CHAPTER 2

Introduction

In this chapter we are presented with a double digression, i.e. there are two ethnographical characterizations of the Huns and the Alans respec- tively. The reason is, that Ammianus mentions the nomadic Huns and Alans several times together in Book 31. Ethnographical accounts are a familiar feature in the Res Gestae, although mostly in the context of geographical digressions, for instance those on the Gauls (15.12), the Egyptians (22.16.23) and the Persians (23.6.75–84). This excursus, like the one about the Saracens (14.4), stands on its own, probably because these nomadic or pastoralist peo- ples did not live within a well de ned geographical area. The digression is placed at a dramatic point in the narrative, between the omina predicting disaster in chapter one, and the account of the military confrontations with the Goths in chapter three. The Huns are considered to be the prime cause of the disasters that befell the Roman Empire; Ammianus calls their inva- sion of the territories of Alans and Goths sementem totius exitii and cladum diversarum originem in the opening paragraph of the chapter. Considering this observation, it is noteworthy that Ammianus hardly refers to the Huns in the rest of the book. The sections 2–11 present a characterization of the Huns, and the sections 17–25 are about the Alans. The sections in between (12–16) function as a transition between the descriptions of the two peoples, and ofer Ammianus the opportunity to present the vast geographical area of Scythia, where Huns and Alans are supposed to have had their domicile before they migrated westwards. The following features of the Huns pass in review: physical appearance (§2); food (§3); housing (§4); dress (§5–6); living on horseback (§6–7); lack of established authority (§7);  ghting habits (§8–9); lack of agricul- ture (§10); faithlessness and unreliability, no reverence for religion (§11); thirst for gold and an insatiable appetite for plundering (§11–12). Ammi- anus portrays the Huns as a subhuman mass—the beast metaphor is very prominent—and Hunnic society as the absolute opposite of Graeco-Roman civilization. Early in the 370s the Huns appeared on the scene quite suddenly. They seem to have been practically unknown to the Romans, as Ammianus’ 12 commentary remark Hunorum gens monumentis veteribus leviter nota (§1) shows. They originated from a remote corner of the earth (ex abdito sinu coortum, 31.3.8) beyond the Sea of Asov close to the frozen ocean (§2 ultra paludes Maeoticas glacialem oceanum accolens). Neither Ammianus, nor any other source, explains their trek to the west. Ammianus’ sources of information regarding the digression are unknown, but Gothic oral data have been suggested. The excursus stands in a long tradition of ethnographical discourse in the ancient world, and Ammianus used that tradition and earlier templates about nomadic peoples for writing his account of the Huns and the Alans as well. He also used material from ethnographical descriptions in the earlier books of his Res Gestae, in particular that about the Saracens (14.4). Ammianus’ account about the Alans, the former Massagetae (§12), whom he calls Nomades (§17) in Greek, is the only preserved ethnography of this tribe. Alani is a generic name for various nations (§16 difusi per populosas gentes et amplas) living in the steppes of Europe and Asia (§13, and 17 per utramque mundi plagam). Although the Huns are excessively savage, the Alans resemble them in many respects: they live in wagons and do not practice agriculture but live of the land and eat meat; they are glued to their horses, and dislike going on foot. There are also difer- ences: the Alans have cattle, practice some form of religion and have a rudimentary political organization. Unlike the Huns, the Alans were known to the Romans; they already occur in  rst-century sources which Ammi- anus may have known, as appears from his reference to earlier works of geographers in §12. Nevertheless, in his Alanic account he also makes use of earlier ethnographical writings about nomadic peoples. The portrayal of the Alans has a clear Herodotean imprint; in particular the paragraphs that separate the Hunnic account from the description of the Alans are inspired by Herodotus’ digression on Scythia and the peoples living there, in Book 4 of his Histories. Many of these peoples are also mentioned by Ammianus: Sauromatae, Nervii, Vidini, Geloni, Agathyrsi, Melanchlaenae, Anthropophagi. It is clear that Ammianus had very little factual knowledge about Huns and Alans. In accordance with traditional ethnographical writing, he dis- plays a culturally determined attitude by portraying the Huns and the Alans as very primitive and savage, and as the ultimate Other if set against Graeco- Roman civilization according to which the nomad is considered as the “ulti- mate barbaric human type” (Shaw, 1982/1983, 6). In portraying the Huns and Alans in the way he does, Ammianus presents ideas and images recogniz- able to his readers by committing himself to the ancient historiographical tradition of describing otherness.