The Empire is dead, long live the army

[Patrick Waterson]

What Tom writes is correct, but Jordanes is as close to primary as we can get for Chalons.  From our perspective we cannot get a closer record, so he is primary by default as opposed to primary by definition - less satisfactory, but beggars cannot be choosers.

Otherwise agree 100%.

[aligern]

Jordanes is not very popular with modern historians   as he is a collector and compiler, does not always get things right and has a distinct bias to the Goths, so he is not all bad.
There is a passage at 225 he has Attila departing from Italy   and attacking Gaul again but being repulsed by the Visigoths under Thorismud. 
Nor is Jordanes now thought to be solely copying Cassiodorus. the timescale for producyion if this work of memory seems too constrained and Jordanes himself cites other authors. Like Gregory, he is, for this period secondary  source and the likelihood that he had any good. source for. Attila's pre battle speech , for example, is remote.
However, if we are too critical of the sources in this oeriod we will be left with nothing, we just should always accept that an uncorroborated source. could well be wrong.
Roy

[tadamson]

Being critical of a source doesn't mean that you don't use it, but it does mean that you have to understand it.

Jordanes is useful because, we have good copies of hie work (from multiple manuscripts) and because some of his works are our best evidence for certain periods.  He is also useful to the amateur historian because of the considerable discussion that he evoked amongst the professionals.

A good example (partly because I largely agree with him, and partly because it's freely available on line) is O'Donnell's 1982 article (http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/jod/texts/jordanes.html).  Even this view was challenged, on the interesting view that O'Donnell had strongly argued that the 'marxist' school of historians should not be ignored simply because they were 'marxist' (small m, the name was as much a dramatic gesture as a political label for some left leaning theoretical historians).  This, it was suggested, made O'Donnell over inclined to dismiss the 'Jordanes was a bishop' concensus. - Academics can be stunningly small minded if left to themselves !

Tom  -  not an academic thankfully  :-)

[Justin Swanton]

Nor is Jordanes now thought to be solely copying Cassiodorus. the timescale for producyion if this work of memory seems too constrained and Jordanes himself cites other authors. Like Gregory, he is, for this period secondary  source and the likelihood that he had any good. source for. Attila's pre battle speech , for example, is remote.

Attila's speech does at least show what Jordanes' imagined Attila would have said, i.e. it is Jordanes' knowledge of the composition of Aetius's army that determines Attila's words. In this sense he is very useful.

I would imagine (if I had to bet on it) that Attila did say something, but it is unlikely a scribe was standing next him, parchment and pen in hand, ready to record his words for posterity.

[Jim Webster]

Given that he'd probably have to ride along the front of the army, talking to unit to unit (Remember the cavalry charge at the end of the seige of Minas Tirith to get a feel for scale) Attila probably said a lot of things and probably different ones (or different variations about a common theme) for different units :-)

Jim

[rodge]

Including perhaps:

Fresh faced Hun: 'Why is it us? Why us?'
Attila: "Because we're here lad. Nobody else. Just us..."

[Duncan Head]

I would imagine (if I had to bet on it) that Attila did say something, but it is unlikely a scribe was standing next him, parchment and pen in hand, ready to record his words for posterity.

Though we know from Priskos that Attila had Roman secretaries, Constantius and Orestes, so he certainly had people whose job was to write things down ....

[Justin Swanton]

Given that he'd probably have to ride along the front of the army, talking to unit to unit (Remember the cavalry charge at the end of the seige of Minas Tirith to get a feel for scale) Attila probably said a lot of things and probably different ones (or different variations about a common theme) for different units :-)

Jim

Attila [to Huns]: O noble, brave and warlike race, show those Alans what true men are!

Attila [to Ostrogoths]: If you don't charge those Visigoths I'll have your skulls for drinking cups!

[Jim Webster]

The main job for the secretary would be to write an appropriate speech for circulation after the event :-) Probably with all the required rhetorical flourishes and classical allusions
I'm not aware of many instances of Greek secretaries riding along the front lines, frantically taking down the speech in shorthand as they go

On a serious note, Attila might well have said, "Yes, I told them this," or one of his men might have remembered Attila saying something in particular, but ancient historians have a long tradition of inventing heroic speeches for generals

Jim

[Duncan Head]

All true, but:

I'm not aware of many instances of Greek secretaries riding along the front lines, frantically taking down the speech in shorthand as they go

- would we expect to hear about it if they did?

[Jim Webster]

Can you see them neglecting to mention it :-)

I suspect that given the number of letter writers we have, if 'literary men' were in the habit of doing this sort of thing someone would have commented

Jim

[Patrick Waterson]

The intertesting thing about Attila's speech in Jordanes is that it is an in-battle speech rather than a pre-battle speech, and the content seems more geared to the needs of the moment, i.e. getting his (Hunnish) troops to attack the Romans, a point on which we can infer some reluctance on the part of the Huns, otherwise why bother with the pep-talk?  Just a quick "That way lies victory - CHAAARGE!!!" would have sufficed* - unless there was a noticeable Hunnish disinclination to take on the Roman 'acies contra Alanos'.

*Even if it is not a very literary exhortation.

Hence I would feel inclined to take Jordanes seriously on this point, whether or not he has attained exactitude of wording (presumably from the original Hunnic).

[rodge]

Far be it from me to interrupt this august discussion but is it veering a tad off the subject of this thread?
Perhaps a new thread on this excellent subject may be an idea, before we hurl ourselves once more into the 5thC Gallic brèche?

[aligern]

You know I thought that Attila was purported to have said that his men should 'despise' the Romans and attack the Alan's and Visigoths, particularly the Alansas they are the weak link in the Allied army.

[Patrick Waterson]

You know I thought that Attila was purported to have said that his men should 'despise' the Romans and attack the Alan's and Visigoths, particularly the Alans as they are the weak link in the Allied army.

Beginning with Getica XXXVIII, last section (pre-battle dispositions have been made, the battle begins; nobody has yet made a speech):

So then the struggle began for the advantage of position we have mentioned. Attila sent his men to take the summit of the mountain, but was outstripped by Thorismud and Aëtius, who in their effort to gain the top of the hill reached higher ground and through this advantage of position easily routed the Huns as they came up.

(202) Now when Attila saw his army was thrown into confusion by this event, he thought it best to encourage them by an extemporaneous address on this wise: "Here you stand, after conquering mighty nations and subduing the world. I therefore think it foolish for me to goad you with words, as though you were men who had not been proved in action. Let a new leader or an untried army resort to that. (203) It is not right for me to say anything common, nor ought you to listen. For what is war but your usual custom? Or what is sweeter for a brave man than to seek revenge with his own hand? It is a right of nature to glut the soul with vengeance. (204) Let us then attack the foe eagerly; for they are ever the bolder who make the attack. Despise this union of discordant races! To defend oneself by alliance is proof of cowardice. See, even before our attack they are smitten with terror. They seek the heights, they seize the hills and, repenting too late, clamor for protection against battle in the open fields. You know how slight a matter the Roman attack is. While they are still gathering in order and forming in one line with locked shields, they are checked, I will not say by the first wound, but even by the dust of battle.

Strictly speaking, Attila tells his troops to "Despise this union of discordant races!" and then that "You know how slight a matter the Roman attack is," which is not quite an injunction specifically to despise the Romans.

(205) Then on to the fray with stout hearts, as is your wont. Despise their battle line. Attack the Alani, smite the Visigoths! Seek swift victory in that spot where the battle rages. For when the sinews are cut the limbs soon relax, nor can a body stand when you have taken away the bones. Let your courage rise and your own fury burst forth! Now show your cunning, Huns, now your deeds of arms! Let the wounded exact in return the death of his foe; let the unwounded revel in slaughter of the enemy. (206) No spear shall harm those who are sure to live; and those who are sure to die Fate overtakes even in peace. And finally, why should Fortune have made the Huns victorious over so many nations, unless it were to prepare them for the joy of this conflict. Who was it revealed to our sires the path through the Maeotian swamp, for so many ages a closed secret? Who, moreover, made armed men yield to you, when you were as yet unarmed? Even a mass of federated nations could not endure the sight of the Huns. I am not deceived in the issue;--here is the field so many victories have promised us. I shall hurl the first spear at the foe. If any can stand at rest while Attila fights, he is a dead man." Inflamed by these words, they all dashed into battle.

The Huns are indeed advised to "Attack the Alani, smite the Visigoths!" and "Despise their battle-line," which is either that of the Romans - though there is no concurrent injunction to attack it - or that of the Alani and Visigoths.

My reading of this is that Attila is trying to make the best of a bad job.  The Romans and their allies have just shoved his troops off the entire ridge running between the two armies, and this has disconcerted the Huns.

(197) The armies met, as we have said, in the Catalaunian Plains. The battle field was a plain rising by a sharp slope to a ridge, which both armies sought to gain; for advantage of position is a great help. The Huns with their forces seized the right side, the Romans, the Visigoths and their allies the left, and then began a struggle for the yet untaken crest.

This suggests that the ridge ran north-south across the entire field and each army was deployed north-south, one facing east, the other facing west (Hmmm, maybe Rodger is right and we should move to the Battle of Chalons thread to continue this part of the discussion).  Attila seized the eastern slope of the ridge and Aetius and his allies the western.  Then, as we have seen:

Attila sent his men to take the summit of the mountain [i.e. crest of the ridge], but was outstripped by Thorismud and Aëtius, who in their effort to gain the top of the hill reached higher ground and through this advantage of position easily routed the Huns as they came up.

So Attila has been turfed off the high ground, and knows that unless he can regain it he might as well pack up and go home.  This is when he gives his speech and tells the Huns what hopeless cases their enemies are.

The curious thing about portrayals of the battle is that nowhere have I seen a reconstruction with a ridge running between the armies, and yet this is what Jordanes' account seems to imply.  Aetius and allies took the ridge, and the fact that Attila feels the need to urge his Huns to charge the Alans suggests the Alans had also gained their sector of ridge and repelled the Huns opposing them.  From then on the Huns faced an uphill struggle in every respect.