For this post I'm being a
bit lazy - I'm copying and pasting some work I've done on Procopius and
Agathias. I've been thinking a bit more about the Agathias project,
largely because I seem to be all over the place at the moment. One day I
want to go one way, the other another. I seem to be back here with
Agathias this afternoon and evening. In part this is the result of some
thinking about doing a book about historiography in late antiquity - something
that goes beyond Rohrbacher (chronologically) and Treadgold (less
positivistic). Right now that
seems a crazy idea. Rather, I'm thinking I should shift some of the
ideas for that sort of project to Agathias: it could be an historical and
historiographical study. As regards the latter, however, his themes would
be important for what we have to say about the former.
In turn, this has me
thinking that I could frame the book on the theme of “Agathias and the Decline
and Fall of Justinian”. Agathias
is critical of Justinian. Agathias
himself deals with a small segment of Justinian’s reign (550s). It happens to be part of the negative
half of his reign, when things were going less than smoothly. What role did Agathias play, if any, in
the sense that the second half of Justinian’s rule was bad, both for the
emperor and everyone else involved?
Maybe it’s none, and he’s just reflecting what everyone is thinking,
though some years after the fact.
Anyway, this is something that might be worth considering, and before I
get into any grand study of war in the age of Justinian.
Getting to the excerpt,
here I explore one way that Agathias seems to be responding to the work of his
esteemed predecessor, Procopius, standard practice in ancient historiography,
of course.
Agathias names Procopius no
less than eight times in his History. In his first reference
Agathias notes that, “most of the events during the time of Justinian were
written down with precision afterwards by the rhetor Procopius of Caesarea”
(Agathias pr. 22). More praise comes in books two and four.[1] On the other hand, it is not all
positive, for a few chapters later praise surrounds hidden criticism (Agathias
4.26.4-6), with more to follow (Agathias 4.28.3, 4.30.5).
Agathias was, in all
likelihood, intimately familiar with Procopius. In some places he engages with Procopius quite explicitly,
though in other cases he is much more subtle. In Procopius’ description
of the Battle of Archaeopolis there are interesting episodes involving
rampaging elephants. Agathias follows a similar motif in his description
of the Siege of Onoguris: he replicates, expand upon, and conflates these
individual Procopian elephant episodes into one in his own History.
So, Agathias concentrates on one lone elephant, while Procopius describes
two. Yet, the context of the scenes in Procopius and Agathias are
prolonged sieges in Lazica, they do not mark a significant point in the narrative
in and of themselves, though they do follow an important stage, and they come
in the context of a charge on the part of one side. Agathias’ description
runs as follows:
…he
struck the elephant that was bearing down on him ferociously with his spear and
drove home the point, so that it was left dangling. The elephant found
the blow unbearable [ὁ δὲ πρός τε τὴν πληγὴν] and since it was brandishing the spear before its eye it was
horrified and so leapt backwards, and, whirling round [κραδαινομένου ἐκταραττόμενος ὑπεξήγετο] his trunk like an uncoiling spring,
struck many of the Persians and sent them headlong, now stretching it out as
long as it could go, and emitting a harsh and wild noise [τραχύν τινα καὶ ἄγριον ἦχον ἀφίει]. Suddenly he shook off those seated
on his back [τοὺς ὕπερθεν ἑστῶτας ἀποσεισάμενος], and having hurled them to the earth, he trampled them to death.
Then he struck fear into the whole mob of Persians, the horses reared up
[᾿αναχαιτίζων] when he approached them, and cut through and shredded whatever he came
across with his tusks. The scene was filled with lamentation and confusion”
(3.27.1-3).
The Procopian passages in
question are:
Then it
happened that one of the elephants because it was struck [πληγέντα], as some say, or because it suddenly became
much distressed [ἢ ἀπὸ ταὐτομάτου ξυνταραχθέντα], wheeled round [περιστρέφεσθαί] in disorder and reared up, throwing off those mounted on its
back [καὶ ἀναχαιτίζειν,
καὶ τοὺς μὲν ἐπιβάτας ῥίπτειν] and broke up the line of the others” (Wars 8.14.32); “one of
the elephants, mounted by a great crowd of the most warlike men among the
Persians, came quite close to the fortifications such that it was likely that,
in a short while, it would overpower those defending themselves from on top of
the tower there, since a great number of missiles were falling from above, and
take the city. For it seemed that it was some sort of machine, even a
helepolis. But the Romans, having hung a young pig from the tower,
escaped this danger. For, as is to be expected while it was suspended
there, the porker let loose some cry, and having been grieved by this
[κραυγμὸν γὰρ
τινα...ἠφὶει, ὃνπερ ὁ ἐλέφας ἀχθόμενος ἀνεχαίτιζε] the elephant reared up and started to step back little by
little and withdrew to the rear [κατἀ βραχὺ ἀναποδίζων ὀπίσω ἐχώρει]” (Wars 8.14.35-37).
Although Agathias’ episode
is much more detailed, as we would expect given the later historian’s
proclivities, there are, unsurprisingly, more than a few points of contact
between the two respective texts, which I have highlighted. Agathias,
then, was not only continuing the work of his esteemed predecessor, but also
engaging with him.
This episode with the
elephant was not the only spot where engage with Procopius. Another important
instance where Agathias engages with Procopius comes in the former’s
description of the Siege of Constantinople in 559, for it is here that Agathias
draws parallels between the Thracian generals Belisarius and Bessas. Agathias
seeks to denigrate Bessas and celebrate Belisarius by evoking the former’s
performance in Petra while describing the latter’s performance in
Constantinople.
By the time Agathias’
account began, Belisarius’ military career had seemed to be at an end. Then the Kutrigurs attacked the
capital, and he made something of a spectacular return; when the Kutrigurs made
their inroads in 559 Constantinople, at least in the mind of Agathias, found
itself in a desperate situation.[2] The
capital was in a state of panic and Justinian ordered Belisarius to step up in
the city’s hour of need (Agathias 5.15.7). Agathias describes Belisarius’
donning of his armour (θώρακά…ἀναδησάμενος) and notes the vigour it then fills him with.[3]
At Petra Procopius had described Bessas’ donning of his armour (αὐτὸς τεθωρακισμένος) before the attempt on that city (Procop. Wars
8.11.39); Procopius had not done this – described the dressing of a general
before combat – in quite the same way for any other battle or siege.[4]
Both men, Bessas and
Belisarius, are marked out for their old age,[5]
and both are forced to address the relative morale of their men. In the
case of Bessas, Procopius only alludes to his speech (Procop. Wars 8.11.40),
while in the case of Belisarius Agathias provides the speech which, in his
case, was meant not so much to embolden them as to temper their exuberance
(Agathias 5.16.7), a fitting idea given Procopius’ characterization of
Belisarius throughout the Wars (Procop. Wars 1.18.16).
Indeed, Agathias displays his rhetorical mettle in the speech by
providing just the sorts of points that we might expect Belisarius to make in such a situation (and in turn we are reminded
of Thucydides’ methodological statements about his speeches),[6]
at least on the basis of a thorough reading of the Wars.[7] Belisarius here is able to temper his
troops (Agathias 5.19.1), something he had not been able to do at
Callinicum.
In both sieges,
Constantinople and Petra, the significance of the events is stressed,[8] though Agathias goes one step further by
comparing the actions of the Roman soldiers at Constantinople with the Spartans
at Thermopylae (Agathias 5.19.1-2).[9]
Once the action begins, however, the two sieges are in fact quite
different. In the case of Constantinople the Romans emerge victorious
thanks to the clever planning of Belisarius. He and his men led the
Kutrigurs into a narrow place where he had stationed a few hundred soldiers and
a number of civilians with missiles and noise makers to deceive the barbarians about
their true numbers.[10] As with other
battles of Agathias, the melee is quite vivid, with the senses of sight and
sound appealed to by the historian.[11]
On the other hand, Petra was filled with the desperate attempts of Bessas
and his men to force an ascent of the city’s walls. There were several
mishaps before Bessas eventually found a way to secure his entry into the city.
At the end of the siege of Constantinople Belisarius’ attack leads to the death
of a good number of the enemy soldiers, and to some atypical behaviour on the
part of the Kutrigurs.[12] Though it
took much longer to get there the Romans managed to capture, kill, or injure a
good number of the Persians at Petra as well (Procop. Wars 8.11.63).
The fighting exhibited in
the two sieges is quite different. This does not, however, call into
question the conscious parallels drawn by Agathias for he wanted his audience
to compare the performance of Bessas – that other well-known Thracian commander
of the age of Justinian – at that previous siege at Petra with Belisarius’
performance at the siege of Constantinople in his History.
Agathias, like Procopius, was no fan of Bessas, at least if his comments at
3.2.3-7 are anything to go by; moreover, like Procopius he gives that appraisal
based on Bessas’ performance, for at an earlier stage of the text he had
described him as one of the best generals (στρατηγοὺς ἐπέστησε τοὺς ἀρίστους) (Agathias 2.18.8), and one with a tremendous
amount of experience (Agathias 2.18.8).[13]
We should not be surprised
by this appraisal. Agathias puts great stock in the importance of the
individual, as well as the truth, as he makes clear in his preface (Agathias pr.
16-20).[14] In the end, then, in
this comparison between Bessas and Belisarius it is the latter who comes off
much the superior general, and this the result of the general’s own
performance.
[1] Agathias 2.19; 4.15.
[2] This is particularly true if we are to believe
Agathias’ disparaging remarks about the state of the Roman defences and
military (Agathias 5.14.1-4), which echo those made by Procopius in the Secret
History about that same group (Procop. SH 24). These parallels
(and some others) suggest that Agathias is likely to have read the polemical
text himself.
[3] Agathias 15.8.8.
[4] Note, however, the description of Totila’s
armour in his last battle against Narses (Procop. Wars 8.31.18).
[5] Bessas – Procop. Wars 8.11.40;
Belisarius – Agathias 5.16.1.
[6] cf. the famous pronouncements of Thucydides on
these matters at 1.22.
[7] Compare, for example, Procopius’ comments about
Belisarius’ actions at 1.18.16 (τότε οὖν ἅπαντας Βελισάριος ὀργῶντας ἐπὶ τοὺς πολεμίους ὁρῶν) with Belisarius’ comments in Agathias at 5.17.2 (ἀλλ’ ὁρῶν ἐν ὑμῖν πολὺ τὸ ὑπερφρονοῦν καὶ θρασυνόμενον); and Belisarius’ comments at Wars 1.14.25 (καὶ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν πολεμίων, ᾧ μάλιστα δεδίττονται, ὑμᾶς ὑπερφρονεῖν ἄξιον) with Belisarius’ comments
at History 5.17.4 (καίτοι κἀκεῖνο σκοπεῖσθαι χρεών, ὡς εἰ καὶ πολλῷ τῆς ὑμετέρας ἀνδρείας ἡττώμενοι τύχοιεν, ἀλλὰ τῷ πλήθει κρατοῦσι).
[8] Procop. Wars 8.11.41, Agathias 5.15.9.
[9] The Spartan stand at Thermopylae is found in
Herodotus (Hdt. 7.198-239), the author who cast the biggest shadow over book
eight of Procopius’ Wars.
[10] See the discussion of Archaeopolis above.
[11] At 5.19.7 we get shouting and confusion; we get
the encircling of the foe at 5.19.8; the tremendous din of the troops at
5.19.9; and clouds of dust, again at 5.19.9.
[12] Number of deaths: Agathias 5.19.10;
atypical behaviour: Agathias 5.19.12.
[13] Βέσσας τε γὰρ καὶ Μαρτῖνος καὶ Βούζης ἡγεῖτο, ἄνδρες ἐν τοῖς μάλιστα γεγενημένοι καὶ πολέμους συχνοὺς ἀγωνισάμενοι.
[14] Cf. Whately 2008: 247
