Sunday, August 18, 2019
Accounts of Attila :: Rome History Attila Essays
Accounts of Attila Works Cited Missing In Priscusââ¬â¢ 449 account, Attila behaves as a leader who does not merely rival the Roman Emperor, but is in fact superior to the Emperor. Furthermore, he exhibits both Roman and barbarian traits. In addition, Priscus does not use the same vocabulary as utilized in the ââ¬Å"Anonyomus Accountâ⬠to describe Attila. That is, Attila is not depicted as a brutal barbarian warlord or a savage pagan; rather, he is depicted as a leader who is familiar with Roman customs, in possession of luxuries similar to those of Rome, and skilled at political intrigue and manipulation. Priscusââ¬â¢ account is similar to Prosperââ¬â¢s account as it seems to be relatively objective and merely explains the events that transpired (outside of Priscusââ¬â¢ obvious bias, as he was a civil servant and championed the promotion of the Roman systems of law, taxation, and self defense to the Greek Scythian ââ¬â Priscus, 204). Additionally, Jordanesââ¬â¢ account is similar to the â⬠Å"Anonyomus Accountâ⬠because they are both subjective (i.e., Jordanes depicts Attila favorably; while he is apparently held in ill favor by the author of the ââ¬Å"Anonyomus Accountâ⬠). Moreover, all four sources have one theme in common: Attila was perceived to be a legitimate threat to Rome. Attilaââ¬â¢s treatment of the Roman embassies in the beginning of Priscusââ¬â¢ account shows that Attila was not afraid to treat the Roman delegation rudely. Indeed, he refused to meet the ambassadors himself and sent his emissaries to do so, although he knew this was not the Roman custom and his ambassadors had received proper treatment on previous occasions in Rome (Priscus, 202). Furthermore, Attila had been known to claim that, ââ¬Å"his own subjects were generals of [Theodosius] and that his own generals were of equal worth to the Emperors of Romeâ⬠( Priscus, 206). Thus implying that he believed he was superior to the Emperor. In addition, Attila was so bold as to demand Ambassadors with higher ranks (Priscus, 206). Attila exhibited Roman and barbarian traits. Unlike the Emperor, who led a republic, he was a barbarian king who ruled over a Monarchy. In addition, Attila differed from the Emperor since he was a warrior king who carried arms and participated in battle as evidenced by Jordanesââ¬â¢ description of his participation in the battle on the Catalaunian Plains (Jordanes, 101-104).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment