Page 99 - Envoys and Political Communication in the Late Antique West 411 - 533

The provincial view of Hydatius

probably other rulers, indicate not a ‘diplomatic assault’ on the empire,
but the new king’s active pursuit of Gothic interests with each of the
major powers of the West.
The significant feature of Euric’s and Remismund’s embassies is that
in each case several missions were sent simultaneously. The multiple em-
bassies dispatched by Valentinian III provide a direct parallel to those
of Euric. Like Valentinian’s, Euric’s embassies were ad gentes, sentto a
wide range of friendly or hostile powers after a sudden change in rule.
The missions need not have been motivated by any single policy. Rather,
Euric pursued bilateral relations with several rulers concurrently. 150
To construe the embassies of 467 as partof a single plan by Euric is
to miss the significance of Hydatius’ evidence. The dispatch of simulta-
neous embassies by a ruler athis accession cannothave been uncommon.
Surrounded by many neighbours, all western rulers constantly needed to
sustain many relations at once. Like Valentinian III in 454, Euric showed
that, despite recent domestic upheavals, his realm would continue unin-
terruptedly to pursue its interests. But of the contemporary sources, only
Hydatius chose to record this variety of political practice.

a model of political communication in the
barbarian kingdoms
Hydatius’ sparse Chronicle presents the fullest picture we have of the
complex patterns of political communication in a western kingdom.
These patterns do not solely reflect the particular circumstances of Suevic

150 Cf. Gregory of Tours, Hist. ix, 1: the Gothic king Reccared, on succeeding his father Leuvigild
in 586, sends two separate embassies simultaneously to the Frankish kings Guntram and Childe-
bert II (they are received very differently). This is another example of a new king resuming his
predecessor’s simultaneous, bilateral ties (cf. Hist. ix, 16: Reccared sends one group of envoys
successively to Guntram and Childebert, their mission modified according to how they are re-
ceived by the former). Cf. also Priscus, Fr., 20 (Attila, on learning of the death of Theodosius II,
sends to Marcian to continue uninterrupted his demands for Roman tribute; Fr. Class. Hist.,
305).
The regular dispatch of embassies notifying neighbouring rulers of a new monarch’s accession,
perhaps customary between the eastern imperial court and Persia (E. Chrysos, ‘Byzantine Diplo-
macy, ad 300–800: Means and Ends’, in Shepard and Franklin (eds.), Byzantine Diplomacy, 31–3),
may have been practised by the western kings as well (e.g. Cass., Variae viii, 1; Procopius, Wars v,
4.11; Barnwell, ‘War and Peace’, 136–7). Even Roman–Persian accession embassies, however,
appear to have been largely pretexts for maintaining on-going negotiations, e.g. Priscus, Fr., 52;
Malalas, Chron. xviii, 34 with Roger Scott, ‘Diplomacy in the Sixth Century: The Evidence
of John Malalas’, in Shepard and Franklin (eds.), Byzantine Diplomacy, 160 (Justinian’s accession
embassy sent to Ctesiphon two years after he comes to power, indicating that the protocol need
not be taken too seriously); the accessions of the shahs Chosroes and Hormisdas did not interrupt
on-going negotiations with the Roman empire about a variety of issues (Procopius, Wars i, 21–2;
Menander Protector, Frag., 9.1, 23.9 Blockley).
73