The Battle of Chalons AD 451

[Erpingham]

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.

A tad harsh.  You yourself are an advocate of the fact that Greek and Roman troops usually opened up to advance, so why should Early Medieval infantry do otherwise?  The problem of the English right seems to have been a disorderly advance, not the quality of their shieldwall (although the two are interconnected).   But that is for a Hastings thread

[Patrick Waterson]

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

This we are not told: Jordanes seems to focus on the Gothic participation without telling us what Aetius was doing on his side of the field.  The only criterion we have is the sudden collapse of the Hunnic centre at the time of the Visigoth attack (when they 'separated from' the Alans) - this seems more compatible with simultaneous assaults on the flanks of the Hunnic centre by Romans and Goths than with a single attack by Goths alone.

It may also be noteworthy that Aetius was the opponent Attila subsequently feared, and rejoiced at the news of this death.  It is hard to see why unless Aetius had played a direct and significant part in the Huns' defeat.

You yourself are an advocate of the fact that Greek and Roman troops usually opened up to advance, so why should Early Medieval infantry do otherwise?

But the whole point of a testudo was that it could advance without opening up.

[Jim Webster]

It may also be noteworthy that Aetius was the opponent Attila subsequently feared, and rejoiced at the news of this death.  It is hard to see why unless Aetius had played a direct and significant part in the Huns' defeat.

He did, he brought together the grand alliance that defeated Attila. We also have to remember that because of Aetius's hunnic contacts, it might be that Attila feared him as someone who could undermine him politically at home.
It doesn't tell us that he feared Aetius because at one battle he'd moved troops in a certain direction.

Similar with Attila meditating. Who on earth was this source close to the top? Remember that Attila was dead four years after this battle, and on his deathbed he had things on his mind other than confessing his personal weakness.
Frankly rather than postulate a source for which there is no evidence, I think it makes far more sense to assume that Jordanes 'made it up'.
If we're being kind to him we can say that it was Jordanes attempting to see into Attila's mind based on the evidence he had. After all, various Gothic folk tales and family stories could well have mentioned how Attila 'damned near wet himself' when he saw the Visigothic array (or until the Ostrogoths sacrificed themselves heroically to save his bacon, depending on which family story it was)
It is possible that it was a fact, but there is no evidence that Jordanes could have known this fact, and judging by the rest of his work his job was to produce a history of the Goths in the old style, he had no interest in writing what we could describe as history

Jim

[Erpingham]

But the whole point of a testudo was that it could advance without opening up.

The traditional one yes.  But the "testudo-like" formations of the late army?  I thought Rance's argument are that these are much more static defensive formations? 

[rodge]

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

This we are not told: Jordanes seems to focus on the Gothic participation without telling us what Aetius was doing on his side of the field.  The only criterion we have is the sudden collapse of the Hunnic centre at the time of the Visigoth attack (when they 'separated from' the Alans) - this seems more compatible with simultaneous assaults on the flanks of the Hunnic centre by Romans and Goths than with a single attack by Goths alone.

My reading of the situation is that the Romans take the ridge and stay there in a defensive 'locked shield' formation.

[aligern]

A quote from Patrick:
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.'
Jordanes says that Aetius and Theoderid arrive at Orleans and build earthworks before Attila arrives. Anianus Vita says that Attila arrives and besieges the city before Aetius and Thederid arrive. The two accounts acre not compatible.
Megthodologically it is acceptable to work on the basis that , if two accounts are equal in value. then a rendering which makes sense of both is generally best. In this case the Vita has the advantage of being compiled 1000 miles closer than Jordanes and by having an institutionally continuous relationship with the saint. So Jordanes should be the junior account here. His story of earthworks is likely a fabrication (couldn't resist that one).
Also, may I suggest Justin that believing a source unless it is disproved  isj not a good way of working. Some Indian sources have people fighting from flying machines. Now that cannot be disproved, it is just at the far end of a doctrine thay accept the unlikely.
Whether there were Roman regular infantry at Chalons we do not know. It is quite possible that there were some, or some cavalry units deployed on Aetius left, with the auxilia contingents that Jordanes describes and with Thorismud. As Jordanes refers directly at 211 to Thorismud  having repulsed the enemy from the hill comes at night to Attila's camp whilst in the dark we should assume that Thorismud and Aetius have been fighting actively and aggressively against the Gepids who should have fronted against them. The battle is won by the Visigoths on the right flank who defeat the Ostrogoths and then turn on Attila nearly catching him. The likelihood that Thorismud is crossing the battlefield from left to right when he encounters the Hun camp. This argues that the Gepids have been driven off, but also that Theoderid cannot have been in the centre behind the Gepids.
Roy

[Justin Swanton]

Megthodologically it is acceptable to work on the basis that , if two accounts are equal in value. then a rendering which makes sense of both is generally best. In this case the Vita has the advantage of being compiled 1000 miles closer than Jordanes and by having an institutionally continuous relationship with the saint. So Jordanes should be the junior account here. His story of earthworks is likely a fabrication (couldn't resist that one).
Also, may I suggest Justin that believing a source unless it is disproved  isj not a good way of working. Some Indian sources have people fighting from flying machines. Now that cannot be disproved, it is just at the far end of a doctrine thay accept the unlikely.

If one works from the premise that Jordanes probably made up the earthworks at Orleans and mistakenly put Aetius and Theodoric's armies there before Attila's arrival, then suddenly one is left knowing very little about the battle itself. The reasoning will go like this:

"Given that Jordanes has many Auxilia present at the battle (largely a fabrication since several of the Auxilia are not named in any other source) one can assume that for Jordanes this was an important battle in which relatively large numbers took part (though large numbers may mean as little as 20 000 men or less per side). Placing Sangiban and the Alans in the middle of the allied line is probably an extrapolation from his earlier willingness to surrender to Attila, and cannot be taken literally. Having Thorismud fight with Aetius may be merely a device by which Jordanes shows the important role of the Visigoths in this battle - something that with his pro-Visigothic attitude he is likely to do. Attila's speech is of course entirely invented, and the mention of a hill may be another device by which Jordanes shows the inferiority of the 'Romans' (presuming there were any actual Roman troops at Chalons which is unlikely, given that Jordanes describes only Auxilia which probably refers only to barbarian foederati) compared to the Visigoths, who defeat Attila on level ground.

"In conclusion, we can be certain only that there was a battle in Gaul between a Hunnic army under Attila and a barbarian coalition under the nominal leadership of Aetius. Attila lost this battle and retired from Gaul. To conclude more would be to place an overly literal confidence in Jordanes as a source." 

[Jim Webster]

That's a good starting point Justin
The next stage is to see what agreement we get from any other texts which confirm any of the details.
Jim

[rodge]

Orleans sources I know of other than Jordanes:

GoT HF II.VII
And Attila king of the Huns went forth from Metz and when he had crushed many cities of the Gauls he attacked Orleans and strove to take it by the mighty hammering of battering rams. Now at that time the most blessed Annianus was bishop in the city just mentioned, a man of unequalled wisdom and praiseworthy holiness, whose miracles are faithfully remembered among us. And when the people, on being shut in, cried to their bishop, and asked what they were to do, trusting in God he advised all to prostrate themselves in prayer, and with tears to implore the ever present aid of God in their necessities. Then when they prayed as he had directed, the bishop said: "Look from the wall of the city to sec whether God's mercy yet comes to your aid." For he hoped that by God's mercy Ætius was coming, to whom he had recourse before at Arles when he was anxious about the future. But when they looked from the wall, they saw no one. And he said: "Pray faithfully, for God will free you this day." When they had prayed he said: "Look again." And when they looked they saw no one to bring aid. He said to them a third time: "If you pray faithfully, God comes swiftly." And they besought God's mercy with weeping and loud cries. When this prayer also was finished they looked from the wall a third time at the old man's command, and saw afar off a cloud as it were arising from the earth. When they reported this the bishop said: "It is the aid of the Lord." Meanwhile, when the walls were now trembling from the hammering of the rams and were just about to fall, behold, Ætius came, and Theodore, king of the Goths and Thorismodus his son hastened to the city with their armies, and drove the enemy forth and defeated him.

Wall, no earthworks, Huns siege and attack in full swing, Aetius and the Goths arrive.

Sidonius VIII.XV
To the Lord Bishop Prosper c.478
You wished me to celebrate the glory of the holy Annianus, the greatest and most perfect of prelates, equal to Lupus, and no unworthy rival of Germanus; you would fain see graven on the hearts of all the faithful the memory of a character so fine, so eminent, so richly endowed with so many virtues and so many merits, to which I myself should like to add this, that he made way for such a successor as yourself. You exacted a promise from me at the same time that I would hand down for the benefit of those who come after us the history of the war with Attila, with the whole tale of the siege and assault of Orleans when the city was attacked and breached, but never laid in ruins, and the bishop's celebrated prophecy was divinely answered from above.

No mention of earthworks, just that the city walls are breached. No mention of the relieving force. (Shame he never wrote that book....)

LHF V
...It was at this time that the Huns crossed the Rhine. They burned Metz, they destroyed Trier, penetrated the area around Tongres, and came up to Orleans. At this time the holy Anianus, a man celebrated for his virtue, was bishop of Orleans. With the help of the Lord and through the prayers of the holy Anianus, Aetius, the Patrician of the Romans and Thorismund, the king of the Goths, came to Orleans, The Huns and their king Attila were driven from the city and soundly defeated.

No earthworks, Huns at the city; reads like Aetius and the Goths turn up after the Huns and drive them off but I suppose it could be read that Aetius and the Goths are at the city and drive off the Huns?

Life Of Genevieve 12
...And when the Huns besieged the city of Orleans, the latter [Anianus] by his prayers assisted the Patrician Aetius and his Goths in keeping it from destruction,

No earthworks and can be read anyway your fancy takes you.

I don't have the 'Vita Aniani' and, like Justin, cannot find the text in the link Duncan posted.

[Patrick Waterson]

It may also be noteworthy that Aetius was the opponent Attila subsequently feared, and rejoiced at the news of this death.  It is hard to see why unless Aetius had played a direct and significant part in the Huns' defeat.

He did, he brought together the grand alliance that defeated Attila. We also have to remember that because of Aetius's hunnic contacts, it might be that Attila feared him as someone who could undermine him politically at home.
It doesn't tell us that he feared Aetius because at one battle he'd moved troops in a certain direction.

Actually one could equally say that it was the emperor Valentinian who brought together the grand alliance, but nobody feared Valentinian as a military commander (although I believe there was some rejoicing over this death).

Similar with Attila meditating. Who on earth was this source close to the top? Remember that Attila was dead four years after this battle, and on his deathbed he had things on his mind other than confessing his personal weakness.

He would have discussed matters with his chief shaman and/or officers at the time of the campaign, not on his deathbed.

Frankly rather than postulate a source for which there is no evidence, I think it makes far more sense to assume that Jordanes 'made it up'.

Not at all: if we adopt this standard for unscourced statements by historians, we are left with very little of history and no skill at understanding it.

It is possible that it was a fact, but there is no evidence that Jordanes could have known this fact, and judging by the rest of his work his job was to produce a history of the Goths in the old style, he had no interest in writing what we could describe as history

There were many ways he could have known it, some of which I have mentioned earlier in the thread; we just do not know which may have been applicable.

Also, may I suggest Justin that believing a source unless it is disproved  isj not a good way of working. Some Indian sources have people fighting from flying machines. Now that cannot be disproved, it is just at the far end of a doctrine thay accept the unlikely.

Actually it is quite true; the vimanas are historically-based and their distant relatives, the vailx, were still around as of World War 2.  But that is another story.

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.

The battle is won by the Visigoths on the right flank who defeat the Ostrogoths and then turn on Attila nearly catching him. The likelihood that Thorismud is crossing the battlefield from left to right when he encounters the Hun camp. This argues that the Gepids have been driven off, but also that Theoderid cannot have been in the centre behind the Gepids.

Here of course we are taking Jordanes at face value ... valid until disproved. 

[Patrick Waterson]

Orleans sources I know of other than Jordanes:

GoT HF II.VII
And Attila king of the Huns went forth from Metz and when he had crushed many cities of the Gauls he attacked Orleans and strove to take it by the mighty hammering of battering rams. Now at that time the most blessed Annianus was bishop in the city just mentioned, a man of unequalled wisdom and praiseworthy holiness, whose miracles are faithfully remembered among us. And when the people, on being shut in, cried to their bishop, and asked what they were to do, trusting in God he advised all to prostrate themselves in prayer, and with tears to implore the ever present aid of God in their necessities. Then when they prayed as he had directed, the bishop said: "Look from the wall of the city to sec whether God's mercy yet comes to your aid." For he hoped that by God's mercy Ætius was coming, to whom he had recourse before at Arles when he was anxious about the future. But when they looked from the wall, they saw no one. And he said: "Pray faithfully, for God will free you this day." When they had prayed he said: "Look again." And when they looked they saw no one to bring aid. He said to them a third time: "If you pray faithfully, God comes swiftly." And they besought God's mercy with weeping and loud cries. When this prayer also was finished they looked from the wall a third time at the old man's command, and saw afar off a cloud as it were arising from the earth. When they reported this the bishop said: "It is the aid of the Lord." Meanwhile, when the walls were now trembling from the hammering of the rams and were just about to fall, behold, Ætius came, and Theodore, king of the Goths and Thorismodus his son hastened to the city with their armies, and drove the enemy forth and defeated him.

Wall, no earthworks, Huns siege and attack in full swing, Aetius and the Goths arrive.

Sidonius VIII.XV
To the Lord Bishop Prosper c.478
You wished me to celebrate the glory of the holy Annianus, the greatest and most perfect of prelates, equal to Lupus, and no unworthy rival of Germanus; you would fain see graven on the hearts of all the faithful the memory of a character so fine, so eminent, so richly endowed with so many virtues and so many merits, to which I myself should like to add this, that he made way for such a successor as yourself. You exacted a promise from me at the same time that I would hand down for the benefit of those who come after us the history of the war with Attila, with the whole tale of the siege and assault of Orleans when the city was attacked and breached, but never laid in ruins, and the bishop's celebrated prophecy was divinely answered from above.

No mention of earthworks, just that the city walls are breached. No mention of the relieving force. (Shame he never wrote that book....)

LHF V
...It was at this time that the Huns crossed the Rhine. They burned Metz, they destroyed Trier, penetrated the area around Tongres, and came up to Orleans. At this time the holy Anianus, a man celebrated for his virtue, was bishop of Orleans. With the help of the Lord and through the prayers of the holy Anianus, Aetius, the Patrician of the Romans and Thorismund, the king of the Goths, came to Orleans, The Huns and their king Attila were driven from the city and soundly defeated.

No earthworks, Huns at the city; reads like Aetius and the Goths turn up after the Huns and drive them off but I suppose it could be read that Aetius and the Goths are at the city and drive off the Huns?

Life Of Genevieve 12
...And when the Huns besieged the city of Orleans, the latter [Anianus] by his prayers assisted the Patrician Aetius and his Goths in keeping it from destruction,

No earthworks and can be read anyway your fancy takes you.

I don't have the 'Vita Aniani' and, like Justin, cannot find the text in the link Duncan posted.

Some good detective work there, Rodger.

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.

[Jim Webster]

Here of course we are taking Jordanes at face value ... valid until disproved. 

Beware that, it is awfully difficult to disprove that the Emperor Valens was burned to death as a direct judgement of God

Jim

[aligern]

How do we know that Attila discussed events with his shaman?
My reading of Priscus is that Attila was a little like Wellington at Waterloo who , when asked by his number two what the plan was in case Wellington  was killed. Wellington just Harrumphed.
My reading of Priscus is that Attila was not Mr Chatty he probably listened to views from his subreguli, but he most likely did not go in for much post match analysis.
I do not recall that Caesar did much description of councils of war, though doubtless Patrick can tell us and Alexander did not take his generals too seriously. One wonders if the mysteries of command were kept to the commander, or if in a patriarchal society the whole tenor of social interaction was that the paterfamilias  just decided, commanded and that was it. Don't think I will try that on the memsahb tonight, though.

Roy

[Erpingham]

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.  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?

[Patrick Waterson]

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.