Accounts of Attila :: Rome History Attila Essays

accountings of AttilaWorks Cited MissingIn Priscus 449 account, Attila behaves as a leader who does not moreover rival the Roman emperor moth, but is in occurrence superior to the Emperor. Furthermore, he exhibits both Roman and groundless traits. In addition, Priscus does not use the same vocabulary as utilized in the Anonyomus business relationship to describe Attila. That is, Attila is not depicted as a brutal barbarian warlord or a savage pagan rather, he is depicted as a leader who is familiar with Roman customs, in possession of luxuries corresponding to those of Rome, and skilled at political intrigue and manipulation. Priscus account is analogous to wins account as it seems to be relatively objective and merely explains the events that transpired (outside of Priscus obvious bias, as he was a civil servant and championed the publicity of the Roman systems of law, taxation, and self defense to the Greek Scythian Priscus, 204). Additionally, Jordanes account is si milar to the Anonyomus Account because they are both subjective (i.e., Jordanes depicts Attila favorably while he is apparently held in ill favor by the author of the Anonyomus Account). Moreover, all four sources have one theme in parkland Attila was perceived to be a legitimate threat to Rome. Attilas intercession of the Roman embassies in the beginning of Priscus account shows that Attila was not afraid to finesse 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 kn consume to claim 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 demand Ambassador s with higher(prenominal) ranks (Priscus, 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 battle as evidenced by Jordanes description of his participation in the battle on the Catalaunian Plains (Jordanes, 101-104).