The Battle of Chalons AD 451

[Justin Swanton]

Not that it matters. Whether Attila actually said what Jordanes says he said, or whether Attila just made some sort of speech with the content invented by Jordanes, or whether Attila made a speech of which the gist was known and Jordanes supplied some of the details, the result is the same: we acquire interesting facts about the initial hunnic attack, the superiority and something of the fighting techniques of formed Roman/Auxilia infantry, and Attila's response. What we can rule out is that what Attila said or Jordanes made him say was just made up without any basis in what actually happened. Bearing in mind that Jordanes was, if anything, pro Gothic, and it is the Romans who emerge as the best troops in this battle.

[Erpingham]

What we can rule out is that what Attila said or Jordanes made him say was just made up without any basis in what actually happened. Bearing in mind that Jordanes was, if anything, pro Gothic, and it is the Romans who emerge as the best troops in this battle.

Well almost.  It is possible that Jordanes knew nothing about the Roman infantry but assumed they were like the Roman infantry he knew - heavies who would form a shieldwall when faced by cavalry.

[Patrick Waterson]

But it is probable that he was drawing on a source who was closer to the Western Roman army in both time and geography.  If we are to credit him with having numerous Gothic sources, although it is generally accepted on his own admission that he principally used - and summarised - Cassiodorus, they would have ancestors who had seen a Roman army of the period in action.

I am intrigued by the (perhaps unintended) implication that a Western Roman army might not form shieldwall when faced by cavalry.  How, then, one wonders, would they expect to repel them?

[Justin Swanton]

On the subject of the shieldwall, the original Latin literally says 'battlelines and testudos'.

I'd be interested to see the evidence that for Jordanes a 'testudo' meant a shieldwall. If we accept that the Hunnic cavalry were by and large bow-armed skirmishers, wouldn't a tortoise be a more appropriate formation? Carrhae and all that (even in the presence of cataphracts).

[Jim Webster]

But it is probable that he was drawing on a source who was closer to the Western Roman army in both time and geography.  If we are to credit him with having numerous Gothic sources, although it is generally accepted on his own admission that he principally used - and summarised - Cassiodorus, they would have ancestors who had seen a Roman army of the period in action.

I am intrigued by the (perhaps unintended) implication that a Western Roman army might not form shieldwall when faced by cavalry.  How, then, one wonders, would they expect to repel them?

He may just be drawing from what he'd seen of the infantry of the Goths or perhaps the infantry of Belisarius, after all, the later were Roman infantry

PS he may have written in Constantinople so he's have seen plenty of Roman Infantry

Jim

[aligern]

Jordanes is writing in Constantinople.
I fail to see how the Romans emerge as the best troops in the battle? Surely the victory is down to the Visigoths.....part of the reason why I do not believe in a Roman source.
Roy

[Justin Swanton]

Jordanes is writing in Constantinople.
I fail to see how the Romans emerge as the best troops in the battle? Surely the victory is down to the Visigoths.....part of the reason why I do not believe in a Roman source.
Roy

The Romans are able to beat the Huns off the heights without difficulty, and for all Attila's bombast (whether actually said by him or said for him by Jordanes) he will not dare attack them directly again. The fight between the Huns and Visigoths and Alans, on the other hand, is a see-saw affair, not immediately concluded either way, and it is only when the Visigoths are able to attack the Huns in the flank - either by chasing off the Ostrogoths or by a reserve attacking Attila's exposed flank - that the battle goes against Attila. Notice that he is not killed and that he is able to withdraw his forces in order, implying that even though flanked, the Huns can still engage the Visigoths sufficiently to be able to retreat without routing to their camp.

[Jim Webster]

Actually you could equally say that the 'Roman' infantry huddled pathetically on the heights, and Attila could ignore them and the real battle was between the Huns, Ostrogoths, Alans and Visigoths

Once they'd got to the heights they didn't do anything

Very different from a Roman army at  the Battle of Singara 344AD where the Romans advanced a hundred stades in full armour, driving the Sassanids before them, pinning them against their camp and then breaking into the camp.

Jim

[Erpingham]

On the subject of the shieldwall, the original Latin literally says 'battlelines and testudos'.

I'd be interested to see the evidence that for Jordanes a 'testudo' meant a shieldwall. If we accept that the Hunnic cavalry were by and large bow-armed skirmishers, wouldn't a tortoise be a more appropriate formation? Carrhae and all that (even in the presence of cataphracts).

As it happens, having sounded the note of caution, I think it is quite likely that Jordanes (or his source) think of these are close-order Romans.  As such, their response to cavalry attack may well be to go into a testudo (which, by this point seems to have meant locked shields in front,with ranks two and three holding shields overhead - so pretty shieldwall-like).  But, as echoed by Jim, he may have in his head the Roman infantry of his own time, so we need to be cautious.  We mustn't leap to conclude these are a particular type of infantry (legions, auxiliaries, heavily armoured etc or even particularly well drilled - as I've said on another thread, we have a sixth century account of Frankish infantry forming a similar formation).

[Patrick Waterson]

Actually you could equally say that the 'Roman' infantry huddled pathetically on the heights, and Attila could ignore them and the real battle was between the Huns, Ostrogoths, Alans and Visigoths

Once they'd got to the heights they didn't do anything

Very different from a Roman army at  the Battle of Singara 344AD where the Romans advanced a hundred stades in full armour, driving the Sassanids before them, pinning them against their camp and then breaking into the camp.

Not necessarily.  Attila feels the need to depict the Romans as pathetic huddlers (and let us not forget that these 'pathetic huddlers' had beaten his right back from the ridge in the first place) because his troops are disheartened and nervous.

Now, if the Huns ignore the Romans and pile into the Alans and their supporting Visigoths (the bulk of the Visigoths seems to have been engaged by their Ostrogothic near-kindred), the Romans are being presented with an opportunity to flank the Hunnic attack.  Jordanes implies this is what the Goths did, but both he and Gregory of Tours tacitly credit Aetius with the victory, notably when Attila makes his subsequent foray into the Empire having learned of the death of Aetius.  The demise of Theoderic apparently was not a factor in Attila's evaluation.

Reading between the lines, I sense a Roman flank attack on Attila's centre just as things were getting interesting.  The Visigoths who 'separated from the Alans' and went in may have been part of this or may have been the buttressing force we have surmised from Jordanes' description of the Alans as 'surrounded' by reliable troops who discouraged retreat.

This prompts a hypothesis about Aetius' conduct of the battle.  If he had disposed a Visigothic cavalry force behind the Alans' right and a Roman cavalry force behind the Alans' left to prevent premature egress from the battlefield, he might have arranged so that on a signal each force pulled to one side and let the Alans fall back, drawing the Huns after them, and then the Huns, who would have been following up the Alans, were hit in both flanks by the Romans and Visigoths.  Such conduct of the battle would accord with Aetius' reputation as a masterly general, and would explain how the battle suddenly went sour for Attila, precipitating a Hunnic rout back to camp.  Under this hypothesis, Jordanes, in keeping with his Getocentric focus, would have given us only the Visigothic side of the manoeuvre, leaving out the Roman part.

Hmmm, looks like the basis of a possible article here ...

[Patrick Waterson]

But, as echoed by Jim, he may have in his head the Roman infantry of his own time, so we need to be cautious.  We mustn't leap to conclude these are a particular type of infantry (legions, auxiliaries, heavily armoured etc or even particularly well drilled - as I've said on another thread, we have a sixth century account of Frankish infantry forming a similar formation).

I had the impression that 'testudo' was no longer a formation practised by 6th century Eastern Empire (aka Byzantine) infantry (they may have used 'phoulkon' but I do not recall this term occurring in Procopius).  The usual contemporary term (at least in Sidonius) for what seem to be regular infantry formations in the mid-late 5th century is 'agmen' - in earlier usage, understood as a column, but by the 5th century perhaps meaning a 'formation' in the sense of a 'unit'.  Majorian's panegyrised success against Vandal raiders in Italy is attained with 'agmina vestra' - your units/formations.  This was following his appointment as Magister Militum, so looks as if it is referring to regular units under his command.

Might it be possible to give the reference for 'Frankish infantry forming a similar formation'?  The Latin would be worth a look - assuming it is Latin and not Procopius' description (in Greek) of the Franks at Casilinum.

[aligern]

Procopius does not , I think,  describe the shield formation at Casilinum, it's a wedge.

Agathias writes about the Frankish shield wall at Rimini.
Roy

[Jim Webster]

Actually you could equally say that the 'Roman' infantry huddled pathetically on the heights, and Attila could ignore them and the real battle was between the Huns, Ostrogoths, Alans and Visigoths

Once they'd got to the heights they didn't do anything

Very different from a Roman army at  the Battle of Singara 344AD where the Romans advanced a hundred stades in full armour, driving the Sassanids before them, pinning them against their camp and then breaking into the camp.

Not necessarily.  Attila feels the need to depict the Romans as pathetic huddlers (and let us not forget that these 'pathetic huddlers' had beaten his right back from the ridge in the first place) because his troops are disheartened and nervous.

Now, if the Huns ignore the Romans and pile into the Alans and their supporting Visigoths (the bulk of the Visigoths seems to have been engaged by their Ostrogothic near-kindred), the Romans are being presented with an opportunity to flank the Hunnic attack.   

Why are you ignoring the Gepids? Was something said which discounted them which I missed?
I thought they were the ones the Romans had to deal with?

Jim

[rodge]

Testudo seems an odd formation if it refers to the anti-missile, shed like formation.
Whilst the Huns could use light cavalry bow tactics they were also capable of heavy cavalry tactics and were capable shifting between both styles.
Against heavy cavalry a classic 'shed' testudo formation would come off second best; the ability to present a hedge of spear points goes, as does the ability to discharge any missile weapons, as does the bracing required should a horse and rider make contact (for whatever reason) with the formation.
'Testudo' seems to be a fairly flexible term in the sources; it's more likely some kind of foulkon (fulcum) or closed up formation I think with braced spears; and that could easily be interpreted as a shield wall, i.e. a wall of shields.

Plutarch describe Mark Anthony's deployment against Parthian cavalry in 36BC:

'the legionnaires locked the light infantry within their ranks; some [legionaries] dropping down on one knee, positioned their scuta in frot of them while those behind (i.e. the 2nd rank] covered them with their shields, and others [3rd rank] likewise covered them. The appearance closely resembled a sloping roof...'

There are other examples in Arrian, Zosimus, Ammianus, Cassius Dio....

Who the men are behind this shield wall is however another question; trained but not necessarily elite.

[Justin Swanton]

On the subject of the shieldwall, the original Latin literally says 'battlelines and testudos'.

I'd be interested to see the evidence that for Jordanes a 'testudo' meant a shieldwall. If we accept that the Hunnic cavalry were by and large bow-armed skirmishers, wouldn't a tortoise be a more appropriate formation? Carrhae and all that (even in the presence of cataphracts).

As it happens, having sounded the note of caution, I think it is quite likely that Jordanes (or his source) think of these are close-order Romans.  As such, their response to cavalry attack may well be to go into a testudo (which, by this point seems to have meant locked shields in front,with ranks two and three holding shields overhead - so pretty shieldwall-like).  But, as echoed by Jim, he may have in his head the Roman infantry of his own time, so we need to be cautious.  We mustn't leap to conclude these are a particular type of infantry (legions, auxiliaries, heavily armoured etc or even particularly well drilled - as I've said on another thread, we have a sixth century account of Frankish infantry forming a similar formation).

Given that the Roman foot know they are confronting a predominantly horse archer army, it would make sense for them to extend this formation by having ranks 3 to 8 hold their shields overhead and form a tortoise. So you have both a shieldwall and tortoise in one, which would be an effective counter to both hunnic shooting and charging.

But an examination of the use of 'testudo' by late Roman authors would be interesting.