavica, Beograd 196040 ByzSlav: Byzantinoslavica, Praha 1929ff ByzZs: Byzantinische Zeitschrift, Leipzig et al. 1892ff, Freiburg 1903f CQ: The Classical Quarterly, Oxford 19074 SEL: Conpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Wien 1868{f GCS: Die griechische christliche Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte, Berlin 1897 FHG: Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum, eds. C. and Th. Miller, Paris 1849-1885 GRBS: Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, Durham 1960ff HGM: Historici Graeci minores, ed. L. Dindorf, Leipzig 1870 HZ: Historijski zbornik, Zagreb 1948ff JOAT: Jahreshefte des Osterreichischen Archdologischen Instituts, Wien 1898ff MGH AA: Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Auctores Antiquissimi, Berlin 1877- 1894The Huns and South Pannonia MGH SSRM: Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Scriptores Rerum Merovingicarum, Berlin 1884ff MIOG: Mitteilungen des Instituts fitr Osterreichische Geschichtsforschung, Wien 1880ff OrChrP: Orientalia Christiana Periodica, Roma 1935ff PLRE: Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire Radovi ZHP: Radovi Zavoda za hrvatsku povijest, Zagreb 1968ff RE: Realencyclopédie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, eds. A. F. Pauly — G. Wissowa - W. Kroll - K. Witte - K. Mittelhaus - K. Ziegler — H. Gartner, Stuttgart 1894ff; Manchen 1973ff RevEAug: Revue des études augustiniennes, Paris 1955ff RH: Revue historique, Paris 1876ff RhM: Rheinisches Museum fiir Philologie, Bonn 1827ff, NF, 1842ff SSlav: Scrinia Slavonica, Slavonski Brod 2001 ff WSt: Wiener Studien. Zeitschrift fiir klassische Philologie und Patristik, Wien 1879ff, NF 1967ff 2G: Zgodovinski éasopis, Ljubljana 19476 ZRVI: Zbornik radova Vizantoloskog instituta, Beograd 1952ft Primary sources Ambros., De fide: Ambrosius, De fide, ed. O. Faller (= Ambros., Epistolae: Ambrosius, Epistolae libri LIV, ed. O. Faller (= CSEL 82/3), Wien 1968 Ambros., Expositio evangelii: Ambrosius, Expositio evangelii secundum Lucan libri X, ed. K. Schenkl (= CSEL 82/4), Wien 1902, pp. 3-528 Amm. Marc.: Ammiani Marcellini rerum gestarum libri qui supersunt I, ed. W. Seyfarth, Leipzig: Teubner 1978 Anon. Vales.: Anonymus Valesianus = Excerpta Valesiana 1, ed. Th. Mommsen (= MGH AA 9, Chronica minora I), Berlin: Weidmann 1892, pp. 259-262, 306- 328 Aurelius Symmachus, Quintus, Epistulae: Q. Aurelii Symmachi quae supersunt, ed. O. Seeck (= MGH AA 6/1), Berlin: Weidmann 1888, pp. 1-278 Aurelius Symmachus, Quintus, Relationes ad principes: Q. Aurelii Symmachi quae supersunt, ed. O. Seeck (= MGH AA 6/1), Berlin: Weidmann 1883, pp. 279- 317 Ausonius, Decimus Magnus, Epigrammata: D. Magni Ausonii Opuscula, rec. K. Schenkl (= MGH AA 5/2), Berlin: Weidman 1883, pp. 194-226 Ausonius, Decimus Magnus, Gratiarum actio dicta domino Gratiano Augusto: D. Magni Ausonii Opuscula, rec. K. Schenkl (= MGH AA 5/2), Berlin: Weidmann 1883, pp. 19-30 Ausonius, Decimus Magnus, Precatio consulis designatis pridie Kalendas Ianuarias ‘fascibus sumptis: D. Magni Ausonii Opuscula, rec. K. Schenkl (= MGH AA 5/2), Berlin: Weidmann 1883, pp. 17-19 Cassiod., Variae: Cassiodori Senatoris Variae, rec. Theodorus Mommsen, [MGH AA 12), Berlin 1894, 1-385 6970 Hrvoje Graéanin Chron, Gall.: Chronica Gallica a. CCCCLII et DXI, ed. Th, Mommsen (= MGH AA 9, Chronica minora I), Berlin: Weidmann 1892, pp. 615-666 Claud. Claudian., Bellum Geticum: Claudius Claudianus, Bellum Geticum (De bello Pollentino sive Gothico), in: Carmina 1, ed. Th. Birth (= MGH AA 10), Berlin: Weidmann 1892, pp. 259-283 Claud. Claudian., De consulatu Stilichonis: Claudius Claudianus, De consulatu Stilichonis libri IM, in: Carmina 1, ed. Th. Birth (= MGH AA 10), Berlin: Weidmann 1892, pp. 189-233 Claud. Claudian., In Rufinum: Claudius Claudianus, In Rufinum liber I et I, in: Carmina 1, ed. Th. Birth (= MGH AA 10), Berlin: Weidmann 1892, pp. 17-53 Collectio Avellana: Collectio Avellana. Epistulae imperatorum, pontificum, aliorum A. D. 367-5531, ed. O. Ginther (= CSEL 35), Wien 1895 Cons. Const.: Consularia Constantinopolitana, in: The Chronicle of Hydatius and the Consularia Constantinopolitana, edited and wanslated by R. W. Burgess, Oxford: Clarendon Press 1993, pp. 173-245, CTh.: Codex Theodosianus V-I1, eds. Th. Mommsen and P. M. Meyer, Berlin: Weidmann 1904-1905 Epitome de Caesaribus: Incerti auctoris Epitome de Caesaribus, im: Sexti Aurelii Victoris Liber de Caesaribus, rec. F, Pichlmayr, cor. R. Grindel, Leipzig: Teubner 1961, pp. 131-176 Eunap.: Eunapius, Fragmenta historica, ed. L. Dindorf (= HGM 1), Leipzig: Teubner 1870, pp. 205-274 Fasti Vindobonenses priores: Fasti Vindobonenses priores, ed. Th. Mommsen (= MGH AA 9, Chronica minora I), Berlin: Weidmann 1892, pp. 274-336 Greg. Tur.: Gregorius episcopus Turonensis, Libri historiarum X, eds. B. Krusch — W. Levison (= MGH SSRM 1/1), Berlin: Weidemann 1937-1951 Hieron., De viris illustribus: Hieronymi De viris inlustribus liber. Accedit Gennadii Catalogus virorum inlustrium, rec. G. Herdingius, Leipzig: Teubner 1879 Hieron., Epistulae: Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi Epistulae, rec. 1. Hilberg (= CSEL 54- 56), Pars I: Epistulae LLXX, Wien - Leipzig 1910, Pars I: Epistulae LXXI-CXX, Wien ~ Leipzig 1912, Pars III: Epistulae CXXI-CLIV, Wien ~ Leipzig 1918 John of Antioch: Joannis Antiocheni Fragmenta, in: FHG 4, Paris 1868, pp. 535- 622 Jordan., Getica: lordanis Romana et Getica, rec. Th. Mommsen (= MGH AA5/1), Berlin: Weidmann 1882, pp. 53-138 Jordan., Romana: lordanis Romana et Getica, rec. Th. Mommsen (= MGH AA 5/1), Berlin: Weidmann 1882, pp. 1-52 ‘Justinian., Novellae: Justinianus, Novellae, eds. R. Scholl - G. Kroll (= Corpus iuris civilis III), Berlin 1904 Marcelin.: Marcellini comiti Chronicon, ed. Th. Mommsen (= MGH AA 11, Chronica minora II), Berlin: Weidmann 1894, pp. 60-104 Olympiodorus: Olympiodorus Thebaeus Fragmenta, ed. R. C. Blockley, The Fragmentary classicising historians of the later Roman Empire: Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus and Malchus Il (= ARCA. Classical and Medieval Texts, Papers and Monographs 6), Liverpool 1983, pp. 151-220 Pacat., Panegyricus dictus Theodosio: Panegyricus Latini Pacati Drepani dictus Theodosio, in: In Praise of later Roman emperors: the Panegyrici Latini,The Huns and South Pannonia Introduction, Translation, and Historical Commentary with the Latin Text of R. A. B. Mynors by C. E. V. Nixon and B. Saylor Rodgers, Berkley — Los ‘Angeles - Oxford 1994, pp. 647-674 Paulinus, Vita Ambrosii: Paulinus, Vita sancti Ambrosii episcopi Mediolanensis, ed. M. S. Kaniecka, Washington 1928 Paul. Oros.: Pauli Orosii Historiarum adversum paganos, rec. C. Zangenmeister, Leipzig: Teubner 1889 Philostorg.: Philostorgius, Historia ecclesiastica (fragmenta ap. Photium), eds. J. Bidez ~F. Winkelmann (= GCS 60), Berlin: Akademie-Verlag 1981, pp. 4.150 Prisc.: Priscus rhetor Panites, Fragmenta, ed. R. C. Blockley, The Fragmentary classicising historians of the later Roman Empire: Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus and Malchus 11 (= ARCA. Classical and Medieval Texts, Papers and Monographs 6), Liverpool 1983, pp. 221-400 Prosp. Tir.: Prosper Tiro, Epitoma Chronicon edita primum a. 433, continuata ad a. 455, ed. Th. Mommsen (= MGH AA 9, Chronica minora I), Berlin: Weidmann 1892, pp. 341-499 Sidon, Apollinar., Carmina: Gai Sollii Apollinaris Sidonii Epistulae et carmina, rec. et emend. C. Liitjohann (= MGH AA 8), Berlin: Weidmann 1887, pp. 173- 264 Themistius: Themistii orationes quae supersunt I, ed. H. Schenkl ~ G. Downey, Leipzig: Teubner 1965 Zosim.: Zosimos, Historia nova, ed. L, Mendelssohn, Leipzig: Teubner 1887 Secondary sources ALFOLDI 1924: A. ALFOLDI, Der Untergang der Rimerherrschaft in Pannonien 1, Berlin — Leipzig 1924 ALFOLDI 1926: A. ALFOLDI, Der Untergang der Rémerherrschaft in Pannonien II, Berlin — Leipzig 1926 ALTHEIM 1951: F. ALTHEIM, Attila und die Hunnen, Baden-Baden 1951 ANDRIC 2002: S. ANDRIC, Jutna Panonija u doba velike seobe narodé [South Pannonia in the time of the great migration of peoples], Slav 2 (2002) 117- 167 BARisIC 1952: F. BARISIC, Prisk hao izvor xa najstariju istoriju Juinih Slovena (Priscus as a source for the earliest history of the South Slavs], ZRVI 1 (1952) 52-61 Bark6czi 1980: L. BARKOCZI, History of Pannonia, in: LENGYEL ~ RADAN 1980, pp. 85-124 Basler 1986: D. BasLer, Kricanska arheologija (The Christian archaeology], Mostar 1986 BAYLESS 1976: W. BAYLESS, The Treaty with the Huns of 443, AJPh 97 (1976) 176- 179 BLOCKLEY 1983: R. C. BLOCKLEY, Notes to Priscus rhetor Panites, Fragmenta, in: The Fragmentary classicising historians of the later Roman Empire: Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus and Malchus II, ed. R. C. Blockley (= ARCA. Classical and Medieval Texts, Papers and Monographs 6), Liverpool 1983, pp. 379- 400 772 Hrvoje Graéanin BONA 1982: I, BONA, Die Hunnen in Norikum und Pannonien. Ihre Geschichte im Rahmen der Vilkerwanderung, in: STRAUB 1982, pp. 179-200 BOna 1991: I. BONA, Das Hunnenreich, Stuttgart 1991 BRanbT 1980: M. BRANDT, Srednjoujekouno doba povijesnog razvitka [The History of Middle Ages}, Zagreb 1980 BRATO? 1986: R. BRATOZ, Razvoj organizacije 2godnjekritanshe cerkue na ozemlju Jugoslavije od 3. do 6. stoletja, ZC 40 (1986) 363-395 BRATOZ 1990: R. BRATOL, Die Geschichte des frithen Christentums im Gebiet zwischen Sirmium und Aquileia im Licht der neueren Forschungen, Klio 72 (1990) 508-550 BRATOZ 2000: Slovenija in sosednje deiele med antiko in karolinsko dobo. Zacethi slovenske etnogeneze / Slowenien und die Nachbarlénder zwischen Antike und harolingischer poche, Anféinge der slowenischen Ethnogenese 1, ed. R. Bratoz (= Situla 39), Ljubljana 2000 Bratoz 2003.; R. BraToz, Aquileia tra Teodosio ¢ i Longobardi (379-568), in: Aquileia dalle origini alla costituzione del ducato longobardo. Storia — amministrazione ~ societa (= AAAd 54), Trieste 2003, pp. 477-527 Bury 1958: J. B. BuRY, History of the Later Roman Empire (from the Death of Theodosius I to the Death of Justinian A.D. 395 to A.D. 565) 1, New York 1958 Crowe 1977: B. CROKE, Evidence for the Hun Invasion of Thrace in A.D. 422, GRBS 18 (1977) 347-367 (= B. Croke, Christian Chronicles and Byzantine History, 5° 6 Centuries, Aldershot ~ Brookfield 1992, XII) Croke 1981: B. CROKE, Anatolius and Nomus: Envoys to Attila, ByzStav 42 (1981) 159-170 (= B. Croke, Christian Chronicles and Byzantine History, 5%-6% Centuries, Aldershot 1992, XIII) DalM — FROHLIGH ~ MISAR ~ SCHLAG — ToMKA 1996: Reitervilker aus dem Osten. Hunnen + Awaren, eds. F. Daim ~ M. Frohlich ~ M. Misar - G. Schlag - P.Tomka (= Katalog der Burgenlandischen Landeausstellung 1996), Eisenstadt 1996 DeMANDT 1970: A. DEMANDT, RES XII, Stuttgart 1970, 553-790 s.v. magister militum DEMANDT 1989: A. DEMANDT, Die Spdtantike. Rémische Geschichte von Diocletian bis Justinian 284-565 n. Chr., Miinchen 1989 DUCHESNE 1892: L. DUCHESNE, L Tllyricum ecclésiastique, ByzZs 1 (1892) 531-550 DUuSAanié 1967: S. DUSANIC, Bassianae and Its Territory, Archlug 8 (1967) 68-81 Duvat 1976: Y-M. Duvat, Aquilée sur la route des invasions (350-452), AAAd 9 (1976) 237-298 (= Y-M. Duval, Histoire et historiographie en Occident aux IV€ et V¢ siécles, Aldershot - Brookfield 1997, V) Eapie 1982.: J. W. EApie, City and countryside in Late Roman Pannonia: the Regio Sirmiensis, in: HOHLFELDER 1982, pp. 25-43 EGER 1915: R. EGGER, Die Zerstérung Pettaus durch die Goten, JOAI 18 (1915), Beiblatt, 252-266 (= R. EGcER, Rémische Anlike und friihes Christentum. Ausgewiihlte Schriften von Rudolf Egger zur Vollendung seines 80. Lebensjahres, eds. A. Betz ~ Gotbert Moro, Band I, Klagenfurt 1962, pp. 36-44 EGGER 1924: R. EGGER, Historich-epigraphische Studien in Venezien. Amantius, Bischof von Iovia, JOAL 21-22 (1922-1924), Beiblatt, 309-344 ENSLIN 1928: W. ENBLIN, RE XIV 1, Stutigart 1928, 589-590 s.v. Maiorianus 2The Huns and South Pannonia ENBLIN 1930: W. ENBLIN, RE XIV 2, Stuttgart 1930, 1446-1448 s.v. Marcellinus 25 ENBLIN 1931: W. ENBLIN, Zum Heermeisteramt des spétromischen Reiches II. Die ma- gistri militum des 4. Jahrhunderts, Klio 23 (1931) 102-147 ENBLIN 1939: W. ENBLIN, RE VII A, Stuttgart 1939, 2232-2259 s.v. Valentinianus 4 (Flavius Placidus Valentinianus III) ENSLIN 1961: W. EnsLIN, REIX A, Stuttgart 1961, 373 s.v. Vitalianus 1 FERJANCIC 1969: B. FERJANCIC, Sirmijum u doba Vizantije [Sirmium in the time of Byzantium], in: Prica 1969, pp. 33-58 FERLUGA 1957: J. FERLUGA, Vizantiska uprava u Dalmaciji [The Byzantine rule in Dalmatia], Beograd 1957 Firz 1994: J. Fitz, Die Verwaltung Pannoniens in der Rémerzeit 1, Budapest 1994 GRAGANIN 2003: H. GRACANIN, The Western Roman Embassy to the Court of Attila in A.D. 449, ByzSlav 61 (2003) 53-74 GULDENPENNING 1885: A. GULDENPENNING, Geschichte des ostrimischen Reiches unter den Kaisern Arcadius und Theodosius II, Halle 1885 Hampis 1972: L. Hamais, Attila et les Huns, Paris 1972 HANSEL 1987: Die Volker Siidosteuropas im 6. bis 8. Jahrhundert, ed. B. Hansel (= Siidosteuropa Jahrbuch 17), Munchen ~ Berlin 1987. HEATHER 1994: P. J. HEATHER, Goths and Romans 332-489, Oxford 1994 HOHLFELDER 1982: City, Town and Countryside in the Early Byzantine Era, ed. R. L. Hohlfelder, New York 1982 KRAUTSCHICK 1999: S. KRAUTSCHICK, Hunnensturm und Germanenflut, ByzZs 92 (1999) 10-67 LEMERLE 1954: P. LEMERLE, Invasions ef migrations dans les Balkans depuis la fin de Uépoque romaine jusquau VHT siécle, RHI 211 (1954) 265-308 LENGYEL - RADAN 1980: The Archeology of Roman Pannonia, eds. A. Lengyel - G. T. B. Radan, Lexington — Budapest 1980 LotTER 2003: F. LOTTER, Vélkerverschiebungen im Ostalpen-Mitteldonau-Raum zwischen Antike und Mittelalter (375-600), Berlin — New York 2003 MAENCHEN-HELFEN 1973: O. J. MAENCHEN-HELFEN, The World of the Huns. Studies in Their History and Culture, Berkley — Los Angeles — London 1973 MAENCHEN-HELFEN 1978: O. J. MAENCHEN-HELFEN, Die Welt der Hunnen. Eine Analyse ihrer historischen Dimension, Wien - KéIn - Graz 1978, Maksimovic 1980: Lj. Maksimovic, Severni Ilirik u VI veku, ZRVI 19 (1980) 17-57 MATHISEN 1981: R. W. MATHISEN, Avitus, Italy and the East in A.D. 455-456, Byzantion 51 (1981) 232-247 Micorni 1997: B. Micort, Evidence for Christianity in Roman Southern Pannonia (Northern Croatia). A catalogue of finds and sites (= British Archaeological Reports, International Series 684), Oxford 1997 Mitosevié - Prica 1979: P. MiLosevic - R. Prica, Kroz vekove Sirmiuma [Through the centuries of Sirmium], Sremska Mitrovica 1979 Mirkovic 1971: M. MIRKOVIC, Sirmium — its history from the I century A. D. to 582 A. D. (= Sirmium 1), Beograd 1971 Mocsy 1962.: A. Mécsy, RE S IX, Stuttgart 1962, 515-776 s.v. Pannonia Mocsy 1971: A. Mocsy, Review of VArapy 1969, AArchH 23 (1971) 347-360 B14 Hrvoje Graéanin Mocsy 1974: A. Mocsy, Pannonia and Upper Moesia. A History of the Middle Danube Provinces of the Roman Empire, London — Boston 1974 MULLER — STRAUB 2002: Germanen am Plattensee, eds. R. Miller - P. Straub (= Ausstellung des Balatoni Museums Keszthely im Museum fiir Frageschichte des Landes Niederésterreich, Schloss Traismauer), Traismauer 2002 Nacy 1967: T. NaGy, Reoccupation of Pannonia from the Huns in 427, AAntH 15 (1967) 159-186 Naay 1971: T, NaGy, The Last century of Pannonia in the Judgement of a New Monograph, AAntH 19 (1971) 299-345 NiKOLANCI 1985: M. NIKOLANC!, ,Dalmatinska dinastija“ i propast Zapadnog Rimskog Carstva {,The Dalmatian dynasty“ and the fall of the Western Roman Empire], Radovi ZHP 18 (1985) 5-22 Novak 1944: G. Novak, Proslost Dalmacije I [The History of Dalmatia], Zagreb 1944 PAPENFUSS — STROCKA 1982: Palast und Hiite, Beitriige zum Bauen und Wohnen im Altertum von Archdologen, Vor- und Friihgeschichtlern, eds. D, Papenfuss ~ V. M. Strocka (= Tagungsbeitrige eines Symposiums der Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung Bonn — Bad Godesberg veranstaltet vom 25.-30. November 1979 in Berlin), Mainz am Rhein 1982 PLRE I: A. H. M. Jones —J. R. MARTINDALE ~J. Morris, Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire 1, Cambridge 1971 PLRE Il: J. R. MARTINDALE, Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire Ul, Cambridge 1980 Popovic 1975: V. Porovic, Le dernier évéque de Sirmium, RevEAug 21 (1975) 103-106 Popovic 1982: V. Popovic, Desintegration und Ruralisation der Stadt im Ost- Mlyricum vom 5, bis 7, Jakrhundert n, Chr., in: PAPENFUSS — STROGKA 1982, pp. 545-566 Popovic 1987: V. Povovic, Die siiddanubischen Provinzen in der Spdtantike vom Ende des 4. bis zur Mitte des 5. Jahrhunderts, in: HANSEL 1987, pp. 95-139 Posavec 1997: V, Posavec, Pogled na prostost rimske Dalmacije u prvoj polovici V. stoljeca (A look at the past of the Roman Dalmatia in the first half of the 5 century], HZ 50 (1997) 9-20 Pica 1969: Sremska Mitrovica, ed. R. Prica, Sremska Mitrovica 1969 ROGOSIE 1962: R. ROGOSIC, Veliki Hirik (284-395) i njegova konacna dioba (396- 437). Kritiéna istrazivanja Mlirika iz kasnije povijesti Rimskog Carstva (The Greater Illyricum (A.D. 284-395) and its final division (A.D. 396-437). Critical research of Illyricum in the history of the Later Roman Empire], Zagreb 1962 SALAMON ~ S6s 1980: A. SALAMON ~ A. Cs, S08, Pannonia ~ Fifth to Ninth Centuries, in: LENGYEL — RADAN 1980, pp. 397-425 Sarid 1956: B. Saris, RE S VIIL, Stuttgart 1956, 21-59 s.v. Dalmatia ScHMIpT 1934: L. ScHMIDT, Geschichte der deutschen Stdmme bis zum Ausgang der Vélkerwanderung: Die Ostgermanen, Manchen 1934? Scum 1938: L. ScHMIDT, Geschichte der deutschen Stémme bis zum Ausgang der Vélkerwanderung: Die Westgermanen, Minchen 1938?The Huns and South Pannonia ScHRAMM 1997: G. SCHRAMM, Ein Damm bricht. Die rémische Donaugrenze und die Invasionen des 5.-7. Jahrhunderts im Lichle von Namen und Worle (= Siidosteuropaische Arbeiten 100), Miinchen 1997 ScHWaRcz 1992: A. ScHWARCz, Die Goten in Pannonien und auf dem Balkan nach dem Ende des Hunnenreiches bis zum Italienzug Theoderichs des Grofen, MIOG 100 (1992) 50-83 SEECK 1913: O. SEECK, Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt V, Berlin 1913 SEECK 1919: O. SEECK, Regesten der Kaiser und Papste fiir die Jahre 311 bis 476 n. Chr.: Vorarbeit 2u einer Prosopographie der christlichen Kaiserceit, Stuttgart 1919 1920: O. SEECK, Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt VI, Stuttgart 1920 SoLart 1916: A. SOLARI, Attila e i Unni, Pisa 1916 SoPRON! 1985: S. SoPRONI, Die letzten Jahriehnte des pannonischen Limes (= Miinchener Beitrage zur Vor- und Friihgeschichte 38), Minchen 1985 STEIN 1914: E. STEIN, Der Verzicht der Galla Placidia auf die Prafektur Mlyricum, WSt 36 (1914) 344-347 STEIN 1925: E. STEIN, Untersuchungen zur spéitrimischen Verwaltungsgeschichte, RhM 74 (1925) 347-394 Srein 1949: E. Sretn, Histoire du Bas-Empire I, Paris ~ Bruxelles - Amsterdam 1949 STEIN 1959: E. STEIN, Histoire du Bas-Empire I, Paris — Bruxelles ~ Amsterdam 1959 STRAUB 1982: Severin zwischen Rimereit und Vélkerwanderung, ed. D. Straub (= Katalog Ausstellung Enns], Linz 1982 Sure 1986: M. Suc, Hijeronim Stridonjanin - gradanin Tarsatike [Hieronymus of Stridon a citizen of Tarsatica], Rad Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti 426 (1986) 213-278 SaseL 1979: J. SASEL, Antigui barbani. Zur Besiedlungsgeschichte Ostnoricums und Pannonien im 5. und 6. Jahrhundert nach den Schriftquellen. Von der Spitantike zum friihen Mittelalter (= Vortrge und Forschungen 25), Sigmaringen 1979, 125-139 (= J. SASEL, Opera selecta, Ljubljana 1992, 746-760) SaseL Kos 1994: M. SaseL Kos, The Embassy of Romulus to Attila, Tyche 9 (1994) 99-111 S186 1914: F. Sisi¢, Prirucnik izvora hroatske historije. Dio I. Gest 1. (do god. 1107.) [A sourcebook for Croatian history. Part 1, section 1: to A.D. 1107], Zagreb 1914 Sic 1925: F, Sis1¢, Povijest Hrvata u vrijeme narodnih vladara [The history of Croats in the time of their national rulers], Zagreb 1925 THomAs 1964: E. B. THOMAS, Rémiche Villen in Pannonien. Beitréige zur pannonischen Siedlungsgeschichte, Budapest 1964 Tromas 1980: E. B. THOMAS, Villa settlements, in: LENGYEL — RapaN 1980, pp. 275-321 THompson 1947: FE. A. THOMPSON, Notes on Priscus Panites, CQ 41 (1947) 61-65 Tuompson 1948: E. A. THompson, A History of the Attila and the Huns, Oxford 1948 7576 Hryoje Graganin ‘THOMPSON — HEATHER 1996: E. A. THOMPSON — P. J. HEATHER, The Huns, Oxford = Cambridge 1996 Towncié 2000: 2. Tomei, Der Untergang der Antike und deren Nachlebensformen in Stidpannonien (Nordkroatien), in: BRATO2 2000, pp. 255-298 Tomka 1996a: P. ToMka, Kurzer Abrif der hunnischen Geschichte, in: DAIM - FROHLICH — MISAR — SCHLAG — ToMKA 1996, pp. 67-68 Tomka 1996b: P. Tomka, Pannonien unter hunnischer Herrschajt, in: Dam — FROHLICH ~ MISAR ~ SCHLAG — TOMKA 1996, pp. 90-91 TOrTH 1989: E, TOTH, Provincia Valeria Media, AArchH 41 (1989) 197-226 VARADY 1969: L. VARADY, Das letzte Jahrhundert Pannoniens (376-476), Budapest 1969 VICKERS 1974: M. VICKERS, Sirmium or Thessaloniki? A critical examination of the St. Demetrius legend, ByzZs 67 (1974) 337-350 Vizantiski izvori: Vizantishi izvori za istoriju naroda Jugoslavije — Fontes Byzantini historiam populorum Jugoslaviae spectantes I, eds. F. BariSié — M. Rajkovié — B. Krekié ~ L. Tomié, Beograd 1955 WERNER 1956: J. WERNER, Beitriige zur Archdologie des Attila-Reiches LI, (= Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Neue Folge 38 A-B), Miinchen 1956 WILKES 1969: J. J. WILKES, Dalmatia, London 1969 Wirth 1967: G. Wirth, Attila und Byzanz. Zur Deutung einer fragwiirdigen Priscusstelle, ByzZs 60 (1967) 41-69 ‘WirtH 1999: G. WirTH, Aétila. Das Hunnenreich und Europa, Stuttgart 1999 WOLFRAM 1990: H. WOLFRAM, Die Goten: von den Anféingen bis zur Mitte des sechsten Jahrhunderts. Entwurf einer historischen Ethnographie, Miinchen 19903 Wozntak 1981: F. E. WozntaK, East Rome, Ravenna and Western Illyricum, Historia 30 (1981) 351-382 ZeNLER 1918: J. ZEILLER, Les origines chrétiennes dans les provinces danubiennes de Empire romain, Paris 1918 ZEULER 1947: J. ZEILLER, Sur Uancien évéché de Sirmium, OrChrP 13 (1947) 669- 674BYZANTINOSLAVICA REVUE INTERNATIONALE DES ETUDES BYZANTINES Publiée par UInstitut slave de Prague sous la direction de PAVEL MILKO et LUBOMIRA HAVLIKOVA Comité de rédaction Petr BALCAREK, Vaclav CERMAK, Kyriaki CHABOVA, Ritzena DosTALovA, Hana HLAVACKOVA, Julie JANCARKOVA, Marina LupTAKOVA LXIV PRAGUE 2006BYZANTINOSLAVICA REVUE INTERNATIONALE DES ETUDES BYZANTINES fondée en 1929 TOME LXIV (2006) Publiée par l'Institut slave de Prague sous la direction de PAVEL MILKO et LUBOMIRA HAVLIKOVA Comité de rédaction Petr BALCAREK, Vaclav CERMAK, Kyriaki CHABOVA, Rizena DosTALOvA, Hana HLavAckova, Julie JANCARKOVA, Marina LuPTAKOVA Priére d’adresser toute correspondance, ainsi que les manuscrits, les revues en échange et les livres pour compte-rendu, a la rédaction de la revue a adresse BYZANTINOSLAVICA Institut slave Valentinska 1, 110 00 Prague 1, République Tchéque e-mail: byzsiav@ slu.cas.cz http://www.slu.cas.cz/byzantinoslavica.html Conditions d'abbonement: La diffusion en République Tchéque est assurée par EUROSLAVICA - distribuce publikacf, Valentinské 1, 110 00 Praha 1 La diffusion dans tous les autres pays est assurée par John Benjamins Publishing Company, Klaprozenweg 108, P.O.Box 36224, 1020 ME Amsterdam, Holland Abonnement annuel: 96 EUR La revue parait dans la maison d’édition EUROSLAVICA, Celetna 12, 110 00, Praha 1 ISSN 0007-7712 Registrovano u MK CR pod é. E 1092 © Institut slave, Prague 2006 La revue bénéficie du soutient financier du Fonds d’édition de TAcadémie des sciences de la République Tchéque

The Huns and South Pannonia

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

The Huns and South Pannonia

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Anda mungkin juga menyukai