Accounts of Attila :: Rome History Attila Essays

Accounts of AttilaWorks Cited MissingIn Priscus 449 calculate, 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 Anonyomus Account to describe Attila. That is, Attila is not picture as a uncivilised barbarian warlord or a savage pagan rather, he is depicted as a leader who is familiar with Roman customs, in self-command of luxuries comparable to those of Rome, and skilled at political intrigue and manipulation. Priscus account is similar to Prospers account as it seems to be relatively clinical and merely explains the events that transpired (outside of Priscus 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 Priscus, 204). Additionally, Jordanes account is similar to the Anonyomus Acco unt because they are both subjective (i.e., Jordanes depicts Attila favorably sequence he is apparently held in ill favor by the root of the Anonyomus Account). Moreover, all four sources have one theme in common Attila was perceived to be a legitimate threat to Rome. Attilas manipulation of the Roman embassies in the beginning of Priscus account shows that Attila was not unnerved 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 take on that, his own subjects were generals of Theodosius and that his own generals were of equal worth to the Emperors of Rome ( Priscus, 206). Thus implying that he believed he was superior to the Emperor. In addition, Attila was so bold as to assume Ambassadors with higher ranks (Priscu s, 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 mesh as evidenced by Jordanes description of his participation in the fight on the Catalaunian Plains (Jordanes, 101-104).