Carthage: Challenger to Rome

There was a time when it was a toss-up as to which burgeoning empire would dominate the shores of the Mediterranean – that of Rome or Carthage. The latter had a head start, being the one of the largest and most long-lived ancient empires before Rome really got going.

Carthage, a port on the coast of what is now Tunisia in North Africa, had the advantage of two excellent harbours and superb shipbuilding and sailing skills that gave the city-state dominance over the whole African coast from Morocco to the border with Egypt, plus most of the islands of the western Mediterranean.

This dominance began in the 6th century BC and was aided by victories over the Greek empire during conflicts that lasted for around 200 years. However, the struggles with Rome turned out to be more difficult from Carthage’s point of view. The Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage happened in three phases between 264 and 146 BC, the final date marking the eventual triumph of Rome.

When Carthage fell, the population was sold into slavery and the city razed to the ground. Carthage therefore ceased to exist.

However, in the first century AD Emperor Augustus founded the city of Colonia Julia Carthago on the ruins of ancient Carthage, and the new city became extremely prosperous and wealthy, just as the old one had done.

The new Carthage fell victim firstly to the Vandals in 439 and then the Arabs in 637, after which it was once again destroyed. It is the ruins of this second city that can be seen today.

There would never be a third Carthage and no need for one after the emergence of the city of Tunis not far away.

The site of ancient Carthage, where ruins including those of the Antonine Baths can be seen, has been a UNESCO World Heritage Site since 1979.

© John Welford

A dinner with Attila the Hun

Priscus, a 5^th century Romano-Greek diplomat, wrote an account of meeting Attila the Hun that conveys a different impression from the generally accepted view of a bloodthirsty tyrant who brought the Roman Empire to its knees. 

Priscus and Attila

The name Attila the Hun usually conjures up an image of a savage barbarian from central Europe who swept across the Roman Empire during its dying days, leaving death and destruction in his wake. It certainly suited Roman commentators to paint him in the worst possible light, given that he posed a credible threat to the civilised way of life that high-born Romans were used to, but were the unflattering accounts of Attila justified?

One account that gave a somewhat different impression of Attila was that of Priscus, a Greek who lived in the Eastern Roman Empire during the 5^th century (his dates are uncertain, but were probably around 415-475 AD). He was a diplomat, a historian and a philosopher. In the year 448 he and another diplomat, Maximin, were sent by Emperor Theodosius II, based in Constantinople, to negotiate with Attila at his palace in Scythia (present-day Hungary). It appears that Maximin did most of the talking, leaving Priscus free to satisfy his curiosity about this race of people called the Huns who were causing so much trouble to Rome.

Priscus was clearly prepared to be open-minded, despite the evidence that Attila could be a brutal tyrant. He had, for example, had a gold dealer called Constantius crucified in a dispute over a consignment of gold dishes. He was now making similar threats against a dealer in silver plate, and this was one of the reasons for the attempt at diplomacy by Maximin and Priscus.

Attila, who came from nomadic stock, was used to moving around and did not stay long in one place, being the owner of many houses scattered throughout his empire. When Maximin and Priscus arrived in Scythian territory they learned that Attila had moved north, so they had no choice but to follow in his footsteps. When they reached the palace where he was they were surprised to be warmly received and were invited to join Attila and his family for dinner.

Dinner with Attila

Priscus wrote of his surprise at the accommodation that Attila enjoyed. The palace was more like a villa than a castle, and the wooden enclosure that surrounded it was “not so much for protection as for the sake of appearance”. 

The dinner was not being held in honour of the Roman delegation, but they were welcomed and treated with every politeness, although placed at the second level of precedence among the guests. 

Attila reclined on a couch at the head of the room, with family members and guests arrayed on either side. He dressed simply and without wearing any sort of adornment, unlike some of the Scythians who proudly displayed their gold and gems.

The various courses were served according to a fixed ritual, with wine being drunk in the form of toasts to Attila and by Attila to his guests, again according to an order of precedence.

Priscus noted that the guests had silver plates and golden goblets, but Attila only ate and drank from wooden plates and cups. Likewise, although the food on offer was both plentiful and varied, Attila ate nothing but meat. 

After the meal was over there was entertainment in the form of songs and a comic act at which the Scythian guests laughed uproariously but which did not produce as much as a smile on the face of Attila. However, when his youngest son came into the room and sat next to his father, Attila paid him considerable attention and was clearly pleased to have him there.

An open-minded account

A modern reader might get the impression from this account that Attila was cold and emotionless, and therefore somewhat sinister. This does not appear to be how Priscus regarded him, in that his behaviour at the banquet was precisely what might be expected from a refined and high-born Roman or Greek. Priscus was clearly impressed by Attila’s modesty and restraint, which he was happy to record for the benefit of people back home who had previously preferred to believe other accounts.

It is always possible that the behaviour observed by Priscus was the result of Attila deliberately trying to copy Roman customs and manners. He was aware that the Roman Empire, even at this late stage, represented the highest ideals of civilized living and he sought to model his life on the standards that he had observed. Whatever the reason for Attila’s cultured and mannered treatment of his guests, he succeeded in impressing Priscus, whose account is admiring without being overblown. That said, Priscus was never in any doubt that Attila was a dangerous man with ambitions that did not bode well for the future of what was left of the Roman Empire.

© John Welford

Kniva, King of the Goths

Kniva was a King of the Goths during the 3^rd century AD who led his people in an invasion of the Roman Empire and had considerable success while so doing.

In 249 he led a massive force of warriors that appeared at the River Danube frontier of the Empire. One column of men ravaged the province of Dacia while Kniva led another into Moesia. He split this force into two, one of which laid siege to Philippopolis and the other, 70,000 strong, assaulted the legionary fortress and town of Novae in what is now northern Bulgaria.

The Roman general Trebonianus Gallus (who later became Emperor) was able to deflect this assault, which persuaded Kniva to try his luck elsewhere. He therefore turned his attention to Nicopolis, which was further south. This move attracted the attention of Emperor Decius who, accompanied by his son Herennius, promptly led an army towards the Danube. Kniva’s force suffered a resounding defeat at Nicopolis and he had no choice but to retreat over the Haemus Mountains and seek to rejoin his troops at Philippopolis.

Kniva was then able to turn the tables on Decius by launching a surprise attack at the small town of Beroca on the edge of the Haemus Mountains. The Roman legions fled in disarray and Kniva was able to press on towards Philippopolis.

Kniva was now helped by the Roman governor of Thrace, T Julius Priscus, who had imperial ambitions of his own and thought he saw a way of getting the better of Decius. However, his assistance to Kniva in the capture of Philippopolis was not rewarded – he was among the thousands of victims of the bloodbath that ensued as Kniva pillaged the cities of Thrace.

By the spring of 251 Decius was ready to launch a further campaign against Kniva. Things went well at first for the Romans, but Kniva set a trap for Decius at Abrittus, midway between the Danube and the Black Sea, in June 251. The ensuing battle was a total victory for the Goths and both Decius and his son were killed.

Kniva was now able to negotiate terms with the new emperor, Trebonianus Gallus, that were highly favourable to the Goths. They were now firmly established in the Black Sea provinces and were able, in 253, to demand more payments of tribute to prevent them from making further intrusions into the empire.

The eventual fate of Kniva has never been made clear, although one can probably assume that he ended his days comfortably enough after leading his people into a corner of the Roman Empire from which they would be hard to shift. 

© John Welford