The Battle of Chalons AD 451

[Justin Swanton]

Re reading jordanEs you might have to change that map of yours Justin. In 195 , unconfident of Sangiban's loyalty he and his tribe are placed ' in the midst of their auxiliaries.' Now, if that refers to the battle layout it will not be A Visigoth force behind Sangiban , but one or more of the auxilia listed at191.
Of course you will suggest t hat the surrounding by auxilia takes place at  Orleans before Attila's arrival, but. the term is repeated at 197 and the Goths and  Romans are supposed to be on either flank.
If Jordanes is so good , by the way how do you reconcile
that in jordanes Orleans is defended by Aetius and Theoderid who build earthworks.
That there is no mention of Attila retreating yet the battlefield is stated to be the catalaunian plaiNs
In the life of St Anianus the city has been besieged and penetrated by the time that Aetius and Theoderid arrive.

As to the alleged second advance of Attila into gaul to attack the Alans after his invasion of Italy where is the time for this. where any other corroboration.
Jordanes is shot through with inconsistencies which appear to be invisible to some.
roy

Without the Vita Anianis text in Latin I can't comment on whether it contradicts Jordanes or not.

One thing to note about Jordanes' account:

Quod ubi Theodoridus et Aetius agnoverunt, magnis aggeribus eandem urbem ante adventum Attilae struunt, suspectumque custodiunt Sangibanum et inter suos anxiliares medium statuunt cum propria gente. Igitur Attila rex Hunnorum tali perculsus eventu diffidens suis copiis metuit inire conflictum. When Theodored and Aëtius learned of this, they cast up great earthworks around that city before Attila's arrival and kept watch over the suspected Sangiban, placing him with his tribe in the midst of their auxiliaries. Then Attila, king of the Huns, was beaten [rather than dismayed] by this event and lost confidence in his own troops, so that he feared to begin the conflict.

Perculsus has a primary sense of 'beat', 'strike down', 'smite', 'overthrow', with a secondary meaning of 'dismay'. Hence one can see this passage as affirming that Attila was beaten physically at Orleans by the earthenworks of Aetius and Theodoric, defended by Alans stiffened by the Auxilia. Notice that there is no indication that the main armies of Aetius and Theodoric have yet arrived at this point.

Conflictum has the root sense of 'a striking together,' 'a collision'. Hence what Attila fears is not the initiation of hostilities, which had already begun, but the decisive engagement between his and the allied armies. Orleans showed him that he was up against something tougher than he had originally imagined.

It sometimes helps to look at the original Latin, which is why I wish I had spent more time on Greek.

[Duncan Head]

No, Rodg might know!
Roy

I don't know of this online.
You need:

Vita Aniani Episcopus Aurelianensis, ed. B. Krusch, MGHSRMiii: 104-117 (1896)

I dont know if there is a later translation.

The MGH text is itself available online - contents page here, I hope

[Erpingham]

Actually Agathias uses 'synaspismon' (literally translated as 'joining shields') which simply indicates the assumption of a very close formation.  The arrow-proof protection given by the shields is entirely consistent with the use of a shieldwall, a fairly standard German tactic, without invoking a phoulkon or testudo.  (Duke William met much the same sort of thing at Hastings.)

But isn't Rance's point that these are related - the foulkon relates to the testudo and the concept of a shieldwall.  Testudo has lost its earlier meaning of a completely enclosed formation to mean something that has similar properties of overlapping shields and overhead cover, which the foulkon also has.  I'm sure I don't have to tell you that a few hundred after Chalons, testudo was being used to mean shieldwall.  Which brings us back to a point that has been made several times - translating Jordanes as if he uses military words in a strict technical sense may be suspect.  I don't have the language skills of many here but I do know latin is evolving at the time he wrote.

[Justin Swanton]

No, Rodg might know!
Roy

I don't know of this online.
You need:

Vita Aniani Episcopus Aurelianensis, ed. B. Krusch, MGHSRMiii: 104-117 (1896)

I dont know if there is a later translation.

The MGH text is itself available online - contents page here, I hope

Still couldn't find the text. Roy mentioned that Ananius affirmed Attila had reached Orleans before the arrival of Aetius and Theodoric's armies, which is the same thing Jordanes is saying, so no matter.

[Justin Swanton]

Actually Agathias uses 'synaspismon' (literally translated as 'joining shields') which simply indicates the assumption of a very close formation.  The arrow-proof protection given by the shields is entirely consistent with the use of a shieldwall, a fairly standard German tactic, without invoking a phoulkon or testudo.  (Duke William met much the same sort of thing at Hastings.)

But isn't Rance's point that these are related - the foulkon relates to the testudo and the concept of a shieldwall.  Testudo has lost its earlier meaning of a completely enclosed formation to mean something that has similar properties of overlapping shields and overhead cover, which the foulkon also has.  I'm sure I don't have to tell you that a few hundred after Chalons, testudo was being used to mean shieldwall.  Which brings us back to a point that has been made several times - translating Jordanes as if he uses military words in a strict technical sense may be suspect.  I don't have the language skills of many here but I do know latin is evolving at the time he wrote.

Rance does make the point that writers like Ammianus describe this arrowproof shieldwall formation as being 'like a testudo', 'in the form of a testudo' (p302). The conclusion is that the formation existed but did not have its own term - at least not for a writer like Ammianus - until one was created later on and given as current usage by Maurice in 590.

Taking another look at the passage:

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.

dum in ordine coeunt et acies testudineque conectunt seems awkward to me. Literally it means: 'whilst they come together in order and join up their battleline(s) and by testudo.'

One could perhaps paraphrase the passage thus:

'You know how little a matter Roman arms are: they are weighed down, I say not by the first wound, but by the dust itself, whilst they arrange themselves in order and join up their battleline(s) - by testudo too!'

In other words Attila is emphasising how slow the Roman arms and formations make them, allowing the Huns to ignore them for the present and concentrate on the Visigoths and Alans.

[aligern]

Justin, the life of Anianus suggests that Attila gets to Orleans first and has almost , or actually broken in before The Goths  and Aetius arrive.  Jordanes has Aetius and Theoderid  arriving first and building great earthworks before Attila's  arrival and surrounding Sangiban with auxilia. That is rather different from arriving at the climax of a siege where the good bishop has been praying for their arrival for days.

It is possible to wriggle on this point, but in the end the question is whether Jordanes is right or wrong, or more crucially, that there is doubt as to his account .
Similarly with his allegation of a second Hun invasion with a battle in Gaul which is dubious in terms of time and without support.
Similarly, why does Jordanes not mention Avitus role in getting Gothic hel?
The importance of the doubts about Jordanes account is that you are relying upon minute interpretations of his words, which is great fun, but  is a step too far in sweating the sources.
IMHO
Roy
Oh and I suspect testudo was never clearly defined and did not originally mean just a formation with shields all around and above. Roman drill masters could easily have differentiated between formations by ordering either line or a cohort column first and then shoutin Ad testudinem or whatever and thus achieving either the wargamer's idea of a testudo or a line with shields grounded , at 45% and horizontal.
Roy

[Justin Swanton]

Oh and I suspect testudo was never clearly defined and did not originally mean just a formation with shields all around and above. Roman drill masters could easily have differentiated between formations by ordering either line or a cohort column first and then shoutin Ad testudinem or whatever and thus achieving either the wargamer's idea of a testudo or a line with shields grounded , at 45% and horizontal.
Roy

Rance does say as much.

Justin, the life of Anianus suggests that Attila gets to Orleans first and has almost , or actually broken in before The Goths  and Aetius arrive.  Jordanes has Aetius and Theoderid  arriving first and building great earthworks before Attila's  arrival and surrounding Sangiban with auxilia. That is rather different from arriving at the climax of a siege where the good bishop has been praying for their arrival for days.

The interesting fact about Jordanes' account of events at Orleans is the earthworks. One builds earthworks around a city to withstand a siege, and one withstands a siege only if one's own forces are numerically inferior and unable to face the enemy in open battle. In other words, if Aetius and Theodoric's armies had already reached Orleans before Attila, why bother with earthworks? Why not just give battle to Attila then and there? For me the earthworks implies that Aetius wanted to hold Orleans, but did not yet have the Visigoths and his own forces on hand. It is the most natural interpretation of the text.

Similarly with his allegation of a second Hun invasion with a battle in Gaul which is dubious in terms of time and without support.

The second Hunnic invasion seems at least possible, and the fact that only one source mentions it does not automatically mean that source is wrong.

Similarly, why does Jordanes not mention Avitus role in getting Gothic help?

Because in his context it is a relatively unimportant detail. The only reason we know about it is because Sidonius describes it in his panegyric to the same Avitus.

Don't get me wrong - I don't automatically accept every detail of Jordanes' history, but I prefer the approach of doing everything possible to make sense of a source, only discarding it if it is clearly proven false.

[Jim Webster]

Oh and I suspect testudo was never clearly defined and did not originally mean just a formation with shields all around and above. Roman drill masters could easily have differentiated between formations by ordering either line or a cohort column first and then shoutin Ad testudinem or whatever and thus achieving either the wargamer's idea of a testudo or a line with shields grounded , at 45% and horizontal.
Roy

Actually, I thought it was defined and mean tortoise :-)

This makes sense of the comments Justin made "Rance does make the point that writers like Ammianus describe this arrowproof shieldwall formation as being 'like a testudo', 'in the form of a testudo' (p302). The conclusion is that the formation existed but did not have its own term - at least not for a writer like Ammianus - until one was created later on and given as current usage by Maurice in 590."

Yes, the shieldwall wasn't 'a testudo', it was 'like a tortoise'

Jim

[Erpingham]

Oh and I suspect testudo was never clearly defined and did not originally mean just a formation with shields all around and above. Roman drill masters could easily have differentiated between formations by ordering either line or a cohort column first and then shoutin Ad testudinem or whatever and thus achieving either the wargamer's idea of a testudo or a line with shields grounded , at 45% and horizontal.
Roy

Rance does say as much.

That is how I read it.  He alludes to, but doesn't really resolve, the question of whether the late testudo/foulkon formation is a result of barbarisation i.e. that the late Roman army is absorbing the native tactics of the barbarian troops filling its ranks.  However, this thesis does rather assume that shieldwall forming is the natural style of these barbarians.  The alternative is that shieldwalling is something that is brought out from late Roman tactics.  But the development of shieldwall tactics maybe a separate thread.

[Justin Swanton]

That is how I read it.  He alludes to, but doesn't really resolve, the question of whether the late testudo/foulkon formation is a result of barbarisation i.e. that the late Roman army is absorbing the native tactics of the barbarian troops filling its ranks.  However, this thesis does rather assume that shieldwall forming is the natural style of these barbarians.  The alternative is that shieldwalling is something that is brought out from late Roman tactics.  But the development of shieldwall tactics maybe a separate thread.

Actually he is against the idea of a fulcron coming from barbarian tactics. His point is that this kind of multi-layered shieldwall existed for a long time in the Roman army. It required considerable discipline and training to create and maintain, something the barbarians didn't have.

[rodge]

Actually he is against the idea of a fulcron coming from barbarian tactics. His point is that this kind of multi-layered shieldwall existed for a long time in the Roman army. It required considerable discipline and training to create and maintain, something the barbarians didn't have.

Indeed Rance is against the barbarian root for the shield wall. Hence I quoted Plutarch on Mark Anthony a while back....

I disagree that it takes 'considerable discipline and training to create and maintain' Justin. It takes training and discipline but it is not the mark of troops that 'considerable discipline and training to create and maintain' could suggest (if indeed that is what you are suggesting i.e. top notch/elite soldiers?).

[Erpingham]

Actually he is against the idea of a fulcron coming from barbarian tactics. His point is that this kind of multi-layered shieldwall existed for a long time in the Roman army. It required considerable discipline and training to create and maintain, something the barbarians didn't have.

Indeed, that is his view and he makes a reasonable case for it.  But he doesn't go into the question in great depth, in my view.  As to the degree of discipline and training needed,

Then King Harald arranged his army, and made the line of battle
long, but not deep.  He bent both wings of it back, so that they
met together; and formed a wide ring equally thick all round,
shield to shield, both in the front and rear ranks.  The king
himself and his retinue were within the circle; and there was the
banner, and a body of chosen men.  Earl Toste, with his retinue,
was at another place, and had a different banner.  The army was
arranged in this way, because the king knew that horsemen were
accustomed to ride forwards with great vigour, but to turn back
immediately.  Now the king ordered that his own and the earl's
attendants should ride forwards where it was most required.  "And
our bowmen," said he, "shall be near to us; and they who stand in
the first rank shall set the spear-shaft on the ground, and the
spear-point against the horseman's breast, if he rides at them;
and those who stand in the second rank shall set the spear-point
against the horse's breast."

I don't think Early Medieval Scandinavian armies were particularly drilled or well-trained but this looks quite similar to the descriptions of Byzantine infantry tactics Rance gives to me.  So, lets not assume that something "testudo-like" needs a lot of drilled regulars, just some organisation and control (I point again to the Franks at Rimini).

[Patrick Waterson]

Sorry but how did Jordanes know what Attila was 'meditating'?

An interesting question, suggesting a source close to the top.

One thing we can be sure of it that there is no way that Attila is ever going to tell anyone publicly that he has lost confidence in his own troops. Certainly not in the middle of a battle, otherwise things are going to hell in a hand cart.

And he did not - he disparaged the Romans and led his men in against the Alans.  He still got thrashed.

Jordanes may well think that Attila was meditating that, he might even be right, but we have to separate his opinion (which need be no better informed than ours) from any facts he might mention

It is possible that this was a fact rather than a Jordanes opinion - had he been a high-calibre historian, he might have mentioned his source and not left us guessing.

Still couldn't find the text. Roy mentioned that Anianus affirmed Attila had reached Orleans before the arrival of Aetius and Theodoric's armies, which is the same thing Jordanes is saying, so no matter.

Indeed.  And if one attempts to invoke this proctologically-pronounced priest as evidence of Jordanes' unreliability because of a difference in the telling, why should the converse argument not apply?  Why should it not be Jordanes showing Anianus to be unreliable?  Better to pay attention to what we can extract from sources than to pronounce them unreliable when they do not fit preconceived notions.

The interesting fact about Jordanes' account of events at Orleans is the earthworks. One builds earthworks around a city to withstand a siege, and one withstands a siege only if one's own forces are numerically inferior and unable to face the enemy in open battle. In other words, if Aetius and Theodoric's armies had already reached Orleans before Attila, why bother with earthworks? Why not just give battle to Attila then and there? For me the earthworks implies that Aetius wanted to hold Orleans, but did not yet have the Visigoths and his own forces on hand. It is the most natural interpretation of the text.

Gregory of Tours (II.7) notes:

"Soon afterwards the rumour reached Rome that Aetius was in great danger with the troops of the enemy all around him."

This suggests that Aetius had been first into the field and had thrown himself into Orleans, erecting defences or a camp - either the town walls were ruinous or his force encamped outside the town.  It is certainly consistent with Aetius being present before the Visigoths arrived.

[Patrick Waterson]

He alludes to, but doesn't really resolve, the question of whether the late testudo/foulkon formation is a result of barbarisation i.e. that the late Roman army is absorbing the native tactics of the barbarian troops filling its ranks.  However, this thesis does rather assume that shieldwall forming is the natural style of these barbarians.  The alternative is that shieldwalling is something that is brought out from late Roman tactics.

But the development of shieldwall tactics maybe a separate thread.

Might be an idea ...

I don't think Early Medieval Scandinavian armies were particularly drilled or well-trained but this looks quite similar to the descriptions of Byzantine infantry tactics Rance gives to me.  So, lets not assume that something "testudo-like" needs a lot of drilled regulars, just some organisation and control (I point again to the Franks at Rimini).

One might also point out that the English formation at Hastings and the Frankish formation at Rimini were static affairs, but the Roman 'testudo-like' formation was traditionally mobile: this is where the training and discipline come in.

Had Harold's men had the training and discipline to maintain a 'testudo-like' formation when mobile, the advance of the English right at Hastings might have had a very different outcome.

[rodge]

One might also point out that the English formation at Hastings and the Frankish formation at Rimini were static affairs, but the Roman 'testudo-like' formation was traditionally mobile: this is where the training and discipline come in.

After the heights were taken did the Romans move again Patrick? Or did they adopt a static defensive formation?