Roman or Barbarian? Political loyalties and ethnic identities in the Balkans according to Procopius

Copyright Material – Provided by Taylor & Francis Procopius of Caesarea: Literary and Historical Interpretations This volume aims to encourage dialogue and collaboration between international scholars by presenting new literary and historical interpretations of the sixth-century writer Procopius of Caesarea, the major historian of Justinian’s reign. Although scholarship on Procopius has flourished since 2004, when the last monograph in English on Procopius was published, there has not been a collection of essays on the subject since 2000. Work on Procopius since 2004 has been surveyed by Geoffrey Greatrex in his international bibliography; Peter Sarris has revised the 1966 Penguin Classics translation of, and introduced, Procopius’ Secret History (2007); and Anthony Kaldellis has edited, translated and introduced Procopius’ Secret History, with related texts (2010), and revised and modernised H.B. Dewing’s Loeb translation of Procopius’ Wars as The Wars of Justinian in 2014. This volume capitalises on the renaissance in Procopius-related studies by showcasing recent work on Procopius in all its diversity and vibrancy. It offers approaches that shed new light on Procopius’ texts by comparing them with a variety of relevant textual sources. In particular, the volume pays close attention to the text and examines what it achieves as a literary work and what it says as an historical product. Christopher Lillington-Martin undertook postgraduate research, specialising in Late Antiquity, at Oxford and Reading Universities after studying at Wales (Swansea), Barcelona and Bristol Universities. He has published Procopius-related research on Dara and Rome, Belisarius and the Goths. He participates in late antique archaeology projects (e.g. Pollentia, Mallorca), is a member of the Oxford Centre for Late Antiquity, Corpus Christi College, Oxford, and a Visitor of Pembroke College, Cambridge. Elodie Turquois completed a DPhil in Classical Languages and Literature at St Hugh’s College, Oxford, in 2013 after receiving an undergraduate degree in Classics at the Sorbonne in Paris. Her dissertation was a typology of the material and the visual across all of Procopius’ works. Her work focuses on the representation of material culture in literature, literary theory and reception, rhetoric and technical writing. Copyright Material – Provided by Taylor & Francis Copyright Material – Provided by Taylor & Francis Procopius of Caesarea: Literary and Historical Interpretations Edited by Christopher Lillington-Martin and Elodie Turquois Copyright Material – Provided by Taylor & Francis First published 2018 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2018 selection and editorial matter, Christopher LillingtonMartin and Elodie Turquois; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Christopher Lillington-Martin and Elodie Turquois to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested ISBN: 978-1-4724-6604-4 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-60228-8 (ebk) Typeset in Times New Roman by codeMantra Copyright Material – Provided by Taylor & Francis Contents List of illustrations Notes on contributors Acknowledgements List of abbreviations Introduction viii ix xiii xv 1 C H R I S T OPH E R L I L L I NGT ON - M A RT I N W I T H E L ODI E T U RqUOI S ParT I revisiting Procopius 1 Writing about Procopius then and now 11 13 AV E R I L CA M E RON 2 The greatness of Procopius 26 M IC H A E L W H I T BY 3 The wor(l)ds of Procopius 40 PE T E R VA N N U F F E L E N ParT II Literary tropes 4 How to interpret Procopius’ preface to the Wars 57 59 F R A NC O BA S S O A N D GE OF F R E Y G R E AT R E X 5 Narrator and participant in Procopius’ Wars A L A N J. RO S S 73 Copyright Material – Provided by Taylor & Francis vi Contents ParT III Persian wars 6 Exploring the structure of Persian War: amplification in Procopius’ narrative 91 93 LY V I A VA S C ONC E L O S BA P T I S TA 7 Procopius and Boethius: Christian philosophy in the Persian Wars 104 JA M E S M U R R AY ParT IV Characterisation 8 Procopius and the characterization of Bessas: where history meets historiography 121 123 C ONOR W H AT E LY 9 reinventing Theoderic in Procopius’ Gothic War 137 C H A R L E S PA z DE R N I K ParT V Military and legal history comparisons 155 10 Procopius, πάρεδρος / quaestor, Codex Justinianus, 1.27 and Belisarius’ strategy in the Mediterranean 157 C H R I S T OPH E R L I L L I NGT ON - M A RT I N 11 Justinian’s laws and Procopius’ Wars 186 M A R ION K RUSE 12 Comparing Procopius and Malalas 201 I A N C OLV I N ParT VI Social history comparisons 215 13 roman or barbarian? ethnic identities and political loyalties in the Balkans according to Procopius 217 A L E X A N DE R SA R A N T I S 14 Landownership and rural society in the writings of Procopius PE T E R SA R R I S 238 Copyright Material – Provided by Taylor & Francis Contents vii ParT VII receptions 251 15 Scaliger’s lie? a note on “Project Procopius” 253 F E DE R IC O MON T I NA RO ParT VIII The aftermath 259 16 Epilogue 261 A N T HON Y K A L DE L L I S Bibliography Index 271 293 Copyright Material – Provided by Taylor & Francis Illustrations Figure 15.1 Leiden University Library, SCA 56b, folio 30r © Universiteit Leiden. 256 Maps 10.1 10.2 13.1 13.2 13.3 Codex Justinianus 1.27.2: stipulated military control of North Africa and Sardinia from 534. Procopius Wars, 4.5.1–11, records Belisarius’ additional conquests including Ibiza, Mallorca, Menorca and Corsica (attempted at Lilybaeum) with his chosen commanders positioned to support each other in the Western Mediterranean, 534. Cities, forts, roads and geographical features in the Balkans. The Balkan provinces. Approximate locations of barbarian groups north of the Balkans, ca. 536–65. 170 171 218 219 225 Copyright Material – Provided by Taylor & Francis Contributors Lyvia Vasconcelos Baptista is Professor of Ancient and Medieval History at Universidade Federal do Rio Grande Norte, Natal, Brazil. She wrote her doctoral thesis on Procopius’ Persian Wars (Porto Alegre, 2013). Her current research deals with Byzantine historians and urban space in Constantinople, from the fourth to the sixth century AD. Franco Basso teaches in the Classics Faculty, University of Cambridge, and is interested in Greek and Roman historians and their reception. Dame averil Cameron was Warden of Keble College, Oxford, and subsequently held a Leverhulme Emeritus Fellowship. Her latest books are Dialoguing in Late Antiquity (2014), Byzantine Matters (2014) and Arguing it Out: Discussion in Twelfth-Century Byzantium (2016). Ian Colvin is a Research Associate at Cambridge University with the School Classics Project and is the Director of the archaeological excavations at Nokalakevi in the Caucasus. His research interests include the East Roman frontier in Late Antiquity, the late antique classicising historians and the history of the South Caucasus. Recent publications include an article on Procopius and Agathias’ sources and contributions to the BAR volume on excavations at Nokalakevi. He is working on Procopius and Justinian’s wars in Lazika. Geoffrey Greatrex is Professor in the Department of Classics and Religious Studies at the University of Ottawa, where he has taught since 2001. He wrote his doctoral thesis on Book I of Procopius’ Persian Wars and is now preparing a commentary on both books for Cambridge University Press. He is the co-author of The Chronicle of Pseudo-Zachariah Rhetor: Church and War in Late Antiquity (2011) and a co-editor of the recently published conference proceedings, Shifting Genres in Late Antiquity (2015). anthony Kaldellis is Professor of Classics at The Ohio State University. He has written on many aspects of Byzantine history, literature and culture. His work has focused on the reception of the classical tradition, including Copyright Material – Provided by Taylor & Francis x Contributors texts, identities (Hellenism in Byzantium) and monuments (the Christian Parthenon). He has recently proposed a new, Roman interpretation of the Byzantine political sphere (The Byzantine Republic: People and Power at New Rome). Professor Kaldellis has translated many Byzantine texts into English, most recently the historians Procopius, Michael Attaleiates and Laonikos Chalkokondyles (the last two for the Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library). Marion Kruse is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Classics at the University of Cincinnati. He is currently working on a monograph titled The Politics of Roman Memory, discussing the intersection of history and politics in the creation of social memory from the fall of Rome until the reign of Justinian. Christopher Lillington-Martin undertook postgraduate research, specialising in Late Antiquity, at Oxford and Reading Universities after studying at Wales (Swansea), Barcelona and Bristol Universities. He has published Procopius-related research on Dara and Rome, Belisarius and the Goths. He participates in late antique archaeology projects (e.g. Pollentia, Mallorca), is a member of the Oxford Centre for Late Antiquity, Corpus Christi College, Oxford, and a Visitor of Pembroke College, Cambridge. Federico Montinaro studied Roman and Byzantine History in Italy, Belgium, Germany and France. He took part in the 2011 Sigillography and Numismatics Programme at the Byzantine Institute of Harvard University at Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C. He obtained his PhD in 2013 from the École Pratique des Hautes Études-Sorbonne, Paris. He is currently a Research Associate at the University of Tübingen. His published and forthcoming work has focussed on the Age of Constantine, Procopius, the Byzantine ‘Dark Centuries’, middle-Byzantine historiography and Byzantine-Western cultural relations. James Murray studied Mediaeval History at the University of St Andrews, graduating in June 2012, and later gained an MA in Late Antique and Byzantine Studies from King’s College London. Since January 2015, he has been working as a bookseller with Adrian Harrington Rare Books in Tunbridge Wells. His interests include the literature and philosophy of Late Antiquity and the history of Constantinople/Istanbul. Charles Pazdernik is Professor of Classics at Grand Valley State University in Allendale, Michigan. His work focuses on the political and legal history of the age of Justinian and on classical and classicising historiography. Recent publications include, as editor of Book 12, The Codex of Justinian: A New Annotated Translation (Bruce Frier, gen. ed. 2016). Copyright Material – Provided by Taylor & Francis Contributors xi alan ross is Lecturer in Roman History at the University of Southampton and a Visiting Research Fellow at University College Dublin. His research focuses on historiography and rhetoric in Late Antiquity, especially in the fourth century. He has published a number of articles on narrative, intertextuality and generic interaction, and is the author of Ammianus’ Julian: narrative and genre in the Res Gestae (2016). alexander Sarantis is Lecturer in Early Medieval History at Aberystwyth University and Honorary Research Fellow of the Centre for Late Antique Archaeology at the Department of Classical and Archaeological Studies, University of Kent. His research interests focus on Roman-barbarian relations, the Balkans and war in Late Antiquity. Since being awarded his DPhil at the University of Oxford in 2006, he has authored articles on the Gepids, the Heruls, A.H.M. Jones and he has recently co-edited a collection on War and Warfare in Late Antiquity to which he contributed seven papers. His recently published monograph explores Justinian’s Balkan Wars. Peter Sarris is Reader in Late Roman, Medieval, and Byzantine History in the University of Cambridge. His publications include Economy and Society in the Age of Justinian (2006), Empires of Faith: The Fall of Rome to the Rise of Islam, c. 500–700 (2011) and Byzantium: A Very Short Introduction (2015). Elodie Turquois completed a DPhil in Classical Languages and Literature in St Hugh’s College, Oxford, in 2013 after receiving an undergraduate degree in Classics at the Sorbonne in Paris. Her dissertation was a typology of the material and visual across all of Procopius’s works. Her work focuses on the representation of material culture in literature, literary theory and reception, rhetoric and technical writing. Peter Van Nuffelen is Professor of Ancient History at Ghent University, Belgium. His research focuses on ancient religion, early Christianity, and late antique history and historiography. He directs the Late Antique Historiography research group at Ghent University, funded by FWO, NWO and ERC. His most recent book is Penser la tolérance durant l’Antiquité tardive (2017). Conor Whately is Associate Professor of Classics at the University of Winnipeg, Canada. His research is concerned with Rome and its empire from Augustus to Heraclius, with a particular emphasis on military history. Conor has published on the characterization of the Arabs by late antique historians, the genre and purpose of late antique military manuals, and on the military presence in Nessana and el-Lejjun. He has published two monographs: Battles and Generals: Combat, Culture, and Didacticism in Procopius’ Wars (2016), and Exercitus Moesiae (2016), on the earlier imperial army on the lower Danube. Copyright Material – Provided by Taylor & Francis xii Contributors Michael Whitby is a Pro-Vice-Chancellor at the University of Birmingham, where he is Head of the College of Arts & Law. His principle research interests are the history of the Christian Roman Empire and ancient warfare. Publications include: The Emperor Maurice and his Historian (1988), The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus (2000), The Cambridge Ancient History XIV, AD 425– 600 (co-ed., 2000) and The Cambridge History of Ancient Warfare (co-ed., 2007). Copyright Material – Provided by Taylor & Francis acknowledgements A considerable number of people have contributed to this volume, either directly or indirectly, and deserve a great deal of thanks. First, of the seventeen authors, five (Franco Basso and Geoffrey Greatrex, Anthony Kaldellis, Lyvia Vasconcelos Baptista and Michael Whitby) wrote specially commissioned contributions. Ten of the authors (Averil Cameron, Ian Colvin, Marion Kruse, Christopher Lillington-Martin, Federico Montinaro, James Murray, Charles Pazdernik, Alan Ross, Alexander Sarantis and Conor Whately) have written chapters based on papers delivered at the conference, ‘Reinventing Procopius: New Readings on Late Antique Historiography’, 17–18 January 2014, Corpus Christi College, University of Oxford (organised by Elodie Turquois, Miranda Williams and Christopher LillingtonMartin).1 Five of the authors (Geoffrey Greatrex, Marion Kruse, Christopher Lillington-Martin, Peter Sarris and Peter Van Nuffelen) delivered papers at the conference, ‘The Late Mediterranean Society According to Procopius of Caesarea’, 11–13 December 2014, Landesmuseum Mainz Forum (organised by Prof. Dr. Marietta Horster and Dr. Andreas Goltz).2 Two of the latter (Peter Sarris and Peter Van Nuffelen) have contributed chapters based on their papers delivered in Mainz, with the kind agreement of the organisers. In addition, it seems appropriate to acknowledge the contributions made to both conferences by speakers and other participants who have not contributed chapters to this volume, but certainly contributed to the academic vibrancy of each, to the session chairs, who managed the debates after each paper and to the poster presenters. In Oxford, these were as follows: Peter Bell, Henning Börm, Alessandro Carabia, Michael Featherstone, Simon Ford, Caterina Franchi, James Howard-Johnston, Marek Jankowiak, Maria Kouroumali, Marc Lauxtermann, Juan Signes Codoñer, Elodie Turquois, Michael Whitby, Tim Whitmarsh, Mark Whittow and Miranda Williams. In Mainz, they were: Bernard Bavant, Peter Bell, Christoph Begass, Henning Börm, Gunnar Brands, Dariusz Brodka, Filippo Carlà, Maria Conterno, Falko Daim, Karoline Feulner, Andreas Goltz, Marietta Horster, Vujadin Ivanisevic, Konstantin Klein, Mischa Meier, Anna Reutter, Constanze Röhl, Rainer Schreg, Miriam Surek, Rainer Warland and Miranda Williams. Copyright Material – Provided by Taylor & Francis xiv Acknowledgements Naturally, thanks are due to the sponsors of the conferences. In Oxford, the Oxford Centre for Byzantine Research and the Oxford Centre for Late Antiquity and, in Mainz, the Leibniz-Wissenschafts Campus Mainz, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität: Forschungsschwerpunkt Historische Kulturwissenschaften and the zentrum für Interkulturelle Studien, Römisch-Germanisches zentralmuseum and Landesmuseum Mainz made the conferences financially possible. Corpus Christi College provided conference facilities and, together with Wolfson College, accommodation for some speakers. Last but by no means least, thanks are due to the reader who wrote a report on the chapters and to the publishers, initially managed by John Smedley and completed by Michael Greenwood, Michael Bourne and Francesca Monaco and their teams, without whom this volume would simply not exist. Notes 1 http://procopius2014.blogspot.co.uk/ 2 http://www.byzanz-mainz.de/aktuelles/a/article/the-late-mediterranean-societyaccording-to-procopius-of-caesarea/ Copyright Material – Provided by Taylor & Francis abbreviations AJAH American Journal of Ancient History BMGS Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies ByzF Byzantinische Forschungen BZ Byzantinische zeitschrift CP Classical Philology CQ Classical quarterly DOP Dumbarton Oaks Papers GRBS Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JHS Journal of Hellenic Studies JMMH Journal of Medieval Military History JRS Journal of Roman Studies JThS Journal of Theological Studies NYRB The New York Review of Books ÖAW Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften RE Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft TAPA Transactions of the American Philological Association Copyright Material – Provided by Taylor & Francis Copyright Material – Provided by Taylor & Francis 13 roman or barbarian? Ethnic identities and political loyalties in the Balkans according to Procopius Alexander Sarantis The concepts of “ethnicity” and “ethnogenesis” have played central roles in work on early medieval barbarian groups in recent decades. Issues such as the cohesiveness of barbarian group identities, how far these influenced political behaviour, the ways in which identities were influenced by Roman-barbarian interactions, and how they took different forms in postRoman successor kingdoms have all been prominent.1 While some have spent time debating these points, others have attacked this preoccupation with ethnicity and ethnogenesis, emphasising the Roman contexts in which the literary sources were written and their unsuitability as evidence for barbarian historical and ethnic traditions.2 As a result, scholars have tended to downplay the extent to which we can take seriously contemporary accounts of barbarian groups and Roman-barbarian interactions. The perceived anti-barbarian bias of Roman texts has been accentuated by the fashion of focusing on the literary nature of histories from Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. On one hand, it is argued that our authors were principally concerned with the clever and subtle usage of literary ploys, narrative strategies, and classical allusions to pass comment on contemporary Roman concerns, rather than in writing an objective history for the benefit of contemporaries and posterity.3 In other words, their work can in no way be divorced from its context.4 On the other hand, it is suggested that the authors were too ill-informed of their subject matter to be able to do anything other than trot out stock-in-trade prejudiced views of barbarian groups and the northern world.5 According to these viewpoints, any attempt to assess the historical reliability of such texts—to hone in on different types of information that may contradict their narrative agendas and to consider what their sources of information may have been—is unsubtle and old-fashioned.6 This chapter will question these assumptions through an examination of Procopius’ coverage of barbarian groups in the Balkans and the northern world during the reign of Justinian (527–65). It will consider what Procopius tells us about ethnic and political identities, what he has to say about the character of barbarians, how far he presents their political behaviour as being motivated by feelings of ethnic or cultural belonging, and what this all tells us about the man and his work. It will argue that, while Procopius deployed literary devices and narrative discourses to comment on individuals Copyright Material – Provided by Taylor & Francis 218 Alexander Sarantis and events or because he was constrained to do so by the classicising genre in which he wrote, he was also concerned with presenting a sophisticated view of “what happened” based on oral and written sources. The paper will first provide a brief overview of the Justinianic Balkans before discussing Procopius’ coverage of affairs in the region. The Balkans in the 4th to 6th century The northern Balkans (north of the Via Egnatia)—the principal focus of Procopius’ Balkan narrative—was a different world politically, culturally, Map 13.1 Cities, forts, roads and geographical features in the Balkans. Copyright Material – Provided by Taylor & Francis Roman or barbarian? 219 and physically from the rest of the East Roman empire. Invasions, immigrations, and rebellions of Goths and Huns between the late 4th and late 5th centuries had resulted in significant changes to populations and settlement patterns, especially in the provinces along or near to the Lower Danube frontier (see Map 13.1).7 At various points, these regions had fallen out of central imperial control, much like other northern Roman frontier regions in Gaul, the Alps, Map 13.2 The Balkan provinces. Copyright Material – Provided by Taylor & Francis 220 Alexander Sarantis and Pannonia. However, in contrast to these areas, the Balkans (at least, Thrace and the eastern half of Illyricum) were reabsorbed by the Roman Empire from the late 5th to mid 6th centuries (see Map 13.2).8 The emperors Anastasius and Justinian patched up and built a series of frontier and interior fortifications, recruited and won over the barbarian military aristocracy and populations of the region, and implemented administrative reforms.9 Nevertheless, the early 6th-century Balkans had changed significantly over the previous two centuries. In the early 4th century, the region had had cities endowed with street grids and fora, some of which were imperial capitals, villas dotting the landscape of interior regions, and fortifications confined principally to the frontier.10 By the 6th century, these regions were instead characterised by an early medieval landscape of small fortified cities and forts, often in precipitous mountain locations, carpeting both frontier and interior provinces, with much less evidence of Greco-Roman urbanism, except in coastal regions.11 As well as bishops, Balkan elites by this stage were dominated by military men, many of whom were of barbarian descent.12 While modern historians have tended to neglect the region, the Balkan Peninsula in fact played a central role in the East Roman empire—both the army and imperial office were dominated by men from the Balkans (Anastasius, Justin I, Justinian, Belisarius, and Germanus were all from the Balkans), and considerable resources were spent on the building work just discussed, as well as on diplomatic and military initiatives in the region.13 Procopius on the Balkans and Justinian’s Balkan policy At some stage, Procopius decided not to do what he did in the Buildings and devote a separate book of the History of the Wars to the Balkans. Instead, he covered Balkan affairs in a series of fragmentary passages, interspersed throughout the Wars, especially books 7 and 8.14 He may have considered knitting these together into a separate book at some stage, because they include the sort of prefacing ethnographic and historical material on the groups and regions involved that he provides at the outset of the other books, as well as accounts of political and military events in the area.15 Procopius does not approve overtly of Justinian’s Balkan policy—he exaggerates the devastation caused by barbarian raids and blames these, in part, on the inadequacies of Justinian’s policies, especially the emperor’s reliance on the payment of tribute to barbarian groups.16 In the Wars, this rhetoric is presented indirectly, often through speeches attributed to barbarians. In the following extract, Procopius has a Lombard ambassador at Constantinople in 548 complain: The Gepids, O Emperor, are holding Sirmium and enslaving the Romans. … and in spite of this they have been in your pay and have been receiving their payments for we know not how long a time. (Procop. Goth. 7.34.17–18) Copyright Material – Provided by Taylor & Francis Roman or barbarian? 221 Procopius makes the allegation more clearly in the Secret History: Justinian kept bringing all the barbarians into collision with one another, and summoning the leaders of the Huns for no good reason, he handed over to them with amazing prodigality huge donatives, pretending that he was doing this as a pledge of friendship. … and these then began straightaway to enslave the Roman empire, and they nevertheless were receiving pay in the meantime from the emperor. (Procop., Anec. 11.5, 7) Similar phrases were used in the Secret History and the Wars to describe vaguely the scope of barbarian raids, reinforcing the argument that the two texts were written in the late 540s to early 550s:17 From the Ionian gulf, these barbarians plundered everything in order as far as the suburbs of Byzantium. (Procop., Pers. 2.4.4 on the Hun invasion of 539) And Illyricum and Thrace in its entirety, comprising the whole expanse of country from the Ionian Gulf to the suburbs of Byzantium … was overrun practically every year by Huns, Sclaveni and Antae. (Procop., Anec. 18.20 on barbarian raids in general) There are numerous possible explanations for Procopius’ cursory and negative treatment of the Balkans. His inexperience of the region may have been one contributory factor. Most agree that he visited the region only once—in 540, on his way back to Constantinople from Italy, when he presumably travelled along the Via Egnatia.18 Another factor may have been the unsuitability of Balkan diplomatic and military affairs to the classicising genre within which he wrote. Balkan warfare was chaotic and irregular—it mostly consisted of cat-and-mouse campaigns of attrition in inhospitable mountainous terrain and featured few pitched battles or sieges. The barbarian opposition groups were politically fragmented and, in the case of the Slavic Sklaveni, seem to have had no recognisable leaders with whom it was possible to conduct formalised or meaningful diplomatic negotiations.19 There was little scope, therefore, for Thucydidean accounts of grand battles, introduced by pairs of speeches, or for the intricate diplomatic machinations of rival states.20 A related point is that Balkan warfare and diplomacy—irregular warfare, often consisting of surprise attacks or attrition strategies, and betrayed alliances—must have been difficult to reconcile with the virtuous, abstemious, restrained, and honourable behaviour Procopius more regularly praised his characters for.21 His negative treatment of the Balkans and the northern world may, in fact, reflect a general distaste for and incomprehension of the region and its barbaric populations on the part of the elites for whom he Copyright Material – Provided by Taylor & Francis 222 Alexander Sarantis wrote. As has already been stated, the northern Balkans was not a world of toga-wearing, classically educated secular officials and cities preserving vestiges of classical architecture and topography to the same extent as other eastern Roman regions, such as Syria, Palestine, Egypt, or south-western Asia Minor. Indeed, most agree that a cultural and political clash between some of the aristocratic classes from these regions and the Balkan parvenu ruling elite lay behind the revolt of 532.22 Some of this prejudice can be discerned further in the Secret History. For example, Procopius expresses his aversion to the Blue circus faction, singling out for special criticism their barbaric behaviour, hairstyles, and clothes: In the first place, the mode of dressing the hair was changed to a rather novel style by the factions; for they did not cut it at all as the other Romans did … But the hair of their heads they cut off in front back to the temples, leaving the part behind to hang down to a very great length in a senseless fashion, just as the Massagetae do. Indeed for this reason they used to call this the “Hunnic” fashion. (Procop., Anec. 7.8–10) This description of what would appear to be a late antique version of the “mullet” reflects the cultural differences between Procopius and, we may assume, at least some of his audience and Balkan populations and possibly military officials, many of whom were of barbarian descent. Indeed, Justinian’s behaviour, according to the Secret History, mirrors that of the blue faction and of barbarians in general—contrary to the laws of nature and decency, lacking restraint, and hell-bent on the mindless destruction of innocent populations.23 At one point, Procopius accuses the emperor of being “a barbarian in his manner of speech, dress and thinking.”24 This is expressed more subtly in the Wars via speeches attributed to barbarians. In a speech Procopius places in the mouth of the Utigur Hun leader Sandil, he criticises as incomprehensible Justinian’s decision to settle a group of Kutrigur Huns on the imperial territory they had previously been raiding: For no man in the world has at any time seen dogs attacking a flock nor wolves defending it. (Procop., Goth. 8.19.13) Procopius’ critical take on Justinian’s Balkan policy places in context the anti-barbarian rhetoric we find in much of his work on the Balkans. The worse the barbarians are made to appear, the more ill-advised Justinian’s willingness to pay them tribute and negotiate with them.25 It would be tempting to argue on the basis of this anti-barbarian and anti-Justinianic rhetoric that Procopius’ Balkan Wars narrative is of limited use as evidence for barbarian-Roman diplomatic and military relations in this period and Copyright Material – Provided by Taylor & Francis Roman or barbarian? 223 more useful to us as an example of the antipathy of office-holding classes towards Justinian’s Balkan policy and regime in general. This chapter will demonstrate, however, that Procopius’ coverage of the Balkans is more sophisticated than that. First, comparison with archaeological, legislative, and other literary sources confirms that the historical information—events, places, people, and dates—at the heart of Procopius’ narrative can be taken seriously, even if it is sometimes exaggerated and couched in classicising language.26 Procopius was, after all, a contemporary of the events he described, with good political connections—his work was founded on a mixture of his own first-hand experience and second-hand documentary and oral sources.27 Procopius’ lack of experience of the Balkans meant that he was reliant on these second-hand sources to a greater extent than in the case of the earlier Gothic, Persian, and Vandal wars, for which he was able to draw on his memoirs and reminiscences.28 These sources presumably derived from contacts in the army and diplomatic service, made during his service under Belisarius.29 Therefore, we are likely to have distilled in his work not only his own biases and viewpoints and those of his expected audience, but those of his sources too. These were not only Roman sources—Procopius would have been acquainted with some of the many barbarians from the Balkans and the northern world who served in Roman armies. This would explain why, in addition to the anti-Justinianic bias mentioned thus far, a more nuanced and less critical view of the Balkans and barbarian groups can also be recognised through a closer reading of the Wars. In particular, we get a far more positive picture of Justinian’s Balkan policy by taking into account material subsidiary to the main narrative discourse, looking dispassionately at the historical events Procopius narrates, and also taking into account his Buildings. The historical events include imperial Balkan military campaigns, such as the one against the Sklaveni in Thrace in early 551: Justinian sent a very noteworthy army against them, which was led by a number of commanders, including Constantianus, Aratuius, Nazares, Justin the son of Germanus and John who was called the Glutton. He placed in supreme command over them all Scholasticus, one of the eunuchs of the palace. … Not long afterwards, the Roman army … came upon a portion of their force (in the Astice region of Thrace), engaged them suddenly, and turned them to flight. (Procop., Goth. 7.40.34–35 and 7.40.44–45) This is a typical example of Procopius’ numerous accounts of successful Roman military campaigns in the Balkans, during which large Roman armies pursued and defeated barbarian invasion forces.30 Similar accounts of Roman Balkan military and diplomatic successes in contemporary chronicles reinforce the impression that Procopius’ work also distilled a proJustinianic perspective. Copyright Material – Provided by Taylor & Francis 224 Alexander Sarantis Setting these military campaigns in the context of the fortified landscape Procopius describes in Buildings book 4, we start to get the impression that Justinian’s Balkan policy was much more effective and expedient than suggested by some of Procopius’ overtly anti-Justinianic rhetoric: He (Justinian) fortified the whole of Europe so safely that he rendered it inaccessible to the barbarians who live beyond the Ister River. (Procop., Aed. 4.1.2–7) Even if it is a work of panegyric, exaggerating Justinian’s achievements, many agree that Procopius’ Buildings is founded on documentary records of building works compiled at municipal, provincial, and, sometimes, prefectural levels.31 In addition, its description of Balkan settlement patterns is broadly corroborated by the archaeological evidence, while Novellae recording administrative reforms in the region and the establishment of a new ecclesiastical capital at Justinian Prima confirm imperial investment and interest in the region.32 Procopius on the identities and locations of barbarian groups Similarly diverse perspectives can be identified in Procopius’ treatment of barbarian political and ethnic identities in the Balkans and the northern world. Starting with geopolitics, Procopius’ view was, on one level, what we would expect of a Roman source: barbarians lived north of the Lower Danube frontier, Romans to the south. Justinian’s task was to keep out these barbarian groups, a job which he either did very badly, as is suggested by the Secret History, or very well, as suggested by the Buildings. Procopius usually refers to Romans from the Balkan provinces as Thracians or Illyrians, while he presents the various barbarian groups to the north as inhabiting territories which he vaguely specifies using the names of former Roman cities or provinces: The Gepids held the city of Sirmium and practically all the cities of Dacia. (Procop., Goth. 7.33.8) But it is extremely unlikely that the barbarian groups he describes occupied clearly delineated parcels of land. The northern world, between the Julian Alps and the Black Sea, was geopolitically fragmented and unsettled. It had lacked a dominant political force since the death of Attila and fragmentation of his Hun empire in the mid-5th century. Frequently appearing and disappearing ethnonyms in our sources for the Hun world north of the Black Sea add to this picture of political instability since the late 5th century.33 As well as locating barbarian groups within clearly demarcated regions, Procopius attempts to make sense of a confusing and changing spectrum of tribes by using a mixture of ancient ethnography and recent 5th-century history.34 The Utigurs and Kutrigurs, for example, were federations of Hun tribes who crystallised north of the Black Sea at some point between the 530s Copyright Material – Provided by Taylor & Francis Roman or barbarian? 225 and 550s. But, according to Procopius, they derived from two men named Utigur and Kutrigur, who were sons of an ancient Cimmerian king.35 The two Hun groups descending from these men had, much later, crossed the modern River Don after some of their youths had chased a doe. This took place, we are told, at about the same time as the Visigoths migrated to Spain and the Goths set out for the Balkan provinces. While such origin myths tell us more about Procopius’ methods of working, classicising models, and, arguably, narrative agendas, the general impression Procopius gives us of the location of the various barbarian groups and their names is confirmed by other 6th-century textual sources. These corroborate Procopius’ suggestion that these tribes fell within the three broader primordial ethnic categories of Hun, Getic, or Slav.36 The Hun groups—the Kutrigurs and Utigurs—inhabited the Black Sea regions; the Getic or Gothic groups, such as the Gepids, were located in Pannonia and Trajanic Dacia; and the Slavic groups, the Sklaveni and the Antae, regions north of Thrace, in modern Wallachia and Moldovia (see Map 13.3). The Lombards and Heruls, the other groups in Pannonia, are not categorised as Getic by Procopius, but were, nonetheless, Germanic-speaking and Arian Christian like Getic groups.37 The Getic barbarians in Pannonia were organised into kingdoms, the Hun groups were tribal confederations and the Slavic groups a politically fragmented mass of small tribes. Map 13.3 Approximate locations of barbarian groups north of the Balkans, ca. 536–65. Copyright Material – Provided by Taylor & Francis 226 Alexander Sarantis Procopius differentiates these three groups according to their similar languages, appearances, and cultures. Of course, we cannot get away from the fact that we are dealing with an outsider’s prejudice and have to take exaggeration and crude stereotypes into account (the Germans are tall and blonde, the Huns dirty and swarthy, and the Sklaveni and Antae ruddy and anarchic). But there is no reason to doubt that Procopius was drawing upon labels that had been applied to these groups on the basis of their similar primordial features—just as racist labels today are usually based on general perceptions of ethnic difference.38 How far barbarians themselves used these names is impossible to know. They are less likely to have referred to themselves by the primordial ethnic labels, Hun or Getic. But there seems little reason to doubt that specific political group names—Kutrigur, Utigur, Gepid, Lombard—were also used by members of these groups, especially when these had some level of centralised political authority able to conduct diplomatic dealings with the East Roman government and, we may assume, disseminate an identity.39 Procopius was undoubtedly attempting to make sense of a confusing situation, but we need to remember that he had sources with experience of the Balkans and/or the northern world, which were well-acquainted with the peoples in question, some of whom may have been barbarians themselves.40 The veracity of the information at the core of Procopius’ account is also implied by the more complex view of identities and political loyalties in the northern world and the Roman Balkans that emerges through his narration and commentary on events and historical figures. This shows that the dividing line between barbarians and Romans and between the barbarian and Roman worlds was not as black and white as suggested in some of the rhetoric I have been discussing thus far. Starting with the barbarian world beyond the Danube, Procopius also tells us about splinter groups and warlords, created by succession disputes and intra- and inter-barbarian wars, suggesting that the peoples lining up beyond the Danube frontier were not as neatly territorially delineated as some of his rhetoric would have us believe. Ildiges, for example, was a claimant of the Lombard throne, exiled by the Lombard king Wacho in the late 530s.41 Ildiges and his entourage of 300 Lombard retainers subsequently established control over a series of Sklaveni tribes, presumably north of the Lower Danube. With his combined Sklaveni and Lombard army, Ildiges operated as a mercenary warlord, serving the Gepids in Pannonia, Totila, the Gothic king of Italy, the East Roman empire as the Count of the scholarii palatine guards in Constantinople, and then the Gepids for a second time.42 He was murdered on the orders of the Gepid king Thorisin in 552.43 Procopius informs us that Ildiges’ Sklaveni troops numbered 6,000.44 Bearing in mind that the largest independent Sklaveni army mentioned by Procopius was 3,000 strong, Ildiges alone commanded an army commensurate with an independent barbarian group.45 Ildiges and his mercenary Sklaveni soldiers thus provide an example of the politically fluid situation north of the Danube in this period. The irregular, Copyright Material – Provided by Taylor & Francis Roman or barbarian? 227 chaotic, and violent nature of this world places in context Justinian’s use of Machiavellian diplomacy, despite Procopius’ apparent disapproval of this elsewhere in his text. Procopius also provides us with information regarding the ethnically complex situation in the Roman provinces south of the Danube. Many of the generals and soldiers in the Thracian and Illyrian armies he discusses are of barbarian descent. These vary from long-term inhabitants of the Balkans, such as the general Bessas, left behind by Theoderic’s Goths when they departed for Italy in 488, or John the nephew of Vitalian, the former half-barbarian count of the federate troops and rebel in the 510s, to more recent recruits like Mundo, the Gepid general of Illyricum from 529 to 535.46 Mundo is an extremely interesting case. We know from other sources that, like Ildiges, he had played an important role in Middle Danube politics. Exiled from the Gepids as the losing party in a succession dispute in 488, Mundo operated for a number of years as a warlord in command of a large, mixed barbarian army in the Danube region west of the Iron Gates gorges, defeating the Romans on at least one occasion and serving as an ally of the Gothic king of Italy, Theoderic.47 In 529, Malalas records that this man came over to the Romans and was invested in his military office by Justinian in Constantinople.48 Mundo was, thereafter, general of Illyricum for the majority of his career, eventually being killed in a battle against the Goths in Dalmatia in 535.49 In a number of places, Procopius suggests that Mundo regularly commanded the Heruls, a Germanic federate group settled in the vicinity of Singidunum.50 Another former barbarian warlord commanding Roman armies in the Balkans was Amalafridas, a Gothic noble captured in Italy in 540, whose sister Justinian betrothed to the Lombard king, Audoin c. 540.51 In short, therefore, a significant number of Roman commanding officers in the Balkan provinces were of barbarian descent, had operated as warlords beyond the imperial frontier, and retained or found it easy to establish contacts with barbarian groups outside the empire.52 As well as barbarian warlords and Roman generals, Procopius suggests that populations moved regularly between the barbarian world and the Balkan provinces, usually as the result of raiding and warfare. In anecdotal digressions, he discusses Antae and Roman prisoners/slaves ending up on either side of the frontier and is always at pains to mention that prisoners/ manpower resources were one of the main aims of Roman raids on barbarian territories and barbarian raids on the Balkans.53 Procopius on barbarian behaviour and characteristics So, while Procopius’ principal narrative discourse is one of barbarians simply demarcated from Romans by the Lower Danube frontier and divided up into neatly delineated political entities, much of the information he provides us with presents a more sophisticated picture of the geopolitical Copyright Material – Provided by Taylor & Francis 228 Alexander Sarantis landscape in the Balkans and the northern world. His portrayal of the behaviour and motivation of barbarian groups is similarly complex. On one hand, much of Procopius’ commentary on barbarian groups is, as we would expect, fuelled by classicising notions of barbarians as uncivilised, lacking self-control, unwashed, and unable to govern themselves in an orderly manner.54 The Sklaveni “pay no heed to bodily comforts and are at all times covered in filth,” the Huns “have ugly countenances and live a savage life,” and the Heruls “mate in an unholy manner, especially men and asses, and they are the basest of all men and utterly abandoned rascals.”55 Procopius often uses this sort of language when providing historical and ethnographic backgrounds to these groups. He also uses it when criticising particular barbarian groups. For example, through speeches and direct commentary, Procopius presents the Gepids as greedy, exploitative, aggressive, and untrustworthy. In a speech attributed to a Lombard envoy at Constantinople in 548, Procopius expresses outrage at the Gepids’ seizure of Sirmium in 536: How could anyone adequately depict in words the outrageous nature of their action? Did they not heap contempt upon the Roman Empire? Did they not break the bonds of both treaty and alliance?. (Procop., Goth. 7.34.16–17) Although it is easy to write off such criticisms, based as they are on stereotypical barbarian traits, looking closely at Procopius’ narrative on the Gepids and the various wars in western Illyricum, along with other literary and archaeological sources, we can see that his rhetoric has been chosen to correlate with contemporary strategic concerns: the Gepids posed the main threat to the Balkans in the 540s and early 550s, and this was largely down to their occupation of the strategically vital city of Sirmium.56 Justinian accordingly devoted considerable diplomatic energy and military resources to countering the Gepids’ increasing military power. Even some of Procopius’ classicising ethnographic descriptions were chosen to fit his subject matter. He paints a picture of the Sklaveni and the Antae as primitive, sedentary agriculturalists, inhabiting Spartan settlements with little in the way of lavish material culture: They lived in pitiful huts which they set up far apart from one another, but, each man was constantly changing their place of abode. (Procop., Goth. 7.14.24) While this is another example of a classicising literary trope, the suggestion that the Slavs had a more simplistic material culture and agricultural lifestyle than other groups is backed up by other literary sources and the archaeological evidence.57 Settlements in Moldova and Wallachia from this period were basic agricultural hamlets, scattered along river valleys and Copyright Material – Provided by Taylor & Francis Roman or barbarian? 229 58 often changing location. The material culture of their inhabitants was simple, with little surviving evidence of advanced metalwork or even wheelturned pottery. Similarly, Procopius’ suggestion that the Sklaveni were “not ruled by one man” is borne out by the fact that none of the sources for the reign of Justinian mention a Sklaveni ruler.59 But Procopius’ narrative also offers a positive view of barbarian groups. In particular, he regularly describes, in glowing terms, barbarian soldiers or generals serving the Roman army. The Herul general Pharas was: energetic and thoroughly serious and upright in every way, although he was an Erulian by birth. And for an Erulian not to give himself over to treachery and drunkenness, but to strive after uprightness, is no easy matter and merits abundant praise. But not only was it Pharas who maintained orderly conduct, but also all the Erulians who followed him. (Procop., Vand. 4.4.29–30) Even though such praise is based on stereotypes of barbarians as courageous and noble, and as constantly having to battle against their naturally wanton tendencies, it does present us with a different assessment of the character of barbarians and of their value to the Roman Empire. There are numerous examples of this contradictory rhetoric concerning barbarian groups settled recently within the Balkan provinces. The Heruls, whose federate agreement with the empire was renewed by Justinian in 527, are, on the one hand, described as “adopting a gentler manner of life and submitting themselves to the laws of the Christians” and, on the other, as “faithless, given to avarice, and eager to do violence to their neighbours, feeling no shame at such conduct.”60 The settlement of 2,000 Kutrigur Huns in Thrace in 551 is commented upon in similarly contrasting ways. While at one point, Procopius describes them in innocent, neutral terms as: “men who had migrated from their ancestral abodes and settled in Thrace with the emperor’s permission,” he elsewhere refers to them as “a foul set of neighbours, who will after no long delay, show their true character to the Romans.”61 Much like modern newspapers exaggerate the problems or the benefits of immigration depending on their political persuasion, Procopius’ text reflects the opposing sides of the debate on 6th-century barbarian immigrants, which presumably took place among the classically trained elites and officer classes for whom he wrote.62 On one hand, these newcomers would never be satiated in their desire for wealth, were impossible to convert because of their heathen ways, and would inflict terrible hardships and violence on the native populations of the Balkans. On the other hand, these barbarians were already becoming good Christians, serving loyally and bravely in Roman armies, farming the land, and were, to all intents and purposes, model provincial Illyrians or Thracians. Contrasting attitudes towards barbarians were no doubt fuelled by the contradictions between the Classical Greek and Roman and Christian Copyright Material – Provided by Taylor & Francis 230 Alexander Sarantis cultural influences on scholars and elites in this period. In this case, the Roman imperial and Christian Universalist view of the potential conversion and integration of barbarians clashed with the classical notion of their unchangeable nature.63 A compromise between the two viewpoints is apparent in Procopius’ discussion of the religious affiliations of barbarian groups: while political opponents of the empire, like the Gepids, were Arian Christians and, at the same time, typically abhorrent barbaric peoples, imperial allies, such as the Lombards, were good, Orthodox Christians and portrayed as more reasonable and restrained in their behaviour.64 Imperial allies were often baptised in Constantinople, making it clear that Justinian considered cultural as well as political subservience vital to the settlement of such groups and his alliances with them.65 Procopius on the motivations behind barbarian political behaviour These contradictory perspectives also pervade Procopius’ interpretations of what motivated barbarian political and military decisions. One of the questions raised in the introduction was to what extent barbarian groups’ political behaviour was driven by feelings of ethnic identity. Through speeches, commentary on and narratives of events and actions, Procopius often presents the barbarian groups and the Roman empire as engaged in a Darwinian struggle for manpower, wealth, and political power. In this world, individual leaders such as Ildiges were willing to swap sides, as long as it furthered their chances of political prestige and monetary wealth. There is no suggestion that Ildiges’ behaviour was predominantly influenced by feelings of ethnic belonging to the Lombards, although it is implied at various points that he was involved in political machinations to win back the Lombard throne. The mercenary drive of barbarian groups is best demonstrated by Procopius in speeches attributed to barbarians. For example, the Utigur Hun leader, Sandil, complains to Roman envoys about the settlement on imperial territory of a group of Kutrigurs who had recently been ravaging the Balkans: The Kutrigurs are at liberty to revel in their wine-cellars and live on the fat of the land. And doubtless they have access to baths too and are wearing gold and have no lack of fine clothes embroidered and overlaid with gold. … We, on the other hand, still partake in our ancestral woes. (Procop., Goth. 8.19.16–17 and 21) Sandil’s speech mirrors Procopius’ critique of Justinian’s appeasement of barbarian raiders in the Secret History, discussed earlier. It also highlights the notion that barbarian groups beyond the Danube frontier were Copyright Material – Provided by Taylor & Francis Roman or barbarian? 231 jockeying for position to acquire Roman wealth—either through raiding the Balkan provinces, signing tributary alliances with the empire, or reaching agreements to settle Roman territory and serve in Roman armies.66 However, as always, Procopius also offers contrasting assessments of barbarian motives. He does not suggest that all barbarians were insatiable mercenaries, ravenously seeking a slice of the Roman cake. He portrays some barbarians as motivated by feelings of group loyalty and cultural difference to spurn opportunities to acquire Roman wealth and status. These contrasting barbarian attitudes are apparent in Procopius’ discussions of the Heruls. These Germanic federates, settled in the vicinity of Singidunum, seem to have had an ambiguous cultural and political relationship with Constantinople.67 They are referred to as Arian Christians in some passages, rebelling in Africa in the mid-530s, for instance.68 In others, however, as we have seen, Procopius suggests that they were good, honest soldiers and Orthodox Christian converts. They had their own leaders, appointed by Justinian, and yet were settled within a Roman province and were required to defend the Balkan provinces and serve in Roman armies abroad whenever called upon. The Heruls’ ambivalent cultural and political situation came to a head in the mid-540s, when Procopius informs us of their rebellion and civil war.69 He recounts the decision of one faction of the Heruls to murder their leader, Ochus, to seek a new ruler from Herul kinsmen living beyond the empire in northern Europe, and, when threatened by Justinian’s armies, to flee the Balkan provinces and seek refuge with the Gepids in Pannonia. At the same time, Procopius tells us that another group of Heruls sought a replacement puppet ruler from Constantinople, supported the man sent to them by Justinian, Suartas, a Constantinopolitan Herul, and fought on the side of the Illyrian field army in its eventual annihilation of their rebellious Herul kinsmen. Procopius typically provides no overt explanation for these actions, merely explaining them as the anarchic, irrational, and inconsistent behaviour typical of barbarian peoples. The Eruli, displaying their beastly and fanatical character against their own king, a man named Ochus, suddenly killed the man for no reason at all, laying against him no other charge than they wished to be without a king thereafter. (Procop., Goth. 6.14.38) However, taking together all of Procopius’ material on the Heruls, we are given the impression that the settlement of Roman territory by, and cultural integration of, this barbarian group divided them from, as much as it linked them to, the classically educated elites commentating upon this process in the capital. While some barbarians were happy to bend the knee to Justinian and to serve the imperial armies with pride, others were less happy Copyright Material – Provided by Taylor & Francis 232 Alexander Sarantis to put aside their religious and cultural beliefs and political independence, and preferred to seek their fortunes outside of the empire, even if they had to be subjects of the Gepids, a group with a similar religious and cultural background.70 While this barbarian “other way” could be read as a criticism of Justinian’s attempts at imposing uniformity of belief throughout the empire, and possibly as a criticism of the empire in general, it also demonstrates the belief that barbarians could be motivated by feelings of independence and group loyalty.71 This opinion could well be based on the barbarian sources of information Procopius had access to. He had, after all, served alongside Heruls in all of Belisarius’ campaigns of the 520s and 530s. It was not necessarily the case that barbarians like these completely forgot about their culture and ethnic identities just because they were serving in Roman armies.72 Whether groups or individuals swapped sides or remained loyal to barbarian groups or to the empire, Procopius, like most of our sources, continued to use their original ethnic labels when describing them. Ildiges, for instance, is regularly referred to by Procopius as a Lombard, irrespective of whom was he fighting for, while we are regularly reminded that Mundo was a barbarian and a Gepid, even though he had left the Gepids more than forty years earlier.73 Therefore, ethnic identity and political loyalty are not necessarily the same thing, as is sometimes implied by modern historians of early medieval barbarians.74 The latter could be extremely fluid, the former static. Further, political stratification was not a prerequisite for ethnogenesis. Just because the Slavic groups were politically decentralised does not mean that they had no ethnic identity, which seems to be the suggestion of some scholars on the subject.75 Only when an individual or group had been settled in Roman territory for a few generations did they begin to acquire Roman or regional identities, but even then, as in the case of the Roman Gothic general Bessas, they often retained their original ethnic label, too. Conclusions While exploring contemporary biases, narrative agendas, and contexts is undoubtedly critical in early medieval source analysis, we should not lose sight of the fact that we are reading historical works, written for posterity, which also provide an invaluable insight into contemporary historical events and individuals. Late antique narrative histories were founded on both the biases and narrative strategies of their authors and their oral and written sources and historical methods. Discussions of narrative discourses and literary ploys un-ballasted by an appreciation of the historicity of the texts invariably rely to a greater extent upon the subjective views of modern scholars than they do the contents of the texts themselves. They also tend to envisage that a text has one overarching narrative strategy and to interpret all of its information accordingly. While it might be comforting to assume that Late Roman or early medieval histories were written with one Copyright Material – Provided by Taylor & Francis Roman or barbarian? 233 coherent narrative aim, smoothing over inconsistencies and contradictions, this obscures the sophistication of these texts and the fact that their authors were often interested in the complexity of what was happening in the world around them. So, rather than using his classicising rhetoric and biases as an excuse to dismiss Procopius’ testimony on barbarians in the Balkans and the northern world as merely part of a senatorial anti-Justinianic narrative agenda, we need to look for and understand contradictory messages and alternative viewpoints in his Wars, which tend to be hidden away from its main narrative thrust. These should not merely be reconciled with what we might think was Procopius’ consistent world view. Instead, these diverse interpretative strands are examples of Procopius’ own ambivalence regarding certain issues and interest in different perspectives.76 We also need to bear in mind that he was writing for different audiences, not only classically trained elites, potentially opposing elements of Justinian’s regime, but also officer classes from places like the Balkans, who were more sympathetic to what Justinian was trying to do and who may have provided Procopius with much of his information. Procopius does not, therefore, uniformly present barbarians in typically negative classicising terms—they are also shown as subject to the same choices regarding cultural identity and political loyalty as Roman officers in the region, many of whom were from similar backgrounds. In some cases, group loyalties and cultural affiliations were strong factors; in others, purely mercenary interest in money and political power mattered more. Justinian had a similar desire to tap into the wealth and manpower resources of the northern world and also wanted to culturally integrate its peoples. He thus had to play by the same military and diplomatic rules as barbarian groups, sending armies to raid barbarian lands and engage in cat-and-mouse attrition warfare in the remotest corners of the Balkan Peninsula, and conduct divide and rule diplomacy. Procopius’ job was to reconcile the tension between the realities of politics and identity in the Balkans and the northern world, and his genre and world view, a job he did much better than he has been given credit for. Notes 1 Geary 1983; Pohl 1997; Pohl and Reimitz 1998; Goetz, Jarnut and Pohl 2003; Pohl Gantner and Payner 2012; Garipzanov, Geary and Urbańczyk 2008. 2 See, for example, papers by Bowlus, Goffart and Kulikowski in Gillett 2002; or Goffart 2006. 3 Goffart 1988 was the pioneer of this approach to what had previously been considered “barbarian” histories based on barbarian oral histories and traditions, such as Jordanes’ Getica. For the argument that Procopius’ work is imbued with a neo-Platonic narrative agenda, see Kaldellis 2004a. On the usage and meaning of classical allusions in Procopius, see Pazdernik 2000 and 2006. For a literary critical analysis of Procopius’ Buildings, see Elsner 2007 and Turquois 2013. Copyright Material – Provided by Taylor & Francis 234 Alexander Sarantis 4 Which is itself a subjective matter: whether Jordanes was a descendant of Goths and Alans and experienced in Roman-barbarian Balkan affairs and heavily reliant on Cassiodorus’ Gothic history, or was a Latin-speaking Byzantine mostly reliant on Roman historians depends on who you read: see Merrills 2005 101–15 for a summary of the various positions. 5 On Romans authors’ confusion regarding the Slavic world, see Curta 2001, 346–50 and 1999. 6 Goffart 1988, 15 refers disparagingly to this as mining texts for their ore, while Kaldellis 2004a 5–7 takes a similarly dim view of those endeavouring to separate Procopius’ rhetoric from historical facts. By contrast, for modern historians of Justinian who meticulously analyse Procopius’ text in combination with other sources in an attempt to piece together historical events, see, for example, Greatrex 1998a, Colvin 2013 and Lillington-Martin 2013. Cameron 1985 and Kouroumali 2006 strike a nice balance, appreciating the literary quality of Procopius’ work without losing sight of its historicity and underlying sources. 7 Overviews of 4th to 5th c. Gothic history: Heather 1991 and 2007. The Huns: Thompson 1996; Kelly 2008. Impact of the Huns and Goths on the Balkans: Poulter 1992, 2007b, 2007c and 2013. 8 Western Illyricum remained outside of imperial control: Eadie 1982; Caldwell 2012, 100–102; Christie 1992, 322–29 and 2007, 552–63. Dalmatia was only recovered from the Goths in 535–36: Wilkes 1969, 426. 9 Anastasius’ Balkan policy: Haarer 2006, 104–15. Justinian’s Balkan policy: Sarantis 2013 and 2015. 10 4th c. Balkan villas: Mulvin 2002 and 2004. 11 Poulter 2007a; Ćurčić 2010. 12 Balkan military elites: Croke 2001, 78–102; Whately 2013a 75–76 and 2013b; Amory 1997, 278–91. 13 Sarantis 2016. 14 Procop. Pers 2.4.6–12 (Hun raid of 539), Vand. 6.14–15 (Herul excursus), Goth. 7.13.22–26 (Sklaveni raid of 545), 7.14 (Sklaveni and Antae excursus), 7.33–34, 35.12–30, 38, 40.1–8 and 30–45, and 8.5, 18–19, 21.21–22, 25.1–15 and 27 (Sklaveni raids, Gepid-Lombard crises and Kutrigur-Utigur diplomacy, A.D. 548–52). 15 Sarantis 2016, 233–40. 16 Kaldellis 2004–2005, 214–15 highlights Procopius’ accusation in the Secret History that the emperor turned a blind eye to barbarian invasions of the Balkans so that he might recruit barbarian manpower. 17 Similarities between criticism of Justinian in the Secret History and the Wars: Kaldellis 2004a; Greatrex 2014a, 97–98; Cameron 1985, 50–57. Similarities between Balkan passages in both works: Shlosser 2003, 80. 18 Karagiorgou 2001, 43–50. Possible alternative route around the Greek coastline: Cherf 2011, 77–78. 19 Curta 2001, ch. 7. 20 Thucydides: Rood 1988; Hornblower 1991–96. 21 Classical historical portrayal of warfare as a matter of honour, courage, and glory: Whitby 2007; Whately 2009. 22 Nika revolt: Bury 1897; Greatrex 1997. Aristocratic opposition to Justinian and his regime: Bell 2013, 319–24; Alchermes 2005, 364–65; Greatrex 1996, 127–28 and 139; Kaldellis 2004a. 23 Procop. Anec. 13–14, 18–19. 24 Ibid. 14.2. 25 Kaldellis 2004–2005 stresses Procopius’ criticism of Justinian’s appeasement of barbarians and barbarisation of the army. Curta 2001, 83 on Procopius’ use of the tale of the Antae impersonator of the Roman general Chilbudius to criticise Copyright Material – Provided by Taylor & Francis Roman or barbarian? 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 235 Justinian’s decision to agree to an alliance with the Antae, whose new leader was an imposter and raider of the Balkans. Sarantis 2013, 764–76 and 2015. For an excellent analysis of the possible campaign reports used by Procopius in his accounts of the Lazica war, see Colvin 2013. The probability that Procopius worked up his earlier narratives from memoirs: Cameron 1985, 13. Colvin 2013. See Sarantis 2016, chapters 1, 3 and 4 for detailed accounts of Balkan warfare and diplomacy during the reign of Justinian. Such accounts of Roman military successes against barbarians contradict Procopius’ clear suggestion in the Secret History (Procop., Anec. 21.26) that Justinian instructed Roman generals not to attack Huns in the Balkans so that they might be recruited to Roman armies. Kaldellis 2004–2005, 213 seems to accept Procopius’ allegation. Cameron 1985, 84–85; Curta 2001, 152; Whitby 1988, 72–80 and 2000, 718–19. Sarantis 2013, 777–95. On the effectiveness of Justinian’s Balkan diplomacy contrary to Procopius’ criticisms: Patoura 1997; Wozniak 1979; and Syrbe 2012. Thompson 1996, 174–76; Kazanski 2013 36–37; Jin Kim 2013 131–34. Late Roman authors’ tendency to fabricate links between contemporary barbarian groups and the past, using ancient ethnography and barbarian oral histories and myths: Merrills 2005, 100–69; Heather 1989; Liebeschuetz 2011; Curta 1999; and Kaldellis 2013b, 5. Procop. Goth. 8.5.1–23. Procop. Vand. 3.2.1–6 (on the Getae), Goth. 7.14.27 (on the Sklaveni and Antae), and Pers. 1.3.3–5 (on the Huns). Strategikon 11.2–4 makes similar distinctions. Goffart 2006, 205. Curta 2008, 167 argues that Procopius’ passages on these groups all use standardised, classicising descriptions of barbarians. Even though this is undoubtedly the case, Procopius refers only to the Huns as nomadic and only to the Getae as speaking “Gothic” and practising Arian Christianity. This is not to say that there were no nomadic Goths or Arian Huns, but these ethnic traits generally corresponded to the groups in question according to Roman observers. The Sklaveni and the Antae are trickier cases, given their lack of centralised political elites. For the argument that these groups were externally named by the Romans: Curta 2001, 344–47 and 349–50. Jin Kim 2013, 138 argues that contemporary Roman authors were well acquainted with geopolitics north and east of the Black Sea, even if this is disguised by their use of classicising language. Procop. Goth. 7.35.12–17. Ibid. 7.35.19 (Gepid alliance), 7.35.22 (service in Italy) and 8.27.3 (count of the scholarii). Ibid. 8.27.21–29. Ibid. 7.35.22. Ibid. 7.38.1–3 on the raid by 3,000 Sklaveni in 549/50. Ibid. 5.16.2 (Bessas), 6.5.1 (John, nephew of Vitalian), Pers. 1.24.40–42 (Mundo). Croke 1982; Martindale 1992, 903–906. Malalas 18.46. Procop. Goth. 5.7.5–7. Procop. Pers. 1.24.41 (on Mundo’s arrival in Constantinople during the Nika riot accompanied by a force of Heruls). On the Heruls’ service under various Roman generals, including Mundo: Sarantis 2010, 379 and 390. Procop. Goth. 8.25.11, 13–14. Copyright Material – Provided by Taylor & Francis 236 Alexander Sarantis 52 Barbarian leaders moving between barbaricum, the successor states in the West and the East Roman army in the 6th c.: Greatrex 2000 and forthcoming; Pohl 2005. 53 On the tale of the fake Chilbudius, mentioning Antae and Roman prisoners: Procop. Goth. 7.14.7–22. On the Romans’ capture of barbarian prisoners during raids north of the Danube between A.D. 531–34: Procop. Goth. 7.14.3. On the Huns’ capture of prisoners from the Balkans in 539: Procop. Pers. 2.4.6. On the importance of manpower as a goal of cross border raiding in Late Antiquity: Lenski 2008 and 2011. 54 Roman attitudes towards barbarians: Maas 1995 and 2012, 61–70; Ladner 1976; Wood 2011; Halsall 2007, 45–57; Kaldellis 2013b, 19–21; and Greatrex forthcoming. 55 Procop. Goth. 7.14.28, 1.3.4–5 and 6.14.36. 56 Sarantis 2009. 57 Strategikon 11.4 describes the Slavs living in basic dwellings, laid out along river banks and surrounded by impenetrable forests and marshes. 58 Curta 2001, 276–85; Barford 2001, 47–52; Măgureanu and Szmoniewski (2003); Teodor (2005); Shlosser (2003) 77; and Heather (2009) 421. 59 Procop. Goth. 7.14.22. Curta 2001, 325–34 makes the point that we only start to hear of Sklaveni leaders’ titles and names towards the end of the 6th century, evidence of a greater degree of political stratification by this stage. 60 Procop. Goth. 6.14.34–35. Greatrex forthcoming suggests that Procopius’ contrasting descriptions of barbarian groups may reflect his changing views on them as they became better known and understood by Roman contemporaries. 61 Procop. Goth. 8.27.10 and 8.19.15–16. 62 Audiences of 6th c. classicising historians: Rapp (2005) 379; Croke (2010) 29–32. 63 Maas (2012), esp. 67–68 on Christianity, conversion and changing Roman attitudes towards barbarians in Late Antiquity. Tension between the cultural and political realities of the 6th century East Roman empire and the outlook of Procopius’ genre and class is an important theme of Cameron 1985, especially chapter 14. 64 Procop. Goth. 7.34.24. 65 Malalas 18.6 (Herul king Grepes); 66 On the Romans’ exploitation of this political situation in the 6th c.: Sarantis 2016; Syrbe 2012. On similar trends in the 4th century: Heather 2001 and 2010. 67 Heruls: Steinacher 2010; Sarantis 2010. 68 Procop. Vand. 4.14.11–12. 69 Procop. Goth. 6.14.37–42, 15.29–36 and 7.34.42–47. 70 Some have questioned the veracity of Procopius’ narrative on the Herul civil war on the basis of its inclusion of an ethnographic digression on the mysterious island of Thule, from which the rebellious Heruls acquired their leaders according to Procopius: Goffart 1988, 95; Steinacher 2010, 356–59; and Ellegård 1987. For a more positive take on the Thule story: Sarantis 2016, 43–45 and 258; Heather 2009, 242–43; Halsall 2007, 421; and Schmidt 1941, 548–53. 71 Wood 2011, 438–46 discusses Procopius’ portrayal of the defeated and fugitive Vandal king Gelimer facing the choice between wealth and status but servitude within Justinian’s empire, or austerity but freedom outside of it. The Heruls were in a different predicament to the Vandal king Gelimer, insofar as they faced a choice between subservience to the empire and subservience to another barbarian group, the Gepids. 72 Goffart 1988, 43, makes the point that very few Goths, even those serving the East Roman empire, renounced their Arian Christian faith and culture. 73 Procop. Goth. 8.27.1 (Ildiges the Lombard in Roman service), 5.5.2 (Mundo the barbarian general of Illyricum). Malalas 18.46 on Mundo the Gepid in A.D. 529. Copyright Material – Provided by Taylor & Francis Roman or barbarian? 237 74 Modern early medieval historians often emphasise instrumental ethnicity; the fact that ethnicity was malleable and changed according to political circumstances, i.e., people changed political groups and, hence, ethnicity: Geary 1983; Halsall 2007, 516: “a political identity based on the wielders of armed authority.” 75 According to Curta 2001, 247–75, signs of Slavic ethnogenesis in the later 6th century include the appearance of a variety of titles and names of Slavic leaders in Roman sources and archaeological evidence of Slavic elites enforcing group solidarity through the use of status markers such as bow fibulae. But are these not signs of political and social stratification more than of ethnogenesis? 76 Procopius’ choice of different genres to express different perspectives on Justinian’s reign: Cameron 1985, especially chapter 13.