Monday 7 March 2011

On the leadership style of Attila the Hun

‘It’s unlikely that anyone actually expected Priscus to praise Attila. Yet in his account of the feast Priscus made a point of emphasising Attila’s moderation, frugality and restraint: he wore no jewels; he did not find [the mentally ill] Zercon amusing; during dinner he was served only simple food and used a wooden plate and mug. ‘For us there were lavishly prepared dishes presented on silver platters, for Attila there was nothing more than meat on a wooden plate. He showed himself moderate in other ways as well. For while gold and silver cups were handed to the men a the feast, his mug was of wood.’

The educated knew hot to read such signs. For nearly five centuries, ever since the first Roman emperor Augustus, behaviour at banquets had been one of the moral measures of a ruler. Gluttony and excessive feasting were indications of a dangerously capricious monarch unfit to govern. It was at dinner that the most hated emperors of the seating at a sumptuous banquet that for many confirmed their suspicions of Caligula’s incest with his sisters. According to his biographer Suetonius, Nero held feasts that ‘lasted from noon to midnight, with frequent breaks for plunging into a warm pool or in the summertime into a snow-cooled water’. It was over dinner that Nero was first seduced by his mother Agrippina. By contrast, the best Roman emperors were restrained and moderate. […]

The pointed contrast between Theodosius and Attila is too sharp to miss. On this view, Attila the Hun was a successful leader, not because he violated Roman moral codes or stood defiantly outside them, but because he fulfilled them. Judged by Roman standards, Attila was in some ways a more praiseworthy monarch than Theodosius. In Priscus’ opinion it was precisely Attila’s frugality, moderation and shrewdness as a ruler – rather than any uncontrolled savagery – that made him truly frightening.’

Attila the Hun by Christopher Kelly (2009, p.154)

No comments:

Post a Comment