The Empire is dead, long live the army

[Erpingham]

A good example - looked at a few years back on the Lost Battles group - is the size of Achaemenid and early Carthaginian armies as given by the primary sources. All primary sources affirm huge numbers for these armies; contemporary academic fashion just discounts them and makes up smaller numbers of its own. But is this good history? A topic for another thread....

Perhaps not so strangely, the numbers debate was what was going through my head as I wrote   Recalling an epic Ancmed debate about the army of Xerxes which was a bit like the gallant paladin Sir Patrick battling all comers, it certainly needs its own thread.

[Patrick Waterson]

I like Patrick's approach of doing one's best to make sense of a primary source, discarding it only when it is clearly proven to be wrong (as opposed to being affirmed to be wrong by a contemporary trendy opinion).

A weakness of this approach though is it can lead to a a lack of critical analysis of primary sources.

This may be preferable to the indiscriminate and shameless remoulding of primary sources that is then used as a standpoint to sweep other primary sources under the carpet (I have in mind an approach regarding the 6th century Roman monarchy, but out of respect for the head of the British School at Rome will not mention it here).  There is also a problem with critically analysing a primary source which happens to be one's sole source of information on a particular subject.

Well entrenched academic reviews can be wrong but they can reflect a wider study of a subject that assesses the value of that source in context.  That context should include a wide range of comparisons in different disciplines; other sources, official documents, archaeology, palaeogeography, experimental archaeology even analogy.  The work of academics can digest these for us - what Roy has referred to a "standing on the shoulders of giants approach", building on past work.

The problem with 'standing on the shoulders of giants' is that the human pyramid can collapse because it is insecurely based.  All history revolves around primary sources, and archaeology generally has the thrust of expanding, proving or disproving these (vide Schliemann and Troy).  Because archaeology is itself a highly interpretative discipline the same findings can be used to support different understandings (or misunderstandings).  Adding other disciplines often seems to take the form of attempting to confirm a prevailing opinion rather than to establish an independent check on the validity of current interpretation: radiocarbon dating has, since its inception, been reprocessed more to accord with current ancient world chronology than to check it (being anyway a somewhat blunt instrument in the first place).

One side-note on radiocarbon dating: the Shroud of Turin was infamously mis-dated to the middle ages on the basis of a sample - which proved to come from a mediaeval repair.  The raw radiocarbon date was in the right range for what it measured, but it measured the wrong thing, with considerable implications for history.

So yes, come to sources fresh and with respect but also respect the work others have done and weigh their conclusions carefully.

From some work others have done ...

"There is little evidence to suggest that any of the so-called barbarian peoples organised themselves into states, and imposed their authority on the indigenous populations, when they first migrated into western Europe.  In this respect, Jordanes´s History of the Goths makes an interesting comment when naming "...Burgundiones..." among those who provided soldiers to the Roman army ("Franci, Sarmatæ, Armoriciani, Liticiani, Burgundiones, Saxones, Ripari, Olibriones, quondam milites Romani").  This passage suggests that the case of the Burgundians was similar to that of the other peoples who lived on the periphery of Roman jurisdiction and who provided many of the military volunteers who served in the Roman army with the later prospect of acquiring Roman citizenship."

This assessment suggests that Aetius' force at Chalons consisted entirely of regulars embodied in units.

We can undoubtedly counter with other authors/researchers who have come to the unshakeable conclusion that these peoples were independent and turned up on Aetius' side as temporary foederati because it was was a lesser evil than being crunched by Attila.

We could then then enter what seems to be a standard forum repertoire (in other forums, naturally): a pointless, sterile interminable debate in which number of supporting opinions seems to count more than quality, because quality has ceased to be assessable.

This is why I prefer to leave secondary sources aside and concentrate on the primary sources when seeking the answer to something - not because secondary sources are inherently useless or wrong, but because all secondary sources depend upon the interpretation of primary sources, so one might as well cut out the middleman.  Rodger and Justin have done us proud with their dedication to investigating primary sources and turning up material that, in my view at least, is actually aiding our understanding of the period - and Duncan has not been entirely idle, either. 

[Patrick Waterson]

I thought another view on the  'His ita gestis' interpretation may be of use; in such circumstances as we face establishing that one cannot look so closely at Gregory as to make individual words the arbiter of major meanings is, in itself, useful:

'Firstly an ablative absolute does not have to convey a direct temporal link; secondly here it is most likely temporal not causative as Justin implies.
'ita' – 'in this way', does refer back in time since its sandwiched in the absolute, but it the sense of his 'gestis' that is interesting.
It is not 'after these things were done', gero has more of a sense of 'bringing about' 'carrying' 'spending (effort/time'- quite vague.
So if there was a direct close link why would Gregory not go for a more solid 'his ita factis'.
In short it is not a solid linking phrase as it does not refer to anything specific.

'Gero', especially in later Roman authors – and therefore in those who wrote up the old testament in Latin (see http://www.biblestudytools.com/esther/2-1-compare.html) also conveys a sense of spending or passing time. The greek phrase they translated: μετα τους λογους means literally 'after these words/speech/subject matter/account/story.' So by we know it is a temporal phrase and therefore can assume this 'gestis' is also.

'His' could also be stretched to 'His (tempestibus)' if we're reading 'gestis' as referring to passage of time. Other Latin authors have used 'His tempestibus' in ablative absolutes to denote passage of time.

All in all this phrase is very unspecific, could there be missing intervening chapters?

If not I would say there could well be a quite significant passage of time between the chapters, or a short passage of time or some other event(s).
So my translation would read, 'In this way after these things were passed, war was waged between the Saxons and Romans' / in this way after a while... / A time after this..'

Through a glass darkly then gents.....

Impressive, Rodger.

How conscious would Gregory be of this?  I find that on top of everything else, individual authors tend to have their own peculiarities of usage - with Tacitus or Cicero, they get written into the grammar books because Tacitus or Cicero used them.  Is the same account taken of peripheral authors in peripheral periods?  Would Gregory, not the best disciplined of writers, have been aware of these implications of his usage?

[Erpingham]

This is why I prefer to leave secondary sources aside and concentrate on the primary sources when seeking the answer to something - not because secondary sources are inherently useless or wrong, but because all secondary sources depend upon the interpretation of primary sources, so one might as well cut out the middleman.  Rodger and Justin have done us proud with their dedication to investigating primary sources and turning up material that, in my view at least, is actually aiding our understanding of the period - and Duncan has not been entirely idle, either. 

I think this is one where we have to agree to differ Patrick.  I don't think plunging into something as if nothing has gone before is a particularly helpful technique and in truth you don't really behave that way - I admire your work on translation of sources but I note how you use the work of classicists who have gone before as you seek meaning.  My remarks do not disparage Rodger, Justin or Duncan - their work here on texts has been impressive.  I will wait to discover how it improves our understanding when you explain to non-specialists what better knowing the careers of barbarian princes in Roman service tells us about Late Roman Gaul (genuine request).

As to Radiocarbon dating, you have a more jaundiced view of this than most.  Most archaeologists would see all the work on calibration not as failure but as refinement of an already useful technique.

[aligern]

The advantage of the secondary  sources is that, hopefully, the writers have studied the period in depth and really understand it. That puts them in a good position to fill in the gaps where the sources are inadequate and frankly , in Vth century Gaul the sources just do not give a clear statement as to what the composition of the forces of Aegidius and Syagrius. Personally I am happy to go with the Roman style troops that Procopius mentions as being the 'Ripari Olibriones' of Jordanes , former Roman soldiers mentioned by Jordanes as being the best soldiers in Aetius army. They fit the bill of being Roman soldiers and on the frontiers of Gaul. Moreover, having left Roman pay but retained their effectiveness and cohesiveness we can see that they are in a  position to do a deal with the Franks (Procopius Germani ).
I am happy to admit that there is room for an interpretation that the Magister Militum per Gallias has a couple of regular units, but not a large, say 10,000 man army. That is because a small force would not necessarily make an appearance in the sources, but a larger one is conspicuous by its absence.

roy

[Patrick Waterson]

The advantage of the secondary sources is that, hopefully, the writers have studied the period in depth and really understand it.

The writers have usually studied the period in depth, certainly.  Understanding it may or may not follow - and how does one judge?

What secondary sources are really good for is to give one an initial overview and orientation regarding the period's, events, personalities, cultures and geography.  One they get onto their favourite hobby-horses the risk of being misled dramatically increases unless the writer is an observer first and metaphorical equestrian second.

I am happy to admit that there is room for an interpretation that the Magister Militum per Gallias has a couple of regular units, but not a large, say 10,000 man army. That is because a small force would not necessarily make an appearance in the sources, but a larger one is conspicuous by its absence.

But is it?   The fmg.ac site I quoted previously (01 Feb 11.59) considers the entire non-Armorican, non-Alan and non-Visigoth force at Chalons to be regulars, with Jordanes' "once the flower of the army" remark meaning they were no longer around at the time he was writing (about a century later than Chalons).  Denying Aetius any regulars except a token couple of units might be not seeing the wood for the trees.

[aligern]

Oh Dear Patrick, that Burgundian website that you site is  not very good at all. For secondary souces I would prefer to go with scholars with some sort of reputation. What it says about the Burgundians is nonsense. The list of peoples that provide contingents to Aetius is a list of contingents. It would be extraordinary to list the peoples who had provided individual recruits and his concept of the Germans not administering the land in Gaul as political units is peurile.
For example, Euric appoints a count, Victorinus, over six Arvernian cities
In Aetius list the Franks are federates, the Sarmatians laeti, the Armoricans are most likely the buccellarii of the Gallo Roman nobility and oerhaps town levies. The Burgundians are federates, the Liticians are either Laeti or they are Limitanei , the Saxons are either laets or federates.

I suppose the writer of the website would suggest that the Franks who fight the Gepids the night before are actually the units of Franci found in the Notitia.
If a secondary source  is going to radically reinterpret the primary sources then it needs to put a really sound argument.
Roy

[Justin Swanton]

I suppose the only approach we can take here is to look at secondary sources inasmuch as they analyse primary sources, quoting those primary sources and showing exactly how they derived their conclusions about them.

On the subject of Chalons, if you're looking for a field army, it is clear from the Latin that the 'Romans' in Jordanes' description are Aetius's regular troops. Notice how he distinguishes them from the Auxilia:

dextram partem Hunni cum suis, sinistram Romani et Vesegothae cum auxiliariis occuparunt, relictoque de cacumine eius iugo certamen ineunt. The Huns with their forces seized the right side, the Romans and the Visigoths with the Auxilia the left, and then began a struggle for the yet untaken crest.

The Romans are not the Auxilia, but fight with them and the Visigoths (Thorismud and his flank cavalry guard?) for the heights.

Attila's subsequent speech specifies the 'Romans', describing them in terms that makes sense only as a heavily armed, drilled and primarily infantry force:

Nota vobis sunt quam sint levia Romanorum arma: primo etiam non dico vulnere, sed ipso pulvere gravantur, dum in ordine coeunt et acies testudinesque conectunt. You know of how little consequence Roman arms are: they are weighed down, not even by the first wound, but by the dust itself, whilst they form up and join their battlelines and tortoises.

Note that these are Roman troops he is talking about, not Auxilia. One has the impression of heavily armed infantry that are slow - weighed down by their arms and armour, making them no immediate threat to the Huns if they attack the Alans and Visigoths. Attila does not obviously affirm that the Roman arms are of no consequence in themselves - the Huns have just been driven off the heights by them.

It always helps to take a closer look at the original Latin. Translators' bias and all that.

[Erpingham]

Attila's subsequent speech specifies the 'Romans', describing them in terms that makes sense only as a heavily armed, drilled and primarily infantry force:

Nota vobis sunt quam sint levia Romanorum arma: primo etiam non dico vulnere, sed ipso pulvere gravantur, dum in ordine coeunt et acies testudineque conectunt. You know of how little consequence Roman arms are: they are weighed down, not even by the first wound, but by the dust itself, whilst they form up and join their battlelines and tortoises.

Note that these are Roman troops he is talking about, not Auxilia. One has the impression of heavily armed infantry that are slow - weighed down by their arms and armour, making them no immediate threat to the Huns if they attack the Alans and Visigoths. Attila does not obviously affirm that the Roman arms are of no consequence in themselves - the Huns have just been driven off the heights by them.

It always helps to take a closer look at the original Latin. Translators' bias and all that.

I know we place little weight on other author's views but this is what Philip Rance says about this passage :

Less still can be made of the rhetorical remarks on
Roman infantry that Jordanes puts in the mouth of Attila at the
battle of Châlons, noting that "they come together in formation
and form a battle line with locked shields" (Get. 39, dum in
ordine coeunt et acies testudineque conectunt). At best this shows
that Jordanes, a mid sixth-century author, could characterise, or
even caricature, Roman deployment as compact formations
fronted by "shield linkage."

Noting that we are dealing with a rhetorical passage put into the mouth of a barbarian king and not a realistic description of the actual battle, I think we can say that Jordanes is envisaging a Roman shieldwall of his own time as he writes. In other words, he does think these Romans are like Romans he is used to.  Whether he is correct to do so is less certain.

Rance also quotes this :

Agathias' account of a minor action near Rimini in late 553
between Narses' mounted retinue and some marauding Franks.
Faced with the Roman horsemen, the Franks

all massed themselves together, both infantry and cavalry, and
deployed in a compact formation, which though not very deep ...
was nevertheless made strong by linking shields and drawing in
the flanks in good order ... Perfectly protected by their shields,
they stood immovable and unshaken, at no point breaking the
cohesion of their formation.

to show that such formations were not solely Roman.

In terms of probabilities, it appears to me we are on fairly safe ground that the Roman infantry are well equipped close order troops.  The leap of faith is that they are old-style field army legions and auxilia.

[Justin Swanton]

How Jordanes understands 'acies testudinesque' is up for discussion (though I would think some kind of tortoise would be just the right formation to adopt against bow-armed hunnic cavalry). The point though is that for Jordanes the 'Romans' are professional regular troops, not to be identified with the Auxilia or any other group. They have to be the Gallic Field army.

[Patrick Waterson]

In terms of probabilities, it appears to me we are on fairly safe ground that the Roman infantry are well equipped close order troops.  The leap of faith is that they are old-style field army legions and auxilia.

And we may be able to demonstrate that they are in fact such from what Jordanes does not say.

Jordanes' Latin says:

A parte vero Romanorum tanta patricii Aetii providentia fuit, cui tunc innitebatur res publica Hesperiae plagae, ut undique bellatoribus congregatis adversus ferocem et infinitam multitudinem non impar occurreret. Hi enim adfuerunt auxiliares: Franci, Sarmatae, Armoriciani, Liticiani, Burgundiones, Saxones, Ripari, Olibriones, quondam milites Romani, tunc vero iam in numero auxiliarium exquisiti, aliaeque nonnulli Celticae vel Germanie nationes. - Jordanes Getica XXXVI

Note that Jordanes refers to the 'tribal' contingents as 'auxiliares', which technically means they are non-legionary regulars.  They are not noted as 'foederati' or 'laeti' but 'auxiliares'.

These peoples Jordanes refers to as 'quondam milites Romani', 'quondam' having (usually) the sense of 'at a previous time' ('at some time' or 'at a certain time' in Cicero and Virgil; 'formerly' in Caesar; 'some day' in Horace and Virgil), and this is vague because it does not tell us whether the 'previous time' means previous to Aetius or previous to Jordanes.

The next phrase, however, clarifies matters: 'tunc vero iam in numero auxiliarium exquisiti', 'then [at that time = basic meaning of 'tunc']) truly [vero] beyond doubt [secondary meaning of 'iam'] the best [exquisiti] in the number of auxilia [plural]'.  Jordanes is quite clear here that as of the time of Chalons the Franci, Sarmatae, Armoriciani, Liticiani, Burgundiones, Saxones, Ripari and Olibriones provided the best auxilia units of the regular Roman army.

By looking at the primary source, the problem is solved, or at the very worst focussed on one clear issue and narrowed down to differences of interpretation about Latin terminology.

[Erpingham]

I'm sure you've read Rance Justin, so you will know that he associates the Late Roman testudo with Arrian's earlier anti-Alan formation.  If correct, this would be just the formation to face off a pile of Huns.  While I quoted his scepticism that we can read too much into Jordanes, he certainly has material you could use to strengthen your case.

For those who haven't read Rance on the Foulkon, you can find him here https://web.duke.edu/classics/grbs/FTexts/44/Rance2.pdf

[Justin Swanton]

I hadn't seen him before, Anthony, thanks for the tip.

FYI here is a map giving my tentative deployment of Chalons on the presumption the Romans deploy next to the Alans to keep an eye on them. I've made the Huns wide enough to engage either the  Romans or the Alans and Visigoths.

[aligern]

Well doesn't Sidonius give Attila a whole host of other tribal contingents.?
I quite like the idea of Thorismud being separate from the main Visigoth force. To me it made sense of him coming to the Hun camp as he tried to make his way to his father.

Second, looking at Jordanes it is possible to read it that Attila is facing the Alans with only the flower of his huns, i.e. with the noblest and best armed Heavies, if you like and that the lighter Huns may be elsewhere, oerhaps on the flanks?
If we are going to uber interpret Jordanes we might as well have everything that is going.

Roy

[tadamson]

[quote author=Patrick Waterson link=topic=1088.msg9262#msg9262 date=1391339906

By looking at the primary source, the problem is solved, or at the very worst focussed on one clear issue and narrowed down to differences of interpretation about Latin terminology.
[/quote]

Some minor quibbles,

#1  This was written 100 years after the event so it's not primary.
#2  The work is a summary of Cassiodorus' lost work.  It's not primary
#3  It's written in late Latin rather than classical Latin (doesn't affect Patrick's argument much).
#4  Because of his background I would suggest that he is a useful and relatively early secondary source. Though for the later parts of the Getica he is nearly primary, and the best we have.

Tom..