The Battle of Chalons AD 451

[Jim Webster]

It may just mean they camped before the walls and fortified their camp, joining it to the walls. There again it might mean they did refortify the town or at least strengthen the weak spots

Jim

[Justin Swanton]

This suggests it is time to go back to the Latin text of Jordanes and see how the 'earthworks' are actually described in the original.

Jordanes writes:

Quod ubi Theodoridus et Aetius agnoverunt, magnis aggeribus eandem urbem ante adventum Attilae struunt,

(Which when Theoderic and Artius learned, with great 'aggeribus' they built or joined the city before Attila's arrival.)

Two points to consider:

1) Agger - usually a ditch and/or ramp.  This is undoubtedly the source of the translator's 'earthworks'.  Actually it has a wider range of meanings, including:

The pile formed by masses of rubbish, stone, earth, brushwood, etc., collected together; acc. to its destination, a dam, dike, mole, pier; a hillock, mound, wall, bulwark, rampart, etc.; esp. freq. in the histt. of artificial elevations for military purposes: tertium militare sepimentum est fossa et terreus agger, a clay or mud wall, Varr. R. R. 1, 14, 2: aggeribus niveis (with snow-drifts) informis Terra, Verg. G. 3, 354: "atque ipsis proelia miscent Aggeribus murorum, pleon. for muris," id. A. 10, 24; cf. id. ib. 10, 144: "ut cocto tolleret aggere opus, of the walls of Babylon," Prop. 4, 10, 22.—A dike of earth for the protection of a harbor (Ital. molo), Vitr. 5, 12, 122; Ov. M. 14, 445; 15, 690.—A causeway through a swamp: "aggeres umido paludum et fallacibus campis imponere," Tac.

A mound erected before the walls of a besieged city, for the purpose of sustaining the battering engines, and which was gradually advanced to the town;

The mound raised for the protection of a camp before the trench (fossa), and from earth dug from it, which was secured by a stockade (vallum), consisting of sharpened stakes (valli)

A military or public road, commonly graded by embankments of earth (in the class. per. only in Verg. and Tac., and always in connection with viae, agger alone belonging only to later Lat.)

So this could mean anything from mounds of earth being built to breaches being repaired to roads being (re?)made.

2) Struo - the root of our word 'construction' - to build in a number of ways.  Usually 'erect', 'fabricate', 'construct', also 'join up', 'heap up', 'accumulate' and/or 'prepare'.

It has numerous possible meanings:

To make by joining together; to build, erect, fabricate, make, form, construct

To get ready, prepare, Tac. A. 15, 37 et saep.

In general, to join together, compound, compose:

To prepare something detrimental; to cause, occasion; to devise, contrive, instigate, etc.

To order, arrange, dispose, regulate:

To fit out, provide with (late Lat.):

It looks as if the often-proposed 'surround with' may not the the right choice.  The essential meaning depends upon exactly what Jordanes meant by 'agger', and judging by the other sources Rodger has extracted information from it seems not to mean 'earthworks', unless they were being used to fill breaches.

Very thorough, Patrick. I had just come up with substantially the same myself. Exactly what the 'aggeres' were and how their construction related to Orleans is not clear. Given Rodge's sources it seems that a hasty repair of the breaches in the town walls with piles of earth or stones is the best sense.

[Patrick Waterson]

This might allow us to reconcile the various sources by concluding that Aetius, with or without Theoderic, had filled up the breaches and/or weak points in Orleans' walls with temporary works prior to Attila's arrival; Attila had a go at these hurriedly-reinforced points while the Visigothic main strength and perhaps Aetius' outlying allies were still approaching, might even have penetrated at one or two points and perhaps even been stopped by countervallation, then up came the full Visigothic forces and Roman reinforcements at which point Attila decided to pull back.

If the above is a tenable reconstruction, it might explain Jordanes' (XL/210) "quibus paulo ante nullus poterat muralis agger obsistere" (who a little while before the 'agger muralis' could not withstand).  The 'agger muralis', or 'agger of the wall(s)' would seem to refer to the hastily rebuilt bit(s) of the walls of Orleans, the piles of earth and stones strengthening weak spots which we seem to be coinciding towards as our interpretation and which would have been the obvious spots for Attila's forces to attack.

[Patrick Waterson]

Taking a source as valid unless disproved is the most effective way of working, even if it may not be to everyone's taste.  One finds out far more that way.

Well, no.  We haven't found out more or less.  We have what some would feel is a spurious sense of certainty.  If we have an unverified source, we should assess what it says against our contextual evidence to reach a judgement how much we should qualify what it says.

Yes, this is a good and sensible procedure.  My emphasis is on taking the source as a starting point as opposed to taking a starting-point which discards the source.

So, looking at speeches put in the mouth of generals, we have to think whether the author can possibly have a verbatim account of what was said.  If not, might he have a some key "soundbites" which he has padded out?  If not, is he using the speech to bring together evidence of what he thinks the general would have said?  If not, has he just made something up, or copied a model, in order to fulfil a stylistic need for the key characters to express themselves and reveal their characters?  Where on this line is Jordanes likely to be?

To assess this we would have to look at how often Jordanes puts speeches into his work, and in what contexts.  The only other speech I have seen him give in the context of the Chalons campaign is when Valentinian's ambassador is addressing the Goths:

"Then the Emperor Valentinian sent an embassy to the Visigoths and their king Theodorid, with this message: (187) "Bravest of nations, it is the part of prudence for us to unite against the lord of the earth who wishes to enslave the whole world; who requires no just cause for battle, but supposes whatever he does is right. He measures his ambition by his might. License satisfies his pride. Despising law and right, he shows himself an enemy to Nature herself. And thus he, who clearly is the common foe of each, deserves the hatred of all. (188) Pray remember--what you surely cannot forget--that the Huns do not overthrow nations by means of war, where there is an equal chance, but assail them by treachery, which is a greater cause for anxiety. To say nothing about ourselves, can you suffer such insolence to go unpunished? Since you are mighty in arms, give heed to your own danger and join hands with us in common. Bear aid also to the Empire, of which you hold a part. If you would learn how such an alliance should be sought and welcomed by us, look into the plans of the foe."
      (189) By these and like arguments the ambassadors of Valentinian prevailed upon King Theodorid. He answered them, saying: "Romans, you have attained your desire; you have made Attila our foe also. We will pursue him wherever he summons us, and though he is puffed up by his victories over divers races, yet the Goths know how to fight this haughty foe. I call no war dangerous save one whose cause is weak; for he fears no ill on whom Majesty has smiled." (190) The nobles shouted assent to the reply and the multitude gladly followed." - Getica XXXVI/186-190

Valentinian's message would, or at least should, have been retained in state archives, and was perhaps copied by sundry other persons, e.g. the ambassador who gave it, his scribe, perhaps a scribe who recorded it for King Theodoric and conceivably at least one bureaucrat creating a copy for the Eastern Empire.  The Gothic reply - brief and to the point - could have similarly been recorded.  Now these speeches may or may not in reality have been preserved, but they and the speech of Attila are the only speeches Jordanes records in connection with this campaign (unless I have missed one) and even Theodoric, although noted as addressing and encouraging his troops, does not get a pre-battle or in-battle speech, whereas being a Gothic king in a history of Goths he should be the prime candidate to have one compiled for him by Jordanes.

Hence the only speeches other than Attila's are two from the same occasion which, being official business, would have a strong probability of being genuine and drawn from surviving material.  Besides these, Jordanes gives no other speeches apart from Attila's, which suggests that Jordanes, if consistent in his standards, was as confident about having Attila's real words as he was about Valentinian's.  The fact that he did not make up a speech for Theoderic would seem very significant in this context.

[Patrick Waterson]

One point to note is that Jordanes adds:

"By these and like arguments the ambassadors of Valentinian prevailed upon King Theodorid."

This indicates that what Jordanes has given us is an extract from or precis of Valentinian's message, and perhaps the gist rather than the full content of the Gothic reply.  He might be doing the same with Attila's speech, but we may observe that:

1) he seems to provide a speech only when he has genuine material from which to work, from which we can surmise that

2) he may precis but does not stray from his source material when introducing speeches.

One may wish to validate or contest this conclusion by looking at speeches he introduces elsewhere in his work.

[Jim Webster]

Valentinian's message would, or at least should, have been retained in state archives, and was perhaps copied by sundry other persons, e.g. the ambassador who gave it, his scribe, perhaps a scribe who recorded it for King Theodoric and conceivably at least one bureaucrat creating a copy for the Eastern Empire.  The Gothic reply - brief and to the point - could have similarly been recorded.  Now these speeches may or may not in reality have been preserved, but they and the speech of Attila are the only speeches Jordanes records in connection with this campaign (unless I have missed one) and even Theodoric, although noted as addressing and encouraging his troops, does not get a pre-battle or in-battle speech, whereas being a Gothic king in a history of Goths he should be the prime candidate to have one compiled for him by Jordanes.

It's late at night, but from memory, surely it wasn't anybody from Valentinian who swayed the Visigoths, but a Gallic nobleman sent by Aetius?

Jim

[aligern]

That depends on whom we believe Jim. according to Jordanes it is an embassy from Valentinian, according to Sidonius it is IIRC two visits from Avitus, Gallic nobleman , friend of Aetius and future short lived puppet emperor. In Sidonius the embassy is sent by Aetius, not Valentinian.

I checked Hodgkin (italy and her invaders vol II) and he has a bit. more of Anianus. According to Hodgkin Anianus goes to Aetius at Arles and presses upon him that the city can only last out until the 24th of June. He then returns to Orleans to sustain the inhabitants. Now, if Anianus visits Aetius in Arles and by the end of the siege Aetius arrives as Attila is breaking in it is ever so unlikely that Aetius and Theoderid can have been there earlier, rebuilt the fortifications and surrounded Sangiban with auxilia.

Roy

[Jim Webster]

That's what I was driving at Roy, if Jordanes is to be relied upon for his speeches  because of his report of the speech of Valentinian's ambassador and the Gothic reply, then if Sidonius is correct (an eyewitness, friend of Avitus and contemporary of the events) Valentinian's embassy, if it happened, was a failure, so the speech, or at least the Gothic reply, was a pure invention

Jim

[tadamson]

You are all reading a lot into one source.  Remember, we know that Jordanes wrote the book very, very, quickly; at his own villa; without any references beyond his own library.
He didn't use any official documents.

Also..

Quod ubi Theodoridus et Aetius agnoverunt, magnis aggeribus eandem urbem ante adventum Attilae struunt

When Theoderic and Artius learned this, they repaired the city with earthen banks before Attila's arrival.

I would probably actually suggest:
When Theoderic and Artius learned this, they strengthened the city with earthen banks before Attila's arrival.

Regards,

Tom..

[Patrick Waterson]

That's what I was driving at Roy, if Jordanes is to be relied upon for his speeches  because of his report of the speech of Valentinian's ambassador and the Gothic reply, then if Sidonius is correct (an eyewitness, friend of Avitus and contemporary of the events) Valentinian's embassy, if it happened, was a failure, so the speech, or at least the Gothic reply, was a pure invention

Not necessarily.  Note Jordanes' text.

"Then the Emperor Valentinian sent an embassy to the Visigoths and their king Theodorid, with this message: (187) "Bravest of nations, it is the part of prudence for us to unite against the lord of the earth who wishes to enslave the whole world; who requires no just cause for battle, but supposes whatever he does is right. He measures his ambition by his might. License satisfies his pride. Despising law and right, he shows himself an enemy to Nature herself. And thus he, who clearly is the common foe of each, deserves the hatred of all. (188) Pray remember--what you surely cannot forget--that the Huns do not overthrow nations by means of war, where there is an equal chance, but assail them by treachery, which is a greater cause for anxiety. To say nothing about ourselves, can you suffer such insolence to go unpunished? Since you are mighty in arms, give heed to your own danger and join hands with us in common. Bear aid also to the Empire, of which you hold a part. If you would learn how such an alliance should be sought and welcomed by us, look into the plans of the foe."

(189) By these and like arguments the ambassadors of Valentinian prevailed upon King Theodorid."

Valentinian sends a message, which Jordanes may be giving us verbatim.  He also adds that the 'ambassadors' of Valentinian used 'these and like arguments', which leaves room for both an ambassador or ambassadors from Ravenna and Avitus himself to exercise their own persuasion, expanding upon Valentinian's basic message.  Aetius may well have asked Avitus to go along and add his influence to the attempts at persuasion, as Sidonius indicates in his panegyric (Carmina VII).  It may even have been Avitus' influence that clinched the matter - a point the official ambassador may have neglected to mention when reporting back to Ravenna.

You are all reading a lot into one source.  Remember, we know that Jordanes wrote the book very, very, quickly; at his own villa; without any references beyond his own library.
He didn't use any official documents.

But he did draw upon Cassiodorus, who had been the chief official at Ravenna under the Ostrogoths and who used official documents all his working life.

[Mark G]

Justin, can i recommend you read speidal on the Germans.

This testudio here, as rance does convince, is a 3 man shield wall. It has nothing except a similar name, in one source, to compare with the post carrhae useage of a siege formation in the open field from hundeds of years before.

Shieldwalls were a standard Germanic tactic of ancient provenance.

By the time of this battle every man recruited would know it well. The only real wrinkle is the third row of top shields.  The ground and middle shields are very standard operational procedure.

Also, your Hastings example is highly debatable, as has been mentioned before- the disorderly charge theory is only one valid interpretation of that event.

Spiedal is a fascinating read, give it a look as soon as you can

[Jim Webster]

You are all reading a lot into one source.  Remember, we know that Jordanes wrote the book very, very, quickly; at his own villa; without any references beyond his own library.
He didn't use any official documents.

But he did draw upon Cassiodorus, who had been the chief official at Ravenna under the Ostrogoths and who used official documents all his working life.

The problem here is that an argument was put forward that the speech that Jordanes puts into Attila's mouth was good because Jordanes only has three speeches and the other two are correct.

We now discover that Jordanes contradicts an eyewitness who knew the person who actually talked the Visigoths into joining in. So whilst the message attributed to Valentinian might be lifted from official records, the reply was entirely fabricated because the Visigoths turned down Valentinian's offer (if it was actually made, it might well have been)

So so far we have Jordanes who might have copied one official document but did fabricate one speech.
As for drawing in Cassiodorus, his history is the history of a man who's predecessor has just died in Jail, and who had to flatter the Goths. So he may well have produced the flattering message that Valentinian is supposed to have sent. Given that he was born thirty years after the event and lived in an Italy that was sundered from Gaul, he may well never have heard Sidonius's side of the story, or may well have ignored it because it didn't suit his purpose.
But the problem with Jordanes is that when comparing him to Sidonius who was there is that Jordanes 'might' have found a message, or Cassiodorus 'might' have bothered to check the archives. Indeed it assumes that there are still archives to check nearly a century after the event, and a somewhat busy century as well. Whilst one can see the Goths wanting to keep the land registers and the tax records, archived speeches from the throne, formal salutations by the senate and suchlike would have no value and were just wasting space.

I'm afraid in this that I think Sidonius trumps Jordanes, who has been shown to fabricate one speech (The Gothic reply), may have either fabricated the second speech or accepted Cassiodorus's fabrication, and there is no evidence to show how Attila's speech could have been recorded, transmitted or handed down to the literary record.
Attila gave an ad hoc speech in the middle of the battle. Quite possibly.
The fighting is going on, he's in the middle of his warriors and the midden is about to hit the windmill, so one grabs a pen, ink and piece of parchment (or perhaps makes notes on the back of his hand)
Either that or one of the survivors, one of a beaten army, falls back to the camp and as all prepare to flee our rare and literate hun (or illiterate hun who's found a secretary) goes to the trouble of having recorded the speech of a defeated general who might be dead tomorrow (as might the secretary and his informant.)
Three years later, the hunnic empire is no more, any archives are scattered and irrelevant, and Attila is dead.

Jim

[Patrick Waterson]

I'm afraid in this that I think Sidonius trumps Jordanes, who has been shown to fabricate one speech (The Gothic reply), may have either fabricated the second speech or accepted Cassiodorus's fabrication, and there is no evidence to show how Attila's speech could have been recorded, transmitted or handed down to the literary record.

Jordanes has not 'fabricated' the Gothic reply.  He may well have omitted the initial Gothic reaction and entered only the official response at the end of discussions, but what he has entered chimes perfectly with the actions of the Goths pursuant to the discussions so it is a bit of a stretch to call it 'fabricated'.  The whole summary could have been taken from an ambassador's report still extant in Ravenna.  Cassiodorus indeed made a point of flattering Goths - but only Ostrogoths, who were on the 'wrong side' at Chalons.  They get no special treatment in Jordanes' account and far less would we expect Cassiodorus to have any reason to bend facts concerning Visigoths.

Attila gave an ad hoc speech in the middle of the battle. Quite possibly.
The fighting is going on, he's in the middle of his warriors and the midden is about to hit the windmill, so one grabs a pen, ink and piece of parchment (or perhaps makes notes on the back of his hand)
Either that or one of the survivors, one of a beaten army, falls back to the camp and as all prepare to flee our rare and literate hun (or illiterate hun who's found a secretary) goes to the trouble of having recorded the speech of a defeated general who might be dead tomorrow (as might the secretary and his informant.)

His relatives and his house-troops or equivalent plus any staff he retained would all have cause to remember what he said.  We know that Hernac, his youngest son and his kinsmen Emnetzur and Ultzindur survived the battle and the latter two settled within the Empire.

Three years later, the hunnic empire is no more, any archives are scattered and irrelevant, and Attila is dead.

And all the sources of information for Attila's speech are settling in Roman territory.

If Jordanes fabricates speeches as part of his stock in trade, why does he not do at least one for at least one Goth at Chalons?

[Jim Webster]

Why doesn't Jordanes produce a Gothic speech?
He invented the Gothic speech for the Emperor's Ambassador, so he's set out their stall, he doesn't need a battlefield one for drama

As for the speech it isn't a stretch to call it fabricated if it chimes perfectly. If I look at a historical situation, for example, We have Wellington at Waterloo. I know that he was present at the battle, that he was present at the point of the final attack, and I decide he will inspire his men with a speech which not only describes the French but also points out the Prussians are coming and that Boney is going to be exiled to a different, smaller, island this time, it's still fabricated, even if it does chime perfectly.

His section describing the ambassador and the reply directly contradicts what we know from another source which was closer to the time and place.
Jordanes was a generation later that Cassiodorus, the Ostrogoths no longer needed flattering, he wrote in Constantiople, their Kingdom was over.

As for Attila's speech, if his house troops did remember his words it'd be something along the lines of 'gods but he got that one wrong.'
I see no reason why any of these people should have recorded it, and frankly given in the middle of a battle with everything that was going on, I'm not convinced that all that many people heard it. In reality he might have rallied men by grabbing a standard and riding forward holding it. He might have shouted something at the same time, but the idea that everything went quiet as he delivered his address doesn't sit well with me.

Jim

[Patrick Waterson]

Why doesn't Jordanes produce a Gothic speech?
He invented the Gothic speech for the Emperor's Ambassador, so he's set out their stall, he doesn't need a battlefield one for drama

But then why does he need one for Attila?

As for the speech it isn't a stretch to call it fabricated if it chimes perfectly. If I look at a historical situation, for example, We have Wellington at Waterloo. I know that he was present at the battle, that he was present at the point of the final attack, and I decide he will inspire his men with a speech which not only describes the French but also points out the Prussians are coming and that Boney is going to be exiled to a different, smaller, island this time, it's still fabricated, even if it does chime perfectly.

But under this criterion one risks labelling any speech as fabricated if it accords with subsequent events.

His section describing the ambassador and the reply directly contradicts what we know from another source which was closer to the time and place.

No it does not - it reports events differently, with different emphasis.  Where does Sidonius affirm that Valentinian did not send an embassy?  We might also remember that Sidonius' account is contained within a panegyric, whereas Jordanes' is not.

Jordanes was a generation later that Cassiodorus, the Ostrogoths no longer needed flattering, he wrote in Constantiople, their Kingdom was over.

So the earlier implication that anything taken from Cassiodorus is unreliable because Cassiodorus was a Goth-flatterer no longer applies?  Just checking. 

As for Attila's speech, if his house troops did remember his words it'd be something along the lines of 'gods but he got that one wrong.'

All the more reason to remember it.  Please bear in mind that these people would not have an interpretative memory but one that recalled what was said as it was said - projecting our own thought habits on to them is misleading.