Between the old Rome and the new 245

Meaghan McEvoy University of Adelaide

Between the old Rome and the new: imperial co-operation ca. 400-500 CE

Introduction Traditional scholarship on the fifth century once viewed it as a period of decisive separation, not only between the two halves of a previously whole empire, but also between eastern and western emperors, seen as ‘hostilely indifferent’ to one another’s fortunes, especially in the case of the prospering east towards the beleaguered west.1 Although the unity of the empire continued to be proclaimed on coinage and imperial documents down to the 470s, the traditional line has been that there was little to this other than an ideological gloss, and that the east was in general unconcerned about the disasters besetting the west and made little effort to provide genuine assistance.2 This view has been challenged, and rightly so, by the more considered studies of Jones, Kaegi, and more recently by Gillett, among others, emphasising the frequent instances of cooperation between eastern and western courts in the fifth century under the Theodosian emperors, and especially their joint military campaigns.3 This paper aims to add further to this picture however: for when closely examined, the sources reveal considerable evidence for substantial eastern commitments to the west in fifth century beyond the Theodosian period, highlighting that eastern concern for its west Roman neighbour was in fact a continuous feature of their relationship right down to the 470s, and that the aid provided, although frequently military, often extended into other areas as well.4 The issue of imperial cooperation or hostile indifference between east and west Roman realms in the fifth century is of particular significance to a study of ‘Byzantium and its neighbours’, in terms of thinking of Byzantium both as empire and as city. The question arises: did the western Roman empire of the fifth century constitute a neighbour, a partner, or simply

1 I am very grateful to Paul Tuffin, Jan Willem Drijvers, Caillan Davenport and Hartmut Leppin for their careful reading of this paper and corrections and suggestions made: all errors remain my own. 2 E.g. Demougeot 1951; Goffart 1981; Blockley 1992. 3 Jones 1964; Kaegi 1968; Gillett 1993. For a general summary of the views of modern scholarship on eastern attitudes to western disintegration, see Kaegi 1968, 11-13. 4 Heather describes the east’s efforts to aid the west in the fifth century as “perfectly respectable”: Heather 2005, 385. 246 Meaghan McEvoy another part of the great whole of a still ‘Roman’ world?5 Furthermore, did a ‘neighbour’ to Byzantium denote only those groups who were beyond Roman frontiers, or should we interpret the term as encompassing non-Roman subject peoples within those frontiers also? At what point did ‘barbarian’ peoples moving onto former Roman territory in Gaul, Spain and North Africa become ‘neighbours’ to the Byzantine empire? Amidst the turmoil of the late fifth century it can be difficult to discern at what point fledgling successor kingdoms in the west came to be viewed as official neighbours rather than temporary illegal settlers to be removed when enough resources could be spared for the task – the Vandals in North Africa represent a particularly complicated example of such a scenario. Undeniably by the 420s the balance of power between east and west had tilted decisively towards the east as the more able and prosperous region, and it is noteworthy that discussion of relations between the two realms invariably approaches the issue from the point of view of the attitude of east to west, rather than vice versa: but certainly the west Roman empire could look for real assistance to no one else, while its depleted finances and military offered little in the way of disposable resources to offer the east at this point.6 The essentially arbitrary nature of 476 as the moment of the ‘fall’ of the western imperial government adds a further layer of complexity to this picture: as demonstrated by Croke, it is unlikely the longer-term significance of events of 476 were apparent to contemporaries in either the eastern or western Roman empire, and it is only in eastern sources of the sixth century that the suggestion of the deposition of Romulus Augustulus as a pivotal moment begins to appear.7 One of the main aims of this paper is to demonstrate that, while the eastern and western Roman governments were undeniably separated in their political, administrative, military and economic structures from 395 onwards (or even earlier), a considerable degree of close neighbourly cooperation continued.8 Roman imperial ideology played a key role in the advertisement of this cooperation, through widely circulated media such as coinage, legislation, panegyrics and distributed imperial images, media which modern studies have highlighted as crucial to many imperial cultures through the centuries in the dissemination of imperial ideals and achievements of rule.9

5 As Blockley has pointed out, already in the fifth century eastern sources, though calling themselves ‘east Romans’, begin to refer to their neighbouring Romans as ‘westerners’, ‘Italians’ and ‘Gauls’, among other names: Blockley 1992, 46-47. 6 Kaegi 1968, 16. 7 Croke 1983, esp. 114-15. 8 As Millar observes, though “real and significant” commitment to the unity of the empire remained, the reality was of “twin empires”: Millar 2006, 3. Jones similarly writes of the relationship between the eastern and western Roman empires of the fifth century as essentially a traditional alliance of two sovereigns of largely independent kingdoms: Jones 1964, 1.325. 9 E.g. Burbank & Cooper 2010; Scheidel 2009; Chase-Dunn & Hall 1997; Haldon & Goldstone 2009; Haldon 2012, 1111-47; Mutschler & Mittag 2008.