The Battle of Chalons AD 451

[Patrick Waterson]

Have we any evidence that Attila's speech was delivered exactly as Jordanes described  on which to attribute his motivations?  I accept that I don't have the Latin skills of many people here (and from what I've read I doubt Jordanes did either ) but this does seem a very uncritical approach to a standard literary device.  Not saying the speech doesn't contain valuable evidence about how Jordanes thought Attila approached the battle but verbatim reportage?

The question is perhaps a little unfair: have we any evidence that Caesar's (or for that matter Churchill's pre-radio) speeches were delivered exactly as described?  They were recorded, certainly, but how far can we trust the records in the matter of exactitude?  Perhaps we should ask instead whether it is reasonable to assume that Jordanes has conveyed a sufficiently faithful rendition of Attila's speech for us to draw such conclusions, and the answer here is that without independent confirmation we have no way of knowing.

What we can say is that if Jordanes has extracted from Cassiodorus (his source) an accurate rendition of Attila's speech and actions, then the seeming incompatibility between the two indicates that at least one was insincere, from which we can further surmise that it was intentionally so for the purpose of bringing about the other.

In other words, Attila's motivations can be judged on the (in)compatibility of speech and action without having to rely upon the precise accuracy of recorded detail.

[Duncan Head]

Would our idea of regular 'Auxilia' for Jordanes have meant anything different from 'Romani'?

Depends if Jordanes or his sources still drew a distiinction between auxilia and legiones -  the Notitia did a couple of generations before.

Of course, if the Romani present were all cavalry, there could have been many auxiliares but no Auxilia (since the term seems to have long gone out of use for cavalry regiments).

[Erpingham]

Have we any evidence that Attila's speech was delivered exactly as Jordanes described  on which to attribute his motivations?  I accept that I don't have the Latin skills of many people here (and from what I've read I doubt Jordanes did either ) but this does seem a very uncritical approach to a standard literary device.  Not saying the speech doesn't contain valuable evidence about how Jordanes thought Attila approached the battle but verbatim reportage?

The question is perhaps a little unfair: have we any evidence that Caesar's (or for that matter Churchill's pre-radio) speeches were delivered exactly as described?  They were recorded, certainly, but how far can we trust the records in the matter of exactitude? 

I don't think it is an unfair question.  Leaving Churchill out of this (he carefully scripted his speeches and they were recorded verbatim in Hansard, so we can largely trust them), Caesar is a more interesting proposition.  I could accept an argument that he scripted his speeches, kept the notes then carefully copied them out.  I think it is more likely he had a good idea of the gist of what he said and wrote it up in suitably impressive prose, but we can't be sure.  But Jordanes didn't hear Attila's speech and, correct me if I'm wrong, probably didn't know anyone who heard it.  I would think from his dates that Cassiodorus might have met someone but it is unlikely.  If it had been a prepared speech, one of Attila's secretaries might have kept a copy which survived to be seen and written down.  But it isn't.  It seems to be "on the hoof" (literally) in mid-battle.  It is unlikely anyone took it down with stylus and tablet at the time.  Which would lead me to think it is Jordanes summarising what he thought were Attila's views to explain the decisions he made in the battle, perhaps working from an equivalent passage in Cassiodorus.  So our analyzing how exactly he said something is futile - we can't know - but as an example of how Jordanes thought the battle proceeded, perfectly acceptable evidence.

[Jim Webster]

There is a widespread view amongst historians that many speeches attributed to generals are actually the work of the writer. A classic example of that is the speech Tacitus puts into the mouth of Calgacus
Whenever I consider the origin of this war and the necessities of our position, I have a sure confidence that this day, and this union of yours, will be the beginning of freedom to the whole of Britain. To all of us slavery is a thing unknown; there are no lands beyond us, and even the sea is not safe, menaced as we are by a Roman fleet. And thus in war and battle, in which the brave find glory, even the coward will find safety. Former contests, in which, with varying fortune, the Romans were resisted, still left in us a last hope of succour, inasmuch as being the most renowned nation of Britain, dwelling in the very heart of the country, and out of sight of the shores of the conquered, we could keep even our eyes unpolluted by the contagion of slavery. To us who dwell on the uttermost confines of the earth and of freedom, this remote sanctuary of Britain's glory has up to this time been a defence. Now, however, the furthest limits of Britain are thrown open, and the unknown always passes for the marvellous. But there are no tribes beyond us, nothing indeed but waves and rocks, and the yet more terrible Romans, from whose oppression escape is vainly sought by obedience and submission. Robbers of the world, having by their universal plunder exhausted the land, they rifle the deep. If the enemy be rich, they are rapacious; if he be poor, they lust for dominion; neither the east nor the west has been able to satisfy them. Alone among men they covet with equal eagerness poverty and riches. To robbery, slaughter, plunder, they give the lying name of empire; they make a solitude and call it peace"

As the wiki says, "Calgacus is not mentioned during or after the battle and he is not named as one of the hostages Agricola took with him after putting the Caledonians to flight. Both Calgacus and the speech may be figments of Tacitus's invention"

I think all we can say about the speech purportedly given by Attila is that it is what Jordanes, and perhaps Cassiodorus thought Attila would have said.
Given that even if Attila did say it, he wouldn't have said it in Latin, arguments based on latin technical terms probably have nothing of Attila in them :-)

Jim

[Justin Swanton]

Granted that the speech is words put in Attila's mouth (on the likelihood that Attila did say something, since Jordanes describes his speechmaking as being unusual), it does at least tell us interesting things about the allied army and its capabilities and dispositions - which we can presume Jordanes would have known about. Keeping in mind that Chalons had been a historic battle of which records besides those of Cassiodorus must have survived up to Jordanes. How many sources do we have for the Battle of Waterloo?

[Jim Webster]

Granted that the speech is words put in Attila's mouth (on the likelihood that Attila did say something, since Jordanes describes his speechmaking as being unusual), it does at least tell us interesting things about the allied army and its capabilities and dispositions - which we can presume Jordanes would have known about. Keeping in mind that Chalons had been a historic battle of which records besides those of Cassiodorus must have survived up to Jordanes. How many sources do we have for the Battle of Waterloo?

Hang on a minute, why should other records but those of Cassiodorus have survived? Remember that books were rare, copied by hand, and writing demanded personal wealth and leisure or a wealthy patron. It is possible that someone referred to the battle in a letter, but when you see collections of letters, I don't think we need be too optimistic.
As for official records, there might be some, but there's no reason to assume that Cassiodorus ever felt the need to access them. Most history was written for a purpose, Jordanes was to produce a history of the Goths which put them in a good light, Cassiodorus was probably doing something similar for Theodoric. They didn't see the need for a lot of detail which is why they didn't supply it. It's also why we have to be very careful about trying to extract detail for what might be merely sloppy use of synonyms.

As for Waterloo I refer you to The Gareth Glover Collection, Original Source Material from the Napoleonic Wars 1793-1815 http://www.garethglovercollection.com/waterlooarchivevol1.htm

To quote
"The hitherto unseen British material contained in Volume I includes: a series of letters written by  senior officers on Wellingtons Staff to Sir Thomas Graham immediately following the battle: The letters of a member of the Wedgewood family in the Guards at Waterloo; The journal of Sergeant Johnston of the Scots Greys, detailing all his experiences, including a very rare transcript of his own court martial!; and the journal of an artillery officer supporting the sieges of the French fortresses by the Prussians after Waterloo; also letters from eminent surgeons including those of Hume, Davy and Haddy James, who served at Waterloo with their harrowing tales of the wounds suffered. Also the diary of Creevey's daughter in law, giving many more particulars than his own famous account.

In addition to these letters and journals, Vol I will include 21 original line drawings produced by Cavalie Mercer to accompany his famous book on his experiences at Waterloo but never previously published."

And all this is the subsidiary stuff, it's not the main accounts

Jim

[Justin Swanton]

Well, there you go. Letters and accounts would exist if literacy did, and literacy was a requisite among the officer class in the army, where messages and orders had to be communicated by writing.

Jordanes himself wrote his History of the Goths at Constantinople, hence he had access to the libraries of the city which must have given him material on Chalons besides what Cassiodorus supplied. He was writing a century after the events. There had been a continuity of culture, infrastructure and education in the Eastern Empire from 451 to 553 (i.e. contemporary accounts of the battle would have made their way to Constantinople and been preserved there). It is difficult to believe that he did not have access to any detailed account of Chalons besides the one Cassiodorus gave him. Where would have Cassiodorus have got his information from in that case?

[Justin Swanton]

Would our idea of regular 'Auxilia' for Jordanes have meant anything different from 'Romani'?

Depends if Jordanes or his sources still drew a distiinction between auxilia and legiones -  the Notitia did a couple of generations before.

Of course, if the Romani present were all cavalry, there could have been many auxiliares but no Auxilia (since the term seems to have long gone out of use for cavalry regiments).

It seems the Romani present acted very much like infantry - forming battlelines and testudos. Jordanes was writing quite a long time after the Notitia, about 130 years, by which time the distinction between regular Auxilia and straight Roman infantry would probably have become blurred, particularly given the increasingly subordinate role of infantry in early Byzantine armies (but I say that off the cuff, I could well be wrong).

[Erpingham]

Well, there you go. Letters and accounts would exist if literacy did, and literacy was a requisite among the officer class in the army, where messages and orders had to be communicated by writing.

The material from Waterloo features an enormous volume of correspondence particularly related to the actions of units in the battle, because Siborne carried out perhaps the first piece of research of its type.  So it is a bad reference point for earlier times.  Do we know Cassiodorus' sources, or whether Jordanes used other accounts, or did a major archive search?  If not, we should proceed respectfully but with caution when interpreting details IMO.

[Patrick Waterson]

... It seems to be "on the hoof" (literally) in mid-battle.  It is unlikely anyone took it down with stylus and tablet at the time.  Which would lead me to think it is Jordanes summarising what he thought were Attila's views to explain the decisions he made in the battle, perhaps working from an equivalent passage in Cassiodorus.  So our analyzing how exactly he said something is futile - we can't know - but as an example of how Jordanes thought the battle proceeded, perfectly acceptable evidence.

I shall accept that distinction (what choice have I?).   The contradiction between the implications of the speech - namely that Romans look like soft targets - and the insistence on attacking everyone except the Romans is nevertheless interesting for students of real or imagined battlefield rhetoric.

Curiously enough, it is possible that Cassiodorus may have encountered someone who remembered the speech exactly.  Much has been written on the word-perfect memories of illiterate peoples, who tend to pay close attention to what is actually said rather than interpreting it the way 'civilised' people do, and the large-scale enlistment of Huns in Roman service following the breakup of Attila's empire may have allowed a Roman (or Byzantine) historian to get the speech entire from a Chalons veteran.

The same process might account for many if not all of the speeches given by leaders facing a Roman army, at least where we have historians sufficiently conscientious to search out survivors (slaves?).  It is reasonable to assume that nobody on the Roman side was listening (for example) to Calgacus at Mons Graupius even if they did understand Celtic, but many of the Celts would have found his speech memorable.

[Patrick Waterson]

Hang on a minute, why should other records but those of Cassiodorus have survived? Remember that books were rare, copied by hand, and writing demanded personal wealth and leisure or a wealthy patron. It is possible that someone referred to the battle in a letter, but when you see collections of letters, I don't think we need be too optimistic.

I think Justin's assumption may be justified.

Aetius would at the very least have reported to his nominal superior, Valentinian, and officers serving with him would have generated their own accounts, not least with an eye to promotion.

Incidentally, my impression is that books were 'rare' only by our standards: every nobleman of note seems still to have had his library, and every Greek apparently knew the Epic Cycle (twelve quasi-historical works from Cypria to Telegony of which only the Iliad and Odyssey survive intact).  Literacy was 100% among the upper classes and seems to have been widespread among what we would consider the middle classes: even centurions, decurions and optiones needed to be literate to fulfil their duties.  Granted that with the spreading shadow of the Dark Ages literacy was starting to diminish, but initially this seems to have been at least as much because any sort of interesting reading material was discouraged ('un-Christian') as because books were hard to copy or hard to get.

[aligern]

There is much doubt if Cassiodorus books were available to Jordanes for very long and it seems he added in lots of his own stuff. I am not sure what you think was available at Constantinople in the way of battle reports for a battle fought by the Western half of the Empire a century before. We do not as far as I know hear or see reference to a source from a participant . Did Aetius produce memoirs?? Did any Roman general but Caesar write his memoirs??? Very unlikely then that a fifth century general would do so.

We can deduce something about Roman battle reporting from the descriptions given by Procopius and Agathias bot writing in Constantinople in the 550s. Procopius has fair detail for battles that he was at but is quite sketchy when he was not present. Agathias gives accounts that appear to have detail, but actually are not very systematic. If literary folk of the sixth century were not terribly interested in the detail of battles it appears that they did not have detailed reports from the generals to draw upon, but rather broad brush descriptions, perhaps contained in letters to the court from generals. Interestingly we do not get mentions of the deployment of units which would  be the basic building blocks of a modern battle description.  One of the items we do receive is the description of heroic acts and it has been suggested that staff of the imperial treasury accompanied the army and paid out rewards to brave soldiers . The clerks then needed to account for their disbursements and so sent in descriptions of the incident to Costantinople. This has been suggested as the reason why battle descriptions are very sketchy, but then contain quite a bit of detail about the actions of one or more individuals. Then of course there are the tales of veterans which have their own bias.

As regards Chalons, any report from Aetius will have gone to Ravenna. It is possible that the archives survived, but then Cassiodorus had to find it and, if it was much the same as those from Justinian's generals it would have been pretty sketchy and it would only cover the Roman part in any detail. However, Aetius might have reported on the sort of thing that interested the court such as which allies had turned p and that might be because they received payment and thus there had to be accounts.
We do not have any accounts of heroic actions. Most likely, if they existed they were only of interest in Ravenna and, as they did not concern Goths they were not of interest to Cassiodorus.
A man who was twenty at the time of the battle would be 100 by the time Cassiodorus wrote. If Jordanes wrote when he was 40 then he could have heard from a father who was born up to sixty  years before so word of mouth would have needed probably three generations of transfer.  In one passage J refers to Gothic songs and there could have been a bardic tradition that reached back, but it would have been an OstroGothic tradition and actually that is not a particularly detailed section.
Given those modes of transference I think we can have confidence in the overall plan and layout of the battle, but not at all in details such as Attila's speech.
Roy

[aligern]

Hmmm To be present at Attila's speech Let us say the man is 30 so born in 420
Life A 420 to 470
Tells his son born in 445
Who tells his son born 470
Who lives to 520 in time to tell Cassiodorus.

At the extreme a man born in 430 could listen to the speech and live to be 70 in 500. However, in my experience 20 year olds don't remember much of that sort of stuff (Gothic nobles are not the sort of geeks who take notes on the leader's exhortations) and 70 would be fantastically old for a member of the Ostrogothic nobility given that they were to undergo a campaign in Italy, war against the Gepids (Nedao) war against the Rugi, war against the Sciri war against other Goths, war against the Sarmatians War against the Gepids (away match this time), war against Odovacar, all in the space of 25years.

So I think my calculation above is reasonable and that it is a three generation transmission line for an oral rendering of Attila's oratory.
Roy

[Patrick Waterson]

Or to look at it another way ...

Life A is born in 420, fights at Chalons in 451, enters Roman service c.455-460 (after Nedao), gets fame/notoriety because he was THERE and can recite Attila's speech in full for the curious and the adoring, and it gets written down by an interested officer or even an interested priest - maybe even both.

Furthermore, a couple of other Hunnic chaps who fought at Chalons and heard Attila are in the same unit and can vouch for its accuracy.

Total temporal tradition: no more than ten years before pen or stylus hits recording medium.

To me this seems a not unlikely set of circumstances.  If a culture sets great store by speeches, they will be remembered.  (If it sets great store by actions, they will be remembered, too.)

[Jim Webster]

Well, there you go. Letters and accounts would exist if literacy did, and literacy was a requisite among the officer class in the army, where messages and orders had to be communicated by writing.

Jordanes himself wrote his History of the Goths at Constantinople, hence he had access to the libraries of the city which must have given him material on Chalons besides what Cassiodorus supplied. He was writing a century after the events. There had been a continuity of culture, infrastructure and education in the Eastern Empire from 451 to 553 (i.e. contemporary accounts of the battle would have made their way to Constantinople and been preserved there). It is difficult to believe that he did not have access to any detailed account of Chalons besides the one Cassiodorus gave him. Where would have Cassiodorus have got his information from in that case?

The big question is 'Where were these great libraries of documents?' We know the contemporary culture, infrastructure and education, (Crudely put, Education was beginning to shift from Homer to Christianity, certainly there was nothing you'd recognise as analytical history. We know what Roman archives were like, we have copies of annals where you tended to get a few lines for a year, they hadn't the same anally retentive love of squirreling away data that we have. Look at the efforts they made to keeping the Notitia up to date, it's in such a mess with duplicated units we cannot even work out what year various stuff was added.
There is no reason why any clerk in Constantinople should have filed an account of the battle of Chalons, if only because there is no reason why anyone should have sent him an account. The mere fact of the victory is all that is required.
As for Cassiodorus, he'll have had annals, which need have given little more information than we have. He could have had two or three sets, and there might be panegyrics that are lost to us, probably were. A few ecclesiastical histories and saints lives would give him a bit. Especially as there is a fair bit of tradition about which cities had bishops who turned back the Huns or stiffened the defenders resistance. There could well be Gothic oral history stories that came down as well.  So he put in the information he had, and padded it out with a bit of scene setting, invented a few speeches that sounded convincing.
To expect more is to project back onto another culture something that the culture probably didn't see a need for
Jim