Page 98 - Envoys and Political Communication in the Late Antique West 411 - 533

Envoys and Political Communication,411–533

Modern reconstructions of the events of 467 often mistakenly credit
Hydatius with omniscience concerning political relations throughout the
West. Hydatius describes a four-way traffic between Toulouse, Braga,
Carthage, and Rome; this traffic is explained as various combinations of
alliance and aggression between the parties mentioned. 147 ButHydatius
falls far short of being a ‘universal’ chronicler. In his description of the
embassies of 467, as elsewhere in the Chronicle, his view is restricted to
Gallaecia. He knows and describes only the effects of Euric’s actions on
the Suevic kingdom. There is no reason to believe that the diplomatic
flurry after Euric’s accession was restricted to the recipients recorded in
the Chronicle. Hydatius knew that Euric had sent embassies to the western
emperor and to the Vandals because it was to these powers that the Suevic
king also sentenvoys. Butitwould be odd if Euric, upon taking the Gothic
throne, communicated with the Sueves and Vandals to his south but not
with the Burgundians to his east, the independent Roman territories of
northern Gaul under Syagrius, the Bretons in Armorica, and even the
Frankish rulers. Hydatius’ account of these events shows the limits of his
provincial position.
The Gothic embassies to Rome and to the barbarian kingdoms need
nothave been related. The change of ruler atToulouse seems to have
been of no immediate concern to the imperial government, which con-
tinued with its existing plans for an assault on the Vandals. Gothic and
Suevic nervousness at the mustering of the imperial forces indicates that
neither kingdom felt secure from Rome. 148 The interchange of embassies
between the Goths and the Sueves merely continued attempts begun by
Theoderic II to intervene in the Sueves’ conflicts with the provincials
and to limit their attempts to expand. Euric ultimately chose to send
an armed force against the recalcitrant Sueves, as had his brother in 456
and 463. 149 Euric’s embassies to Anthemius, Remismund, Geiseric, and
147 For references: Gillett, ‘Accession of Euric’, 21–2 and n. 71, to which add Vallejo Girves,
‘Relaciones del reino visigodo’, 75. The ‘chass´ e-crois´ e d’ambassades’ is schematised by Tranoy
ii, 124.
148
Hyd., c. 240 [236]. Cf. Harries, Sidonius, 142.
149
In 466 Theoderic II had sent envoys to Remismund concerning the Suevic attacks on the plebs of
Aunonensis. Remismund spurned the envoys and sentthem back quickly: legati . . . spretique ab
eo [sc. Remismundo] mox redeunt; Table 1 no. 32. Cf. Remismund’s reception of Euric’s envoys the
following year: quibus [legatis] sine mora a Remismundo remissis, Table 1 no. 35 (Demougeot ii.2,
631: ‘Remismond . . . cong´ edia les ambassadeurs’). The Aunonian provincials sent representatives,
presumably to Euric; Table 1 no. 40. Despite the Gothic embassy, the Sueves continued their
assaults on the Gallaecians and tried to occupy Lusitania, pausing only in uncertainty over
Anthemius’ intentions. Euric responded by sending an army against the Sueves; Hyd., cc. 240,
245 [236, 239]. For parallel resorts to force by Theoderic II after the failure of negotiations:
above, atnn. 117 (456), 120 (463). There is no reason to think that Euric deviated from his
brother’s attitude to the Sueves. Both the Sueves and the Goths contacted the Vandals, probably
because of their potential for interference with the Gothic stronghold in Baetica.
72