SoA Forums

My thought about no foot being at the battle is based upon the performance of the contingents.
The Alans are pretty definitely cavalry and are placed in the centre. The Visigoths ought to have infantry, but are talked of as 'leaving' the Alans to attack the Huns. If the Visigoths are on a flank and the Huns are in the centre facing the Alans then the move makes more sense to me if it is a cavalry force moving. Similarly the movement of the Visigoths at night arriving at Attila's camp makes more sense if they are mounted.
Aetius might well have foot , particularly the Olibriones (and who are they??)

The Turcilingi and Rugians are Odovakrian Germanic contingents. The Rugians being under Attila at this time. The Turcilingi may not exist as only Jordanes and sources that likely derive from him mention them. However I take your point Jim that it is about fighting style rather than nomenclature.  Amidst all the contingents gathered in Gaul it is likely that there are infantry, though , if gathered quickly, there might be only cavalry contingents.
I'd see  Attila's army as mounted because it is such a long raid to take a massed infantry army on.  That's not to say that contingents all fought mounted, but to take a large force from Hungary to the middle of France around the Alps, through the German forests is some migration!!

There were troops in Italy that were not strictly Roman and not infantry such as Sarmatian and German laeti. Aetius could have brought contingents of those with him from Italy and picked up infantry , or more cavalry in Gaul.

Roy

My feeling is that Jordanes is using acies testudineque to distinguish the "Romans" from the other combatants, so they want to be something different on the table, and that in wargames terms (shifting to BattleDay perspective) this might be best represented by making them regulars. And I am not convinced that all tribal Germans necessarily had large enough shields for an effective testudo/foulkon, anyway.

I'm happy to think of Sidonius' sine milite as ruling out legions, but I'd go for "regular auxilia" - probably-barbarian manpower trained in Roman units. In other words, exactly the old DBM approach to the "Patrician" list - compulsory Reg Ax(S), no compulsory Bd.

Jordanes also hints at field fortifications: in campis munitiones efflagitant, "they urge fortification of the open land [between the hills]".  Furthermore, as Attila's beaten forces are making their way back to camp, Jordanes makes the throwaway comment:

" ... there they sought refuge for their lives, whom but a little while before no earthen walls could withstand."

'Earthen walls' [muralis agger, actually 'wall and ditch'] suggests Roman-style encampments or field fortifications.  This in turn would appear to suggest the presence of trained, disciplined Roman infantry, for all Attila's real or affected scorn of their fighting qualities.  The context ('a little while before' [paulo ante]) suggests their use on the battlefield rather than harking back to some indeterminate assault earlier in the year (for which one would expect a more general unqualified 'ante').

Patrick

Not sure I'd agree at all about Germanic auxiliaries and the foulkon
Philip Rance at:
http://www.duke.edu/web/classics/grbs/FTexts/44/Rance2.pdf
thinks that it is a common formation of the Romans and that it might be that Germans adopt it rather than the other way round,  but closing up with shields is a commonplace. We are not looking at a roofed tested here.
What is the evidence for German small shields??? I know there are size variations, but the Franks/Allamani at Rimini in 553 have no problem forming a shield wall to deter Byzantine cavalry. The shields on  Stilicho's diptych and the Santa Maggiore depictions are large as are those on the stone relief in the Vatican garden that is in Coulston.
I know Peter bone floated the idea of a lighter, fencing, style of fighting some years back with evidence of cuts to spear shafts that had been found, but I could not see that as conclusive.  Shields are found in graves, but the reconstructions of Sutton Hoo and  the Lombard shields (both later than Vth century) are of 3ft wide shields.

The Romans having  regular legionary infantry in the West in 452 is problematic.  Aetius must lead some troops out of Italy, but he clearly has not got enough to face Attila without the help of the Visigoths. Aetius has several contingents assembled from Gaul and those are near the battlefield  so we can assume that they are not small.  That indicates that the force from Italy was small and I suggest, moved fast and was all cavalry.

What tale lies behind the Olibriones?  Anyone got a good idea how that name is associated with the most Roman of his force.

Again, I'd suggest we look at the contingents of Majorian's force that heads for N Africa via Spain in 460 or so in Sidonius . That's a list of barbarians and better accords with my concept of a mobile army of the Roman West in the mid Vth century. Even in Italy there are not enough 'Roman' troops to face down the barbarians, probably because of the financial crisis caused by the Vandal occupation of Africa.
That DB or other list reference worries me, not a a gamer's list for it has all sorts of useful troop types, but for this battle. That's because such lists take over and we end up with a search for the troop type that Aetius must have had to fit the category in the list. That's not an attack upon a particular list, because most or all do it and I have written them to the same criteria.


Patrick, it seems to me to be easier to read the point about Attila's soldiers and walls as referring to their previous conquests in Gaul. (depends if you believed in the story of Paris of course).  Having been previously universally successful they are now defeated.  Does Jordanes' text justify a recent Attilanic victory on this battlefield against a camp?   Murus can quite happily be a stone wall too.

Roy

Quote from: aligern on June 28, 2012, 01:00:19 PM
Not sure I'd agree at all about Germanic auxiliaries and the foulkon ... closing up with shields is a commonplace. We are not looking at a roofed tested here. ... What is the evidence for German small shields???

I believe it is generally accepted on archaeological grounds that early shields tend to be smaller than later ones, among both Saxons and Franks at least. See for example http://www.angelcynnreenactmentsociety.org.uk/home/anglo-saxon-weapons-armour under shields. I'm not saying they couldn't close up, merely that they wouldn't be all that effective so formed.

QuoteThe Romans having  regular legionary infantry in the West in 452 is problematic.  Aetius must lead some troops out of Italy, but he clearly has not got enough to face Attila without the help of the Visigoths. Aetius has several contingents assembled from Gaul and those are near the battlefield  so we can assume that they are not small.  That indicates that the force from Italy was small and I suggest, moved fast and was all cavalry.

No, we can't assume that Aetius' force was all mounted just because it was small. Indeed, the loss of African revenues and so forth would suggest that infantry were increasingly desirable on grounds of cost. Remember the commander in Cyrenaica who sold his mounted archers' horses, reducing them to mere "archers"? Nor can we assume that the various Gallic contingents are "not small", certainly not individually. The Armoricans have to travel from Brittany, so are probably not a levee en masse; the Sarmatians are probably the grandsons of the men who followed one or more of the praefecti gentilium Sarmatarum of the Notitia, and none of these are likely to have been large groups. In aggregate, the various auxiliares from Gaul may have outnumbered the Italian contingent, but that doesn't say much.

QuoteWhat tale lies behind the Olibriones?  Anyone got a good idea how that name is associated with the most Roman of his force.

Haven't looked into those yet.

QuoteEven in Italy there are not enough 'Roman' troops to face down the barbarians, probably because of the financial crisis caused by the Vandal occupation of Africa.

True under Odoacer, but before that? And in any case, I'm talking about "regular auxilia" who can be just as much German as Roman: the key point is how they fight, not what they speak or which way their divided loyalties will jump in a crisis that hasn't happened yet.

QuoteThat DB or other list reference worries me, not a a gamer's list for it has all sorts of useful troop types, but for this battle. That's because such lists take over and we end up with a search for the troop type that Aetius must have had to fit the category in the list. That's not an attack upon a particular list, because most or all do it and I have written them to the same criteria.

That's uncalled-for, because it's exactly the opposite of what I am doing. I mentioned the list purely because it matched the historical conclusion, not the other way round.

cheers,
Duncan

Quote from: aligern on June 28, 2012, 10:21:07 AM
My thought about no foot being at the battle is based upon the performance of the contingents.
The Alans are pretty definitely cavalry and are placed in the centre. The Visigoths ought to have infantry, but are talked of as 'leaving' the Alans to attack the Huns. If the Visigoths are on a flank and the Huns are in the centre facing the Alans then the move makes more sense to me if it is a cavalry force moving. Similarly the movement of the Visigoths at night arriving at Attila's camp makes more sense if they are mounted.

That needn't mean the whole Visigoth army is. Note that some seem to be fighting the Alans, others fighting the Ostrogoths - if there is any truth in Andagis killing the king - so they are split in two groups.

QuoteI'd see Attila's army as mounted because it is such a long raid to take a massed infantry army on.  That's not to say that contingents all fought mounted, but to take a large force from Hungary to the middle of France around the Alps, through the German forests is some migration!!

Not all Attila's troops need have come from Hungary - Sidonius lists Franks from the Neckar among other groups picked up in western Germany. And the force did march with wagons, so though a long journey not too fast a one for infantry. And he comes expecting to take fortified cities, so perhaps "raid" has the wrong implications?

Thanks for providing the Angelcynn reference Duncan, I reproduce their section on shields here:

Shields
The main defensive item of the Anglo-Saxon warrior was the shield. The Anglo-Saxon shield was of the centre-grip type, and consisted of a round wooden board, often covered with leather or heavy cloth, with an iron boss in the centre. Often the grip was reinforced by an iron strip, which sometimes extended across the back of the shield to reinforce it. A few shields were bound at the rim with bronze, but most would have had a leather rim stitched on. Some of the shields were ornately decorated with ornate metal foils and studs or by painting. Most of the shields shown in early pictorial sources appear to be of the 'buckler' type, but this is possibly just an artistic convention so that details of the figures carrying them are not obscured. Shields known from excavation vary in diameter from 16" - 36" (42 - 92cm), with the usual size being between 24" and 28" (60 and 70cm), but it has been observed that generally, the older and/or wealthier the person buried was, the larger their shield was. It has also been noted that in the earlier part of the period the shields were generally of the smaller type, gradually becoming larger as the period progresses. It is interesting to note that continental examples of this type of shield tend to be larger, being 22 - 44" (57 - 112cm), the commonest size being around 36" (90cm). The shields were surprisingly thin, varying between 3/16 - ½" (5 - 12mm) in thickness, with most being around 5/16" (7mm). Most poetry and prose from the period refers to Linden wood (lime) shields, but this timber only accounts for about 3% of the excavated examples; excavated examples have been found made of alder (37%), willow or poplar (37%), maple (10%), birch (7%), ash (3%) and oak (3%). Continental examples are almost exclusively of oak.
The shield boss was usually conical, with a wide flange, secured to the shield by 5 rivets. They often had a small section of vertical or concave wall, and the boss is often tipped with a button which can sometimes be elaborately decorated with a silver or bronze plaque. Strangely, the hemispherical boss which was so common on the continent seems to have been almost entirely absent in England at this time. It is possible that a few of the poorest warrior's shields did not have a boss as this type are known on the continent, but are extremely rare.

I might draw two conclusions that support a view that  Germanic troops of the Vth century could form shield wall.
Firstly the article itself says that Continental shields are towards the bigger end of the scale of diameters , so what might be true for A/S warriors in Britannia may well not hold true on the continent for other tribes. Secondly they suggest that the better off you were the bigger your shield. Well, if Rome is supporting your unit maybe all can afford the larger shield and, in a formation where the better armoured and armed are in the front ranks that's where the bigger shields, more suited to forming a shield wall will be found.

We must debate the position of the Visigoths in the battle. I suspect that there are two forces of cavalry and that the princes are with Aetius , the king on the other flank. That could mean them leaving the Alans from either direction to move to the centre against the Huns. It also makes sense that, in searching for his father the prince blunders , in the dark, into the camp of Attila because that would be between the two Visigothic forces.

It is a sort of giant raid. I doubt that Attila thought that he could extract more than loot, punish the Visigoths (as part of a long running Hunnic Gothic feud and also because they had run off in 376). He might have extracted tribute now and in the future, but I can hardly see him expecting to  conquer and hold the areas concerned because of the distance and difficult geography. Was he going to move the Huns from above the Danube to the Loire?? I doubt it and so it is a raid.
Do we know of any conquered city being garrisoned?
For me the wagons are as likely captured en route when their is loot to fill them, rather than slowing down the whole army by marching across Germany to get to Gaul. Once there he besieges cities, showing, to me, the pecuniary motivation of it all because that is where the money is.
Otherwise, if Attila wanted conquest why not push on and destroy the Visigoths before facing anything Aetius could bring against him?
As for the Romans turning to cheaper infantry because of the economic crisis, that makes monetary sense except that the problem that they face is Vandal raids for which a cavalry force is most apt as the Vandals might appear anywhere along the coast of Italy. Following your earlier insight about the troops that Aetius brings not being milites I'd plump for the Sarmatian laeti that are still around to fight for Odovakar against the Rugi in the 470s.
Apologies if you felt that I had attacked over the list it is not intended.
Roy

On the grounds that the Huns expected to have loot and would expect to have wagons, they would expect to be slowed to the speed of the wagons.
I'd suggest that it would make more sense to bring infantry who can move at wagon speed (and keep wagons moving on poor roads/bad conditions) and guard the wagons, and leave the mounted troops free to range on either side, than it would to 'waste' good horsemen guarding the wagons

Jim

Jim, I think that falls on the fact that nomads have wagons and do not have infantry with them. Later Hungarians raided with and without infantry, but they did not as far as I know, take infantry on long penetrations. The Huns are a long way from home so infantry would slow them considerably.  There is merit in Duncan's point that they coerced tribes nearer Gaul to provide foot because that fits with their style.

I wonder if the wagons are taken in Gaul just for the  Gallic portion of the campaign and that the plan for the booty is to run back to Pannonia with just cavalry and pack horses to carry the loot.  Isn't it a pile of pack horses that Attila is to be burnt on??

Are the Huns taking slaves on this trip? They are not mentioned as being released . When they cross the Danube they take slaves and march them back, but again I wonder if that is just an encumbrance in Gaul?
Roy

Or was it that Attila thought that once you have them by the testudos their hearts and minds will follow?

I would question the idea that Attila considered himself a 'long way from home' - 'home' was where he piched his tent and his subject tribes came to make obeisance - or that his army was all cavalry (though the Hunnic portion thereof may well have been).  If Jordanes 'agger muralis' did refer to cities stormed earlier in the campaign, we are left wondering how an all-cavalry force went about storming a city that had any kind of defences.

Ultimately we are going to have to make a choice, or at any rate our distinguished Mr Lockwood will have to do so: do we take Jordanes' hints and obiter dictu to infer that Roman infantry - the trained, paid version that followed standards - was present, or do we explain these away as literary affectation?  Do we decide that the Germans on both sides followed their usual pattern of an infantry-cavalry army or do we assume that they fielded only cavalry for this battle?  Arguments on both sides have merits, but I would suggest we go for the approach that requires the least explaining away of what we do know as being standard for the period.

If that helps.

Patrick

Quote from: aligern on June 29, 2012, 11:32:08 AM
Jim, I think that falls on the fact that nomads have wagons and do not have infantry with them. Later Hungarians raided with and without infantry, but they did not as far as I know, take infantry on long penetrations. The Huns are a long way from home so infantry would slow them considerably.  There is merit in Duncan's point that they coerced tribes nearer Gaul to provide foot because that fits with their style.

I wonder if the wagons are taken in Gaul just for the  Gallic portion of the campaign and that the plan for the booty is to run back to Pannonia with just cavalry and pack horses to carry the loot.  Isn't it a pile of pack horses that Attila is to be burnt on??

Are the Huns taking slaves on this trip? They are not mentioned as being released . When they cross the Danube they take slaves and march them back, but again I wonder if that is just an encumbrance in Gaul?
Roy

Nomads have wagons, but they also have herds, and they are even slower than infantry.
The source I've seen says Atilla wanted to be burned on Horse saddles, not specifically pack saddles.
I think we get too hung up about cavalry raiding speed. Much of the loot could well be livestock and whilst some would be slaughtered for meat, a lot, horses and cattle, would be driven back.
It really depends where the Huns picked up the wagons. If they fetched them with them, then they might as well fetch infantry. Wagons can even move faster when accompanied by infantry.
If they're picking the wagons up in Gaul or on the way then it would make sense to insist that those tribes supplying would supply wagons plus infantry (or perhaps the other way around.
But if the wagons are captured, you mustn't overlook the sheer financial value of the wagon and draught animals to the person who captured it.

Jim

 Standard for the period doesn't really help us Patrick. because the battle reports for the Vth century are sparse and sketchy and because this is a special battle, it is not two tribes having a border bash or the Romans invading a tribal country and it is not a mass migration
It is, of course, likely that infantry are present on the Roman side, if only because Aetius  is drawing allies from Gaul who could march to the battle rather more easily.

Attila does have a 'home' Priscus tells us about it.  There is no hint that the Huns have women and children with them so  the 'wherever I hang my hat that's my home' argument does not stand up here. If we followed Rudi Paul Lindner  (which I hope we don'tt)  he Huns are even more domesticated and have become infantry whilst in Pannonia and could not use that as a base for a large mounted army. Lindner conveniently forgets the Avars and Hungarians who will inhabit the same area and had no problem fielding substantial mounted forces.

There is no problem for Huns and there subjects in getting off a horse to besiege a city. The Germans certainly do that all the time because their mounted warriors are at home on foot. Indeed there is some evidence that  middle ranking Germans rode to battle and fought dismounted or mounted as the situation demanded. If the tribe did well it had more mounted men, if badly then more fought on foot, or should I say travelled on foot.Note that the Vandals become an entirely mounted force in Africa and may have been so beforehand. The Quadi are described by Ammianus in terms of mounted warriors only.  So for Attila to tell his subjects to muster for an expedition that requires only mounted men would not be unusual.
I see a parallel in Frankish armies of the seventh century.  There is some evidence that  there are two types of force. There are armies that a few counts recruit such as that of Butilin in Italy where there is a wide levy and the force is mainly infantry and there are those that are recruited by many counts that are more mobile and are composed of mounted and probably mailed warriors.
To my mind the structure of Attila's army here is that of elite contingents from many tribes, not massed levies.  There is a clue to that in that the Huns face off against the Alans, arguing that they have a similar frontage and we can assume that there are not masses of Alans... but its only a clue. Given that it is a comitatus based army I see no difficulty at all in the original expeditionary corps that left the Danube being entirely mounted and many advantages in that view.

I think Duncan is right about the Franks from the Neckar, they might well provide infantry to Attila, but only as a modest proportion of his total force. There are, after all, Franks on both sides.

My experience of previous Battle Days is that we had best go for outlying then possible interretations and exploring them on the day.... better articles in Slingshot that way.

Roy

You can get wagons off Romans in Gaul. That's much easier than tackling tribes who might fight back. These Romans are just a lot of serfs and bureaucrats who could not stop you taking anything that you wanted.

For a mass migration such as Theoderic's Goths to Italy then wagons are taken, for a military expedition that wants to get to Gaul before the Romans and Goths can gather strength (even separately) no wagons and no infantry.
Technically, of course infantry do not slow a column that much if the cavalry walk and ride and need to forage, but if the raid operates like nomads with spare horses then infantry halve the pace that the column can progress.

Roy

What people forget with spare horses is that your men ride much faster with the fresh horses.
But the horse herd of tired (and hungry) horses  doesn't move all that quickly at all. After all, if the horse herd moves at the same speed as the cavalry, it will

1) have no time to graze and if alternatively you're having them grain fed, suddenly you will need wagons because the sneaky Romans keep most of their grain behind walls.
2) The horse herd's only benefit when moving at the same speed as the cavalry is that they don't carry as much weight. So they shouldn't get as tired as quickly 

Either way, whether you have infantry, wagons or just a horse herd, somewhere behind your screen of thieving horsemen, you have a more slow moving core

Jim

I rather feel that you are arguing against received wisdom about Huns, Hungarians, Mongols Tartars etc there Jim. Weren't they known for their rapid strategic movement, outpacing conventional armies???
Roy:-)