SoA Forums

There is nothing in the paragraph that conclusively proves anything. However the auxiliaries are mentioned elsewhere, 'Franks, Sarmatians, Armoricians, Liticians, Burgundians, Saxons, Riparians, Olibriones  'and some other Celtic or German Tribes'
They have no named commander [We are very short of names for Roman officers serving under Aetius in Gaul generally, not just in Jordanes] and nothing in common other than they were willing to obey Aetius. I suppose it's entirely possible that they were told to 'toddle over there, dig in and defy Attila until the rest of us get there.

Jim

Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 15, 2014, 07:25:01 AMStill couldn't find the text.

It's not difficult. Try here.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 17, 2014, 04:19:04 PM

Quote from: Jim Webster on February 17, 2014, 11:55:53 AMJordanes in XXXVII says "...  Sangiban, king of the Alani, smitten with fear of what might come to pass, had promised to surrender to Attila, and to give into his keeping Aureliani, a city of Gaul wherein he then dwelt. When Theodorid and Aetius learned of this, they cast up great eathworks 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 taken aback by this even and lost confidence in his own troops, so that he feared to begin the conflict."
So Jordanes specifically has the allies arrive before Attila

Not the allies. The Auxiliaries. Nothing in this passage conclusively proves that Jordanes thought Aetius and Theodorid were present before the arrival of Attila at Orleans in person with their core armies. In fact, a close look at the passage suggests otherwise: they surround Sangiban with their Auxiliaries, not their main troops, which suggests their main troops are elsewhere. And where the main troops are there the generals are too. So far Jordanes is showing consistency.

But according to Jordanes it is Aetius and Theodorid themselves, not their auxiliaries or anyone else, who are specifically responsible for having Orleans fortified; which strongly implies that (he thought) they were there. That the auxiliaries were surrounding the Alans does not imply at all that the main forces were elsewhere, merely that they had other responsibilities - digging the earthworks, perhaps, or covering the labourers who were doing the actual digging, or perhaps forming up on the flanks of the Alans and their watchdogs, just as they later did in the battle.

Or that the Life of St Anianus is right and that Aetius is at Arles leaving the defence of Orleans to Sangiban and the good bishop.
If Aetius and Theoderid are there at Orleans then how come the story in Gregory and in the Vita is of waiting for the Allies to turn up and of Attila almost breaking in?
As i have said several times, the Vita is geographically close and originally probably closer in time  than Jordanes and its story , with respect to Orleans, is to be preferred.
Roy

Personally I'd say the Vita has the edge on the siege of Orleans and Sidonius has the edge on the negotiations with the Visigoths.

Jordanes actually describes the campaign with the words "for it was not only a famous struggle but one that was complicated and confused."

In this I entirely agree with him, and I suspect he tried to pick a path through the confusion without really knowing what went on

Jim

Quote from: aligern on February 17, 2014, 08:20:15 PM
Or that the Life of St Anianus is right and that Aetius is at Arles leaving the defence of Orleans to Sangiban and the good bishop.
If Aetius and Theoderid are there at Orleans then how come the story in Gregory and in the Vita is of waiting for the Allies to turn up and of Attila almost breaking in?

I wasn't actually saying that Aetius was there: merely, in response to Justin, that Jordanes' wording implies that Jordanes thought that Aetius was there.

Quote from: Duncan Head on February 17, 2014, 08:59:33 PM

Quote from: aligern on February 17, 2014, 08:20:15 PM
Or that the Life of St Anianus is right and that Aetius is at Arles leaving the defence of Orleans to Sangiban and the good bishop.
If Aetius and Theoderid are there at Orleans then how come the story in Gregory and in the Vita is of waiting for the Allies to turn up and of Attila almost breaking in?

I wasn't actually saying that Aetius was there: merely, in response to Justin, that Jordanes' wording implies that Jordanes thought that Aetius was there.

That's how I read Jordanes as well.
Actually the Vita contradicts Jordanes on another point. Jordanes states that the allies were worried that the Alans might hand the city over to Attila. Hence they sent troops (or turned up themselves) to fortify the city and stop the Alans just handing it over to the Huns.
As it is, with the Vita everyone seems happy enough with Sangiban in charge, indeed he obviously does fight as the Huns have to break in rather than just take over.

I've suggested before that there is limited evidence for Sangiban's supposed wish to throw in his lot with Attila.

Jim

I used to think that positioning the Alans in the centre was a bad place to put someone who might be of doubtful loyalty, but then someone pointed out that it is what Narses does with the Lombards at Taginae and for similar reasons.
The Goths and the Alans do not get on, as far as we know that is  genuine. Sangiban must have felt out on a limb and  if the Allies won he might face a growing Goth power. Hence the Visigoths probably already distrusted him and he might have had much to hope from a Hunnic victory. however, as you say his actual performance cannot have been a problem because it would have been remarked upon.

Roy

One suspects that Sangiban did indeed feel out on a limb without much hope whoever won.  Making himself valuable to the likely winner would have had some appeal as a means of keeping his people off the bottom of the heap.

Gregory of Tours places Aetius in danger, surrounded by enemies, even if only by rumour - this would be consistent with Aetius being present at Orleans when Attila was threatening it.

The most logical deployment at Chalons would have Goths on the right, Romans on the left, Alans in the centre, a screen of Roman cavalry behind the left half of the Alans and a screen of Gothic cavalry behind the right half of same.  Once the Huns engaged the Alans (removing the possibility of an Alanic defection) these contingents could have been signalled to withdraw and reassemble behind their own main bodies, allowing the Alans to be pushed back and the Huns to advance into a double envelopment, or at least double flank attack.  I remain convinced that the Romans did launch their own attack against the corresponding flank of the thus exposed Hunnic centre because of Jordanes' mention of Aetius becoming separated from his own troops in the dark near the Gothic camp, which is entirely consistent with his having been involved in a cavalry pursuit.