The Battle of Chalons AD 451

[rodge]

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

Try Rance Justin:
https://web.duke.edu/classics/grbs/FTexts/44/Rance2.pdf

[aligern]

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

[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

Can you steer me to an online text of Anianus? Ta.

[aligern]

No, Rodg might know!
Roy

[Erpingham]

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.

I did quote this in the previous discussion

PHILIP RANCE 2 9 1
Agathias' account of a minor action near Rimini in late 553
between Narses' mounted retinue and some marauding Franks.
Faced with the Roman horsemen, the Franks

"all massed themselves together, both infantry and cavalry, and
deployed in a compact formation, which though not very deep ...
was nevertheless made strong by linking shields and drawing in
the flanks in good order ... Perfectly protected by their shields,
they stood immovable and unshaken, at no point breaking the
cohesion of their formation"

As you know, Agathius wrote in Greek, which the cut and paste won't handle.  But is is on p.291 of Rance's paper which Rodge links to.

[Erpingham]

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

If you look in the paper Rodger quotes, pp300-304 gives a number of examples.

[aligern]

Bacrach , in Early Carolingian Warfare makes much of Rimini as an example of the Franks operating a disciplined, Roman descended formation, but then he wants to see evidence of Roman continuity into Frankish practice.  I would see  the formation as a commonplace adopted by Romans, Earky Germans, Celts etc. it is a natural way to deal with the threat of missiles and of charging cavalry.
Roy

[Jim Webster]

Reminds me of Caesar's account of some German/celtic formations with legionaries throwing themselves on the wall of shields to break through

Jim

[Imperial Dave]

Reminds me of Caesar's account of some German/celtic formations with legionaries throwing themselves on the wall of shields to break through

Jim

strangely enough Jim, this was a standard tactic of dark age reenactors to "break up" a shield wall....

[Jim Webster]

Not something I'd like to do when the other side had both edged weapons and criminal intent ;-)

Jim

[Imperial Dave]

true!  Although some of the shieldwall scraps I have been involved in have been pretty intense. The lack of edged weapons only partly diminishing the overall "feel" to a close up infantry encounter

[rodge]

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

I did quote this in the previous discussion

PHILIP RANCE 2 9 1
Agathias' account of a minor action near Rimini in late 553
between Narses' mounted retinue and some marauding Franks.
Faced with the Roman horsemen, the Franks

"all massed themselves together, both infantry and cavalry, and
deployed in a compact formation, which though not very deep ...
was nevertheless made strong by linking shields and drawing in
the flanks in good order ... Perfectly protected by their shields,
they stood immovable and unshaken, at no point breaking the
cohesion of their formation"

As you know, Agathius wrote in Greek, which the cut and paste won't handle.  But is is on p.291 of Rance's paper which Rodge links to.

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.)

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.

This is where close attention to the original text is important. 

Dextrum itaque cornum cum Vesegothis Theoderidus tenebat, sinistrum Aetius cum Romanis, conlocantes in medio Sanguibanum, quem superius rettulimus praefuisse Alanis, providentes cautioni militari, ut eum, de cuius animo minus praesumebant, fidelium turba concluderent. Facile namque adsumit pugnandi necessitatem, cui fugiendi inponitur difficultas.

Now Theodorid with the Visigoths held the right wing and Aëtius with the Romans the left. They placed in the centre Sangiban (who, as said before, was in command of the Alani), thus contriving with military caution to surround by a host of faithful troops [fidelium turba] the man in whose loyalty they had little confidence. For one who has difficulties placed in the way of his flight readily submits to the necessity of fighting.

Sangiban being surrounded by 'auxiliaries' in 197 is a case of translator misapprehension.

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.

That Jordanes should appear to omit Attila's retreat is unimportant: what matters is is description of the battle.  In point of fact he does (195) note that Attila was "mediating flight" after he had been "taken aback by this event and lost confidence in his own troops, so that he feared to begin the conflict".  Omitting the fact of retreat is not significant as it can be surmised from the battle being fought in the Catalaunian Plains rather than at Orleans.

Jordanes is shot through with inconsistencies which appear to be invisible to some.

But which can be evaluated by others.  Perhaps if we were to look at specific inconsistencies we could tell whether they are real or artefacts of misapprehension through loose translation.

[Patrick Waterson]

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

Try Rance Justin:
https://web.duke.edu/classics/grbs/FTexts/44/Rance2.pdf

Rance's statement that

Furthermore, those manuscripts of the Strategicon which preserve the Latin commands still in use at the time of writing indicate, despite varying degrees of textual corruption, that phoulkon is merely a Greek transliteration of the Latin fulcum. Although fulcum is nowhere attested, the word must have already enjoyed an "institutionalised" usage and, it may be assumed, was part of standard late Roman military vocabulary.

is puzzling.  Phylax in Greek means 'guard', and phylakein are 'guards' of any sort, including a covering force for foragers.  A phoulkon (or phylkon: 'u' and 'y' are the same letter - upsilon - in Greek) can readily be understood etymologically as a formation for self-guarding: one does not need to invent a nonexistent Latin root for it.

I think Rance is on the wrong track here.

[Jim Webster]

That Jordanes should appear to omit Attila's retreat is unimportant: what matters is is description of the battle.  In point of fact he does (195) note that Attila was "mediating flight" after he had been "taken aback by this event and lost confidence in his own troops, so that he feared to begin the conflict".  Omitting the fact of retreat is not significant as it can be surmised from the battle being fought in the Catalaunian Plains rather than at Orleans.

Sorry but how did Jordanes know what Attila was 'meditating'?
One thing we can be sure of it that there is no way that Attila is ever going to tell anyone publically 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.
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

Jim