SoA Forums

Chalons, Catalaunian Fields 452 AD

Protagonists]

Hun Empire

Attila the Hun
Ardaric the Gepid
Sciri, Heruls, Bastarnae
Ostrogoths under Valamir, Theudemir and Vidimer
Numbers , Possibly 20-30,000

Western Roman and Visigothic Alliance

The Patrician Aetius with Roman regulars and federates.
Franks,
Sarmatians (settled as Laeti in Gaul)
Theodered King of the Visigoths
Alans under Sangiban
Armoricans
Burgundians
Saxons



   From Jordanes translated by Charles Mierow. On the University of Calgary Website

Chapter 36 ff.

to the thought of victory and the anticipation of pleasure, and his mind turned to the old oracles
189) By these and like arguments the ambassadors of Valentinian prevailed upon King Theodored. He answered them, saying: "Romans, you have attained your desire; you have made Attila our foe also. We will pursue him wherever he summons us, and though he is puffed up by his victories over divers races, yet the Goths know how to fight this haughty foe. I call no war dangerous save one whose cause is weak; for he fears no ill on whom Majesty has smiled." (190) The nobles shouted assent to the reply and the multitude gladly followed. All were fierce for battle and longed to meet the Huns, their foe. And so a countless host was led forth by Theodored, king of the Visigoths, who sent home four of his sons, namely Frideric and Euric, Retemer and Mimnerith, taking with him only the two elder sons, Thorismud and Theodoric, as partners of his toil. O brave array, sure defense and sweet comradeship, having the aid of those who delight to share in the same dangers!
(191) On the side of the Romans stood the Patrician Aëtius, on whom at that time the whole Empire of the West depended; a man of such wisdom that he had assembled warriors from everywhere to meet them on equal terms. Now these were his auxiliaries: Franks, Sarmatians, Armoricians, Liticians, Burgundians, Saxons, Riparians, Olibriones (once Romans soldiers and now the flower of the allied forces), and some other Celtic or German tribes. (192) And so they met in the Catalaunian Plains, which are also called Mauriacian, extending in length one hundred leagues, as the Gauls express it, and seventy in width. Now a Gallic league measures a distance of fifteen hundred paces. That portion of the earth accordingly became the threshing-floor of countless races. The two hosts bravely joined battle. Nothing was done under cover, but they contended in open fight. (193) What just cause can be found for the encounter of so many nations, or what hatred inspired them all to take arms against each other? It is proof that the human race lives for its kings, for it is at the mad impulse of one mind a slaughter of nations takes place, and at the whim of a haughty ruler that which nature has taken ages to produce perishes in a moment.

XXXVII (194) But before we set forth the order of the battle itself, it seems needful to relate what had already happened in the course of the campaign, for it was not only a famous struggle but one that was complicated and confused. Well then, 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 dwelt. (195) 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 taken aback by this event and lost confidence in his own troops, so that he feared to begin the conflict. While he was meditating on flight--a greater calamity than death itself--he decided to inquire into the future through soothsayers. (196) So, as was their custom, they examined the entrails of cattle and certain streaks in bones that had been scraped, and foretold disaster to the Huns. Yet as a slight consolation they prophesied that the chief commander of the foe they were to meet should fall and mar by his death the rest of the victory and the triumph. Now Attila deemed the death of Aëtius a thing to be desired even at the cost of his own life, for Aëtius stood in the way of his plans. So although he was disturbed by this prophecy, yet inasmuch as he was a man who sought counsel of omens in all warfare, he began the battle with anxious heart at about the ninth hour of the day, in order that the impending darkness might come to his aid if the outcome should be disastrous.

XXXVIII (197) The armies met, as we have said, in the Catalaunian Plains. The battle field was a plain rising by a sharp slope to a ridge, which both armies sought to gain; for advantage of position is a great help. The Huns with their forces seized the right side, the Romans, the Visigoths and their allies the left, and then began a struggle for the yet untaken crest. 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 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. (198) On the other side, however, the battle line of the Huns was arranged so that Attila and his bravest followers were stationed in the centre. In arranging them thus the king had chiefly his own safety in view, since by his position in the very midst of his race he would be kept out of the way of threatening danger. The innumerable peoples of the divers tribes, which he had subjected to his sway, formed the wings. (199) Amid them was conspicuous the army of the Ostrogoths under the leadership of the brothers Valamir, Thiudimer and Vidimer, nobler even than the king they served, for the might of the family of the Amali rendered them glorious. The renowned king of the Gepidae, Ardaric, was there also with a countless host, and because of his great loyalty to Attila, he shared his plans. For Attila, comparing them in his wisdom, prized him and Valamir, king of the Ostrogoths, above all the other chieftains. (200) Valamir was a good keeper of secrets, bland of speech and skilled in wiles, and Ardaric, as we have said, was famed for his loyalty and wisdom. Attila might well feel sure that they would fight against the Visigoths, their kinsmen. Now the rest of the crowd of kings (if we may call them so) and the leaders of various nations hung upon Attila's nod like slaves, and when he gave a sign even by a glance, without a murmur each stood forth in fear and trembling, or at all events did as he was bid. (201) Attila alone was king of all kings over all and concerned for all.
So then the struggle began for the advantage of position we have mentioned. Attila sent his men to take the summit of the mountain, but was outstripped by Thorismud and Aëtius, who in their effort to gain the top of the hill reached higher ground and through this advantage of position easily routed the Huns as they came up.

XXXIX (202) Now when Attila saw his army was thrown into confusion by this event, he thought it best to encourage them by an extemporaneous address on this wise: "Here you stand, after conquering mighty nations and subduing the world. I therefore think it foolish for me to goad you with words, as though you were men who had not been proved in action. Let a new leader or an untried army resort to that. (203) It is not right for me to say anything common, nor ought you to listen. For what is war but your usual custom? Or what is sweeter for a brave man than to seek revenge with his own hand? It is a right of nature to glut the soul with vengeance. (204) Let us then attack the foe eagerly; for they are ever the bolder who make the attack. Despise this union of discordant races! To defend oneself by alliance is proof of cowardice. See, even before our attack they are smitten with terror. They seek the heights, they seize the hills and, repenting too late, clamor for protection against battle in the open fields. You know how slight a matter the Roman attack is. While they are still gathering in order and forming in one line with locked shields, they are checked, I will not say by the first wound, but even by the dust of battle. (205) Then on to the fray with stout hearts, as is your wont. Despise their battle line. Attack the Alani, smite the Visigoths! Seek swift victory in that spot where the battle rages. For when the sinews are cut the limbs soon relax, nor can a body stand when you have taken away the bones. Let your courage rise and your own fury burst forth! Now show your cunning, Huns, now your deeds of arms! Let the wounded exact in return the death of his foe; let the unwounded revel in slaughter of the enemy. (206) No spear shall harm those who are sure to live; and those who are sure to die Fate overtakes even in peace. And finally, why should Fortune have made the Huns victorious over so many nations, unless it were to prepare them for the joy of this conflict. Who was it revealed to our sires the path through the Maeotian swamp, for so many ages a closed secret? Who, moreover, made armed men yield to you, when you were as yet unarmed? Even a mass of federated nations could not endure the sight of the Huns. I am not deceived in the issue;--here is the field so many victories have promised us. I shall hurl the first spear at the foe. If any can stand at rest while Attila fights, he is a dead man." Inflamed by these words, they all dashed into battle.

XL (207) And although the situation was itself fearful, yet the presence of their king dispelled anxiety and hesitation. Hand to hand they clashed in battle, and the fight grew fierce, confused, monstrous, unrelenting--a fight whose like no ancient time has ever recorded. There such deeds were done that a brave man who missed this marvellous spectacle could not hope to see anything so wonderful all his life long. (208) For, if we may believe our elders, a brook flowing between low banks through the plain was greatly increased by blood from the wounds of the slain. It was not flooded by showers, as brooks usually rise, but was swollen by a strange stream and turned into a torrent by the increase of blood. Those whose wounds drove them to slake their parching thirst drank water mingled with gore. In their wretched plight they were forced to drink what they thought was the blood they had poured from their own wounds.
(209) Here King Theodored, while riding by to encourage his army, was thrown from his horse and trampled under foot by his own men, thus ending his days at a ripe old age. But others say he was slain by the spear of Andag of the host of the Ostrogoths, who were then under the sway of Attila. This was what the soothsayers had told to Attila in prophecy, though he understood it of Aëtius. (210) Then the Visigoths, separating from the Alani, fell upon the horde of the Huns and nearly slew Attila. But he prudently took flight and straightway shut himself and his companions within the barriers of the camp, which he had fortified with wagons. A frail defence indeed; yet there they sought refuge for their lives, whom but a little while before no walls of earth could withstand. (211) But Thorismud, the son of King Theodored, who with Aëtius had seized the hill and repulsed the enemy from the higher ground, came unwittingly to the wagons of the enemy in the darkness of night, thinking he had reached his own lines. As he was fighting bravely, someone wounded him in the head and dragged him from his horse. Then he was rescued by the watchful care of his followers and withdrew from the fierce conflict. (212) Aëtius also became separated from his men in the confusion of night and wandered about in the midst of the enemy. Fearing disaster had happened, he went about in search of the Goths. At last he reached the camp of his allies and passed the remainder of the night in the protection of their shields.
At dawn on the following day, when the Romans saw the fields were piled high with bodies and that the Huns did not venture forth, they thought the victory was theirs, but knew that Attila would not flee from the battle unless overwhelmed by a great disaster. Yet he did nothing cowardly, like one that is overcome, but with clash of arms sounded the trumpets and threatened an attack. He was like a lion pierced by hunting spears, who paces to and fro before the mouth of his den and dares not spring, but ceases not to terrify the neighborhood by his roaring. Even so this warlike king at bay terrified his conquerors. (213) Therefore the Goths and Romans assembled and considered what to do with the vanquished Attila. They determined to wear him out by a siege, because he had no supply of provisions and was hindered from approaching by a shower of arrows from the bowmen placed within the confines of the Roman camp. But it was said that the king remained supremely brave even in this extremity and had heaped up a funeral pyre of horse trappings, so that if the enemy should attack him, he was determined to cast himself into the flames, that none might have the joy of wounding him and that the lord of so many races might not fall into the hands of his foes.

XLI (214) Now during these delays in the siege, the Visigoths sought their king and the king's sons their father, wondering at his absence when success had been attained. When, after a long search, they found him where the dead lay thickest, as happens with brave men, they honored him with songs and bore him away in the sight of the enemy. You might have seen bands of Goths shouting with dissonant cries and paying the honors of death while the battle still raged. Tears were shed, but such as they were accustomed to devote to brave men. It was death indeed, but the Huns are witness that it was a glorious one. It was a death whereby one might well suppose the pride of the enemy would be lowered, when they beheld the body of so great a king borne forth with fitting honors. (215) And so the Goths, still continuing the rites due to Theodored, bore forth the royal majesty with sounding arms, and valiant Thorismud, as befitted a son, honored the glorious spirit of his dear father by following his remains.
When this was done, Thorismud was eager to take vengeance for his father's death on the remaining Huns, being moved to this both by the pain of bereavement and the impulse of that valor for which he was noted. Yet he consulted with the Patrician Aëtius (for he was an older man and of more mature wisdom) with regard to what he ought to do next. (216) But Aëtius feared that if the Huns were totally destroyed by the Goths, the Roman Empire would be overwhelmed, and urgently advised him to return to his own dominions to take up the rule which his father had left. Otherwise his brothers might seize their father's possessions and obtain the power over the Visigoths. In this case Thorismud would have to fight fiercely and, what is worse, disastrously with his own countrymen. Thorismud accepted the advice without perceiving its double meaning, but followed it with an eye toward his own advantage. So he left the Huns and returned to Gaul. (217) Thus while human frailty rushes into suspicion, it often loses an opportunity of doing great things.
In this most famous war of the bravest tribes, one hundred and sixty five thousand are said to have been slain on both sides, leaving out of account fifteen thousand of the Gepidae and Franks, who met each other the night before the general engagement and fell by wounds mutually received, the Franks fighting for the Romans and the Gepidae for the Huns.
(218) Now when Attila learned of the retreat of the Goths, he thought it a ruse of the enemy,--for so men are wont to believe when the unexpected happens--and remained for some time in his camp. But when a long silence followed the absence of the foe, the spirit of the mighty king was aroused of his destiny.
Thorismud, however, after the death of his father on the Catalaunian Plains where he had fought, advanced in royal state and entered Tolosa. Here although the throng of his brothers and brave companions were still rejoicing over the victory he yet began to rule so mildly that no one strove with him for the succession to the kingdom 


CommentaryIn some ways this is a climactic victory. Supposedly it prevents a Hun conquest of Gaul and transfer of Hunnic power to the West that might have enabled a Hun takeover of the Roman Empire. Actually Hun power was fragile in the long term because it depended upon the life of Attila and the continuing distribution of loot to the kings in his train.
The description of armies as lists of barbarian contingents with some fictional ones added to increase the glory of the general is particular to the Vth century. Sidonius Apollinaris describes a train of barbarian nations attending the emperor Majorian and the army that puts Odovacar into power in Italy in 476 was composed of Heruls, Sciri, Rugi, Goths etc. In this case both armies are alliances. With so many contingents it is likely that  the forces are elite warriors, perhaps all mounted. Aetius Roman  regulars will have been small in number. Some of his list of 'allies' includes semi regular Roman troops such as the Armorici and Olibriones ( a case has been made that these are Roman garrison troops).
In terms of dispositions, Aetius may well have had Thorismud and some Visigoths with him and the Visigoths under Theodered on the other flank. that makes sense of the attack on the hill and that Thorismud , returning to his father at night reaches Attila's camp. The Alans are placed in the middle , a conventional post for troops who are not trustworthy.  Perhaps on Attila's side the Ostrogoths face their Visigoth cousins which would make sense of Jordanes depiction of them being loyal and willing enough to do so and of the story of Andag perhaps killing Theodered.
It is difficult to imagine that the Huns operate as skirmishing archers, especially as they take the centre of Attila's line, opposing the Alans.  The sense is of a close order battle. There is no evidence here of the Huns fighting dismounted as has been suggested by Ferrill.
As to numbers, Attila is in retreat from Orleans. His army has already suffered from the strategic consumption of a long march and a siege, so it is likely that it is smaller than the allied host, but not so much smaller that the Huns would decline battle because they come to the field and are not forced. Hence the withdrawal is probably to give them a fair field..
The puzzle of the ridge is whether it is on the flank of the battle or across the middle. Having postulated that  Aetius and Thorismud are acting together on a flank to take the ridge it makes most sense if the ridge is on the flank, but the evidence is not conclusive. However, it would be odd for both armies to deploy with a steep ridge to their front concealing the enemy. That area of France has extensive flat, open, chalk plains with good visibility, very likely little changed from the period of the battle.
Jordanes take on numbers is simply incredible. They are probably high for a battle of this period because of the number of contingents on both sides, but given the impoverished nature of Gaul since the invasion of 410 AD it is unlikely that armies much over 20,000 men could hold together for a long campaign and Attila's men had come from Hungary and added allies on the way.
RGB

Very nice, Roy.  Thoughtful commentary.

The point about Huns (and for that matter their Alan immediate opponents) not fighting as skirmishing archers in this battle is an interesting one.  The overall Hun force pattern seems to have followed the usual nomad configuration of rich chaps in armour using their own bows and lances and poor chaps without it using their own bows and arrows, but in a set-piece battle like this they could well have deployed in a shoot-and-shock formation with the armoured nobility in front and everyone else in supporting ranks behind.

Patrick

I increasingly feel that horse archer armies fight with units in much closer order than we show them on the table top where light cavalry are depicted as at two thirds the density of 'heavy' cavalry.  What descriptions I have seen imply that they can close up to fight quite easily and are not necessarily disadvantaged in hand to hand combat. Whilst I agree that the better off have more armour I suggest that this goes quite deep into the formation if they have the money for the kit and that armoured men are just as happy to skirmish as unarmoured men. I am not at all sure that the model of having separate units of armoured nobles isn't just a wargames rationalisation because we see armoured troops as 'heavy' cavalry. If you take the nobles out of the horse  archer units then are they not deprived of natural units.  Of course an army such as the Parthians would argue against that.

Of course, if you have a string of spare ponies it is easy for the richer guys to have fresh horses.

I must, at some point do a Slingshot article about armoured Huns.

I am pretty convinced that the Alans are armoured lancer cavalry at this battle. There is a source that refers directly to armoured Alans under Goar in Gaul.
Roy

Such evidence as there is for the Huns is that they fought just like any other horse archer army.

Small units that are social-military groups (families, clans, tribes) with mixed equipment (every man has horses, bow and sword, most have lances and armour - leather or metallic -; rich folk have more armour, extra swords or maces, helmets etc).

Start in 'effectively' loose order, riding around, demonstrating horse skills, looking tough, firing off long range shots.
Then small groups (from 2-3 to 100) close up, gallop towards the enemy shooting off heavy arrows. If the enemy stand, they veer across the enemies front loosing accurate shots with heavy arrows at officers, heroes, exposed men etc.  If the enemy look like they are wavering, then the group charge home into melee and the rest of the unit close up and charge in. 

These tactics were also used by heavily armoured troops on armoured horses (eg Liao cavalry) they are not really indicative of 'skirmishers in open order', they are very difficult for non missile cavalry to real with.

As for separate 'units' of armoured nobles. Historically this is only seen occasionally, and has to be pre arranged by a strong (or notably smart)  leader. It is a 'trick' tactic and always has a specific target.

Even Parthians work like this. Roman accounts describe the cataphracts 'hiding' amongst the lighter cavalry, not fully understanding the nature of the mixed units.

Tom..

It depends a bit on what you mean by 'Any other horsearcher army'.
Are Sasanids a horse archer army? are Mamluks?   are Pechenegs? Avars?
I suspect that there are substantial variations in style if we dig deeper. I'd probably also hink that some armies can have several styles of operation because true horsebow armies are  professionally competent.
Belisarius' Huns operate in a small unit, shooting and retreating and then dogging their opponents who only have spear and javelin.  However, that is not an army in operation. I am happy that such Huns can charge in hard if they want to.  As horsearchers they can choose to initiate combat after they have weekened the opponent with missiles.
Belisarius' lasy battle where he fights the Kutrigurs with javelin cavalry  is an example where the horse archers are crowded in so that they cannot operate effectively. That might just be being crowded in in a way that no cavalry could be effective of course.


There's also a difference between being in loose order as individuals and being in loose order as small blobby units that can move fast and , as you say, run along the faceof an opponent in single line shooting, ever prepared to make a half turn and flee any attack and  then retiribg on the main body when they have been across the enemy front.

I'd take Parthians as being an army that did brigade lights and heavies separately. Certainly Plutarch and Tacitus talk of them as separate entities, but that does not preclude specific units of the lighter cavalry operating around the cataphracts. As the Cataphracts also have bows they may well tand and shoot before charging in or may stand shooting giving th lighter chaps a place of safety retire behind.
Do you see Sasanids as different@ To me they are moving around in solid blocks shooting in lines, en masse and with skirishing 'light' horse operating around them.

Roy
Tom, Is there a good description of Huns in battle?  i.e. a whole army of them?

Ok, in order sort of :-)

'any other horsearcher army' -  I was thinking of Central Asian Turco-Mongol or Iranian, 'tribal' army based primarily on horsed nomadic peoples.  There is a very strong similarity in tactics amongst such armies over a huge area and time range. Over time the armour gets commoner and heavier but much else stays the same.   The Alan/Hun -> Hun/Alan -> Hun  group is clearly part of this.  Though later Gothic influence needs deeper investigation.

Parthians - A fascinating army in a tactical sense. Western authors concentrate on the 'cataphracts' and some (but not all) accounts describe them as operating in separate units.  This is new and different (eg compare the acounts of contemporary Armenian troops), and may be the start of the 'Persian' style that is normally assumed to be a Sasanid development (leading to later Mamluke armies). This adds the 'shower shooting' as a mass tactic (though the later also develops, somewhat later, in North China/Manchuria).

Is there a good description of an army of Huns in battle? - Not that I can think of.  Most Western accounts are "there's thousands of em!" or "it was Huns".

I tend to think of the Sasanian army in the earlier period operating similarly to the Parthians in some respects, but it is clear that in this period they operated in agnatic groupings. The transition is interesting in the reforms of Khusrau, as to me this is very similar to the much later transition in later medieval Europe from a 'noble' based retinue army to one that is much more professional. We know that wages were paid, and postings to remote areas were bemoaned.

I agree Doug, the reforms that 'professionalise' the Sasanian army mark an important break with tradition, possibly because the Shah is seeking to  remove power from the great noble families and establish a direct relationship between the minor nobility and the throne without the mediation of the noble houses. Do you think that this is directly linked to the move towards units of armoured close order horse archers firing barrages of arrows faster than Byzantine horsebows , but with  less power in the shot?

Roy

The interesting part for me is the move to centralised training - which seems to really mark a break with tradition, (and we first encounter the term 'Paladin') - I am not sure whether under the earlier armies there were significant regional variations, but is seems likely that given the feudal nature there would have been real difficulties in coordinating the different capabilities. The later armies were all supposed to have significant training in bow, sidearm, lance etc, so it would have made for a much more uniform combat capability. It is interesting to speculate whether those boys who were schooled together also habitually fought together, and so each of the schools could be viewed as a regimental training depot.

I also think there is good evidence (written, sigilligraphic)  for heavily armoured cavalry until very late in the period, certainly 6th Century. Now early battle accounts suggests that at least some of the very heavily armoured cataphracts were brigaded or habitually fought together. This seems to fly in the face of depictions as a feudal host where the grouping would consist of the most senior noble family plus attached retainers and extended family less well equipped.

One possible explanation may be that there were 'Royal Husehold' regiments (and it is notable that the cataphracts are listed only in relation to attacks by the Royal army), 'The Immortals' etc.. who were exceptionally well equipped even early on, that only small numbers of cataphract armoured horse were available to the noble families, and then later, the noble families were replaced by the new class of Dehquan trained cavalry in 'Royal' armies, with the four quarters generals restricted to a small number of centrally equipped and trained cavalry, but also accompanied by a regional levy of nobles and retainers.

I do think that at least early on the regional armies would have been different. Looking at the Parthians I wonder if the army composed entirely of cataphracts and light horse was effectively an eastern regional army shifted west to cover the front whilst the western troops were deployed in the north.

Jim

That fits with my (little) readings on Carrahe, Jim.

Would that we had more information on the composition of that main army though, since the basic Parthian army list is pretty dull.

Plutarch represents at least the core of the Carrhae army as the familial host of the Suren, presumably his clan. It thus takes no account of the contributions from cities, hill tribes, Indo Parthians  etc.

Contra the idea that the Carrhae army is special is the depiction of the forces used against Mark Anthony and the battle against the Sarmatians. These both accommodate easily to an army of horse archers, light lancers and cataphracts with mail and lance/bow.

Of course that might be because it is the mobile army that we see in contact with the Romans.
Roy

My point in introducing the Parthians and Sasanians as comparanda here was to attack the problem of how Attila's Huns fight at Chalons. Are they  horse archers in the wargaming sense of being light horse , or are they more solid, shooting in volleys and then charging al la Sasanian/Mamluk style.
If they are in loose order  and mainly skirmishing then Attila has his German heavies on the flanks and a very open centre.  Of course that could give the Allies a further reason for putting the armoured Alans in the middle as they could better stand the arrows of the Huns.
My view is that the Huns are operating in 'close order' with shooting as preparation for charges and that is because they are Attila's most reliable troops.

Given our conventional representation of horse archer armies why doesn't Attila put the Huns on the flanks and attempt encirclement. , after all it is a great big flat plain that the battle is being fought on.

Roy

During the DBMM development phase, I suggested that certain types of Light horse should be able to operate in closed or open formations. Basically one deep, they act as dispersed light horse, riding up to take aimed shots at relatively close range, but largely untouchable by heavy infantry. When massed (represented as two deep) they had closed up and were now acting like cavalry, shooting themselves into close combat. I think this models aggressive, missile armed light horse such as Huns quite well.

Ultimately a close variant was adopted for DBMM2, and this actually works quite well.

I also suggested cavalry interactions should reflect the level of commitment by the cavalry, ride up shoot, not much damage inflicted and virtually none suffered, or 'go for broke' and have a hugely increased risk of damage for both sides. I thought this would reflect a cavalry style combat where it was either a bit of 'handbags at 10 paces' or 'get stuck in'. I think it was a shame it wasn't fully adopted.

I think the 'get stuck in' option would only be used versus unsteady or disordered foot, so at Chalons I can only think that the Huns had a pretty low opinion of the infantry they were facing.

Quote from: Mark G on June 07, 2012, 09:17:20 AM
That fits with my (little) readings on Carrahe, Jim.

Would that we had more information on the composition of that main army though, since the basic Parthian army list is pretty dull.

Have you seen the DBMM army lists for Parthians, they're less dull than they were  ;D

Jim

Jim is to modest, but he must take a lot of the credit for the reworked Parthian lists, which are (IMHO) much improved, and much less one (two?) - dimensional than received WW (wargamers wisdom) would have them.

Well it's only taken me thirty years

Jim

I feel so inadequate.. I have only been researching the Sasanians for 16...

Exactly, in another 14 years people might start to think you're serious about it   ;)

Jim

Does the amount of money I have spent on research materiel count?  Because that would demonstrate seriousness...  and the near divorce, when I accidentally leave the receipts for another 200 dollar book lying around..

Amazing how people don't see the importance of these books isn't it.  :o

A wise man doesn't collect reciepts  :)
Jim

Offer her half your library, I find that defuses the divorce discussion quickly

Nooooo... the first wife took my entire library.. I have been rebuilding since 1993

And for those who are interested, there are some excellent illustrations of seals from the Sasanian period here:

http://www.iranian.com/main/albums/sp-hbeds

These are not explicitly dated, but they have some very interesting characteristics in the horse armour and decoration.

Do they have light horse with bow and contus Jim??
(these interesting Parthians??)

Roy

Quote from: aligern on June 08, 2012, 12:34:47 AM
Do they have light horse with bow and contus Jim??
(these interesting Parthians??)

Roy

Looking at the Nisa murals they had horse with bow and javelins/light spear who took part in combats that look like a real furball

They had horsemen with bow and Kontos, and some of these had more or less armour than others. Personally I suspect that when you saw the cataphracts lined up, those at the front had the full kit and as you went back through the ranks you met the guys with less kit and some of them perhaps with no armour at all.
Or they may have worn mail under a tunic like their predecessors did.

Jim

Jim, put Carrhae up here and we can all debate it on topic so to speak.
Roy

I'll try and get it done in the next few days
Jim

One warning: Plutarch's account of Carrhae runs to about 50,000 characters.  Posts on this forum have a 20,000 character limit.  This one may need to be posted by instalments!

Patrick

I'll bear that one in mind
Jim

I had a look Jim and my suggestion is that you split it into 'the campaign of Carrhae ' and 'the battle of Carrhae'  Much of the numbers and Parthian army composition can be put in 'campaign'

Patrick is being a bit scary with 50,000 characters. I got it down to 19,000 without too drastic a prune.
Roy

Yes, sorry about that - I was word counting a document that as I subsequently realised already had another battle on it!  Expect c.30,000 characters in Plutarch's account, less Roy's pruning.

Patrick

Right, back to the Catalaunian Fields:

Gregory of Tours, History of the Franks, II.7:
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 unequaled 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. And so the city was freed by the intercession of the blessed bishop, and they put Attila to flight. And he went to the plain of Moirey and got ready for battle. And hearing this, they made manful preparations to meet him....

Ætius with the Goths and Franks fought against Attila. And the latter saw that his army was being destroyed, and escaped by flight. And Theodore, king of the Goths, was slain in the battle. Now let no one doubt that the army of Huns was put to flight by the intercession of the bishop mentioned above. And so Ætius the patrician, along with Thorismodus, won the victory and destroyed the enemy. And when the battle was finished, Ætius said : to Thorismodus: "Make haste and return swiftly to your native land, for fear you lose your father's kingdom because of your brother." The latter, on hearing this, departed speedily with the intention of anticipating his brother, and seizing his father's throne first. At the same time Ætius by a stratagem caused the king of the Franks to flee. When they had gone, Ætius took the spoils of the battle and returned victoriously to his country with much booty. And Attila retreated with a few men. Not long after Aquileia was captured by the Huns and burned and altogether destroyed. Italy was overrun and plundered. Thorismodus, whom we have mentioned above, overcame the Alans in battle, and was himself defeated later on by his brothers, after many quarrels and battles, and put to death.

Hydatius, Chronicon (Trans. Burgess, The Chronicle of Hydatius and the Consularia Constantinopolitana):
The tribe of the Huns broke the peace treaty,pillaged the province of Gaul, and sacked a vast number of cities. In the Catalaunian Plains, not far from the city of Mettis, which they had sacked, the Huns were defeated and slaughtered with divine assistance, fighting in open battle against the dux Aetius and King Theoderic, who were joined in peaceful alliance. It was the darkness of night which broke off the fighting. King Theoderic died here after being thrown to the ground. Almost 300,000 men are said to have fallen in this battle.

Interesting how by Gregory of Tours time the Franks, who in Jordanes have a bit part in a fracas with the Gepids the night before, have moved up to a starring role, being mentioned alongside the Romans and Goths.

Jordanes , of course, is going to enlarge the Gothic contribution, Gregory to make sure his masters are mentioned.
Roy

Quote from: aligern on June 26, 2012, 11:47:52 AM
Interesting how by Gregory of Tours time the Franks, who in Jordanes have a bit part in a fracas with the Gepids the night before, have moved up to a starring role, being mentioned alongside the Romans and Goths.

Jordanes , of course, is going to enlarge the Gothic contribution, Gregory to make sure his masters are mentioned.

The same with Hydatius, who is of course a Spaniard writing under Visigoth kings - so all he mentions are the Visigoths and the Romans.

I believe one of Sidonius' poems talks about the battle, but I haven't found a translation. Maybe I'll buy the Loeb - it's not onte of the ones available online  :(
cheers,
Duncan

Its Sidonius Panegyric on Avitus ch 7 329ff
When suddenly the barbarian world rent by a mighty upheaval poured the whole north into Gaul. After the warlike Rugian comes the fierce Gepid with the Gelonian closely;the Burgundian urges on the Scirian;forward rush the Hun, the Bellonotian, the Neurian, the Bastarnian, the Thuringian , the Bructeran and the Frankhe whose land is washed by the sedgy waters of the Neckar. Straightaway falls the Hercynian forest, hewn to make boats,and overlays the Rhinewith a network of its timber; and now Attila with his fearsome squadrons has spread himself in raids upon the plains of the belgian. Aetius had scarce left the Alps, leading a thin, mager force of auxiliaries without legionaries, vainly with ill starred confidence expecting the Gothic host would join his camp. But tidings came that struck the leader with dismay; in their own land were the Goths awaiting the Hun, a foe they now almost despised. Perplexed he turned over every pal, and his mind was beset with surging cares. At length was formed the fixed resolve to make appeal to a man of high estate; and before an assembly of the nobles he thus began to plead; ' Avitus, saviour of the world to whom it is no new glory to be besought by Aetius,thou didst wish it and the enemy no longer does harm; thou wishes it an, and he does good (referring to an earlier situation in which Avitus had  prevented a Gothic conquest of Roman lands in the Province.) All those thousands thou dost keep in bounds by thy nod thine influence alone is a barrier-wall to the Gothic people; ever hostile to us, they grant peace to thee.  Go, display the victorious eagles; bring it to pass, O noble hero, that the Huns,whose flight aforetime shook us, shall by a second defeat be made to do me service . (This is a reference to a previous defeat of Huns under the Roman general Litorius by the Visigoths).  Thus he spake and Avitus consenting changed his prayer into hope.  Straightway he flies thence and rouses up the Gothic fury that was his willing slave. Rushing to enrol their names the skin clad warriors began to march behind the Roman trumpets ; those barbarians feared the name of pay-docked soldiers, dreading the disgrace, not the loss. These men Avitus swept off to war, Avitus even thus early the world's hope, though now a plain citizen.
Book VIII xv 1  (To Prosperus)
the story of the war with Attila, which included , of course, the investment and attack upon Orleans, when the city was invaded but never plundered and the far famed prophesy of the priest who won the ear of heaven (i.e prophesied that the city would be relieved). Sidonius apologises for never having published or indeed completed this history.
Sidonius panegyric on Avitus is, of course, mainly centred on Avitus. So what we get is a description of how Avitus saves the day by recruiting the Goths to serve with Aetius against Attila rather than awaiting him in Aquitania.
Skin clad barbarians means, I suggest , that the Goths wore leather as opposed to Roman cloth, but it is a tops for barbarian dress.
The items in parentheses are my gloss.

Roy

Thanks, Roy.

Quote from: aligern on June 26, 2012, 03:22:12 PM
Aetius had scarce left the Alps, leading a thin, meager force of auxiliaries without legionaries

Incidentally, Sidonius' Latin is vix liquerat Alpes Aetius, tenue et rarum sine milite ducens robur in auxiliis; which leaves me wondering if he did mean us to interpret "sine milite" as "without legionaries", or is he perhaps getting at a force of tribal "auxiliaries" without "regular Roman soldiers"?

Very interesting Duncan, because that would imply a rather greater decline in 'regular' Roman trios by 450 than is generally assumed. Not impossible that  Aetius could have left regular Romans behind to garrison Italy, taking his barbarian allies to Gaul because they could be lost without much consequence.  By the time of the Odovakrian revolt in 476 there are still , in Italy, troops Roman enough to be  a counterpoint to the barbarians recruited since the Gothic defeat of the Scirian confederacy. However, those Romans are not enough to face down the recently arrived barbarians. The Italian army is unlikely to have been huge  because the economics of the peninsula had been transformed negatively following the Vandal conquest of Africa, so if an army  has , by 476, significantly less than half of its force as Romans, it might well thus have only a small mobile Roman contingent in 452 and that could have been necessary for protecting the emperor and a last ditch stand if Attila won.

Have a look at the army that Majorian takes to Spain, it is in Sidonius. That is a string of barbarian names, again that would reinforce your suggestion as regards Aetius.

The point that you make is crucial for reconstruction, because it would ;
a) remove the block of legionaries and Palatine auxilia that Aetius tends to be given.
b) make me at least think it even more likely that this is a cavalry battle, that Aetius leaves garrisons in place and takes mounted barbarians with him.

Roy

I did wonder if Sidonius was classicising and all 'Romans' were legions and all 'barbarians' were auxiliaries

Jim

The main argument for some sort of Romans in the "Roman" army, as it were, is probably Attila's speech in Jordanes:

You know how slight a matter the Roman attack is. While they are still gathering in order and forming in one line with locked shields, they are checked, I will not say by the first wound, but even by the dust of battle.

J at least seems to think that Aetius had some sort of infantry who would form a battle-line of locked shields, testudo even - "dum in ordine coeunt et acies testudineque conectunt".

Could 'Germanic auxilia' fight with locked shields? I wouldn't have thought it would be something restricted to long service 'Roman' regulars

But I do agree that it is good support for there being some infantry in the 'Roman' contingent

Jim

Well I'd say that that was likely example of Jordanes classicising, which he often does.
Roy

However, we must not be too harsh on him because without him we would have no detail on this battle. If his source is, as claimed, Cassiodorus, his report of the Roman side is likely to be more accurate  than what is attributed to barbarian leaders.

Quote from: Jim Webster on June 27, 2012, 12:41:45 PM
Could 'Germanic auxilia' fight with locked shields? I wouldn't have thought it would be something restricted to long service 'Roman' regulars

Jim

Remember that early medieval authors used the word testudo to mean the shieldwall of people like the Saxons, so it is not impossible.  I wouldn't use this argument for it meaning Germans but I don't think you can count it against either.

My gut feeling is that it is reasonable evidence for infantry  :)

Much more than that I suspect we cannot really be sure of, but the bit about leaving the legions and taking auxiliaries makes me wonder if the infantry might be best represented as some sort of 'Auxilia'. The DBMM lists have the line

Rugians, Turcilingi and similar foederate foot - all Irr Bd (I) @ 4AP or all Irr Ax (S)

I wonder if it is this sort of infantry we're looking at. They might even cross the line into 'Regular'

Jim

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:-)

Rapid strategic movement doesn't have to be fast. If you're doing 15 miles a day and the other guys are doing ten, you're the rapid one.
But the big advantage they had wasn't that they could cover vast distances in the blink of an eye, but that because they advanced behind the thick screen of horsemen, the enemy never really knew where the blow was going to fall.
If you're dealing with Huns etc advancing as they want to advance, your intelligence consists of a series of reports over a potentially hundred mile front saying 'they're here'. To react you have to hit and destroy their main force, and first you have to find it, and it can be anywhere behind that screen.
The Hunnic slow moving bit, be it wagons, horses, infantry is invisible, and all you can do is assume it is following the obvious line of advance. In Gaul geography constricts the numbers of obvious lines of advance, in other more open areas, they are less predictable

Jim

I like that Jim, it does not one whit destroy the point that with spare horses you are going to move a lot faster than an infantry force, probably three times as fast, but it adds a dimension.
One of the main points of the Mongols (for example) was arriving so quickly.  They went after the enemy army, hoping to catch it unprepared,  so in a way scouting them was not so important, itv was strategic surprise that wrong footed their enemies. In Attila's case he was besieging Orleans, having arrived before an opponent could gather forces, what he hoped was to break in and move on, not to be caught.  That part of Gaul is a large plain, but the fires and the refugees would tell you where Attila was.

Roy

Upon further consideration a thought occurred.  Could it be that Attila started out with a large cavalry force of kings and their comitatenses and then very deliberately subjugated tribes nearer Gaul such as the Franks in order to gain a infantry component for sieges. That's a lot cleverer than marching them there  and having to feed them.

Of course, for siege work all you need at base is conscripted peasants because they are good with spades.

Roy

I was pondering this and then it struck me. We underestimate the skill of the 'navigator' or navvy. Actually most peasants would do no more spade work than the modern gardener if they could get away with it, the odd bit of drainage work and similar. Peasants plough.
Digging deep ditches (not three foot deep to let the water run away)  and raising banks (especially with brush wood facines or turf walls to stop them collapsing) are not peasant skills. Peasants could carry spoil and might be very useful, but they wouldn't be particularly good at the other stuff.
Also a great mass of conscripts need 'policing' especially if you haven't got the logistics in place to feed them.
I suspect that your ordinary Germanic infantryman would be no worse with a spade than the average peasant and would be more 'self motivated' or at least trapped within a kin and peer group that would keep him working long after the peasant had faded quietly away

Jim

These are Huns Jim, not the  Cumbria constabulary. If someone acts up they impale him and probably his village too. If they want stuff done it gets done.
Secondly, the Germanic warrior en masse is a peasant. If your peasant is not up to a bit of hard manual labour then neither is your German. Warfare for the top layer of Germans is a profession, for the mass it's a part time activity.

Pondering further, are Gallic cities taken with the spade?  Maybe it's a matter of escalade or treachery or piling brushwood against the gate.
In the Balkans the Huns have the services of Roman prisoners who can construct siege machines and either warriors from subject tribes or conscripted country people/prisoners, but I am unaware that the sieges are so formal in Gaul.

Roy

We might be better to look at the chronology of the campaign. When did Attila cross the Rhine, when was his army at Trier, when at Paris  and when at Orleans. I suspect that, given that snow makes campaigning difficult before March ( Attila has to move through Germany) and he is before Orleans by June it may be that there is not time for substantial siege.
The attack on Orleans is covered in the life of St. Anianus which migh be worth a look..

Roy

Quote from: aligern on June 30, 2012, 10:41:15 PM
These are Huns Jim, not the  Cumbria constabulary. If someone acts up they impale him and probably his village too. If they want stuff done it gets done.
Secondly, the Germanic warrior en masse is a peasant. If your peasant is not up to a bit of hard manual labour then neither is your German. Warfare for the top layer of Germans is a profession, for the mass it's a part time activity.

Pondering further, are Gallic cities taken with the spade?  Maybe it's a matter of escalade or treachery or piling brushwood against the gate.
In the Balkans the Huns have the services of Roman prisoners who can construct siege machines and either warriors from subject tribes or conscripted country people/prisoners, but I am unaware that the sieges are so formal in Gaul.

Roy

I suggest you read something about the economics of slave owning societies and slave workers. They had to be managed and policed. Impale one in his village and drive the rest off to work and maybe his son runs amok in your horse lines with a metal edged spade. The Huns knew this, the account of the visit to their camp and Roman officials meeting their slaves shows that slaves were not expendable pawns. (in fact senior hunnic nobles and officers may have been far more in fear of arbitrary violence than the slaves)
Solzhenitsyn made the comment that when you take everything off someone, you actually free them and lose control.
Yes, destroy a town, kill everyone in it as a warning, even take some away as slaves but sell them on sharpish.
And German warriors are not peasants. They are german warriors. They will do a bit of work, they will probably be able to do most things their labourers can do, but the fact that they can turn up and spend time on campaign pretty well proves they have people at home who can do the work whilst they are away. German warriors are perhaps better thought of as a combination yeoman farmer/squirearchy/farm manager
I would suggest that they weren't particularly different from the Greek hoplite, yes they farmed, but they had slaves/family/tenants to do the work whilst they were away.


Jim

Quote from: aligern on June 30, 2012, 11:11:50 PM
We might be better to look at the chronology of the campaign. When did Attila cross the Rhine, when was his army at Trier, when at Paris  and when at Orleans. I suspect that, given that snow makes campaigning difficult before March ( Attila has to move through Germany) and he is before Orleans by June it may be that there is not time for substantial siege.
The attack on Orleans is covered in the life of St. Anianus which migh be worth a look..

This is a useful approach if the period sources can oblige.

If there is any indication of how long it took Attila (or for that matter Aetius) to get from point A to point B, we might even be able to conclude something about army composition from distance covered per day, if we do not have to guess at things like weather and the state of the roads.

Ultimately we are going to need an OB for both sides well ahead of Battle Day, so while we think about the more debatable points might it be an idea to confirm those OB elements for which we have either good source evidence or, failing that, a consensus?

Patrick

Litacani in Jordanes might well be Laeti, barbarians settled on Roman land after defeat an surrender who were governed through tribal chiefs and  were liable to send a contingent to the Roman army and probably also supplied recruits to named units of auxilia.  Example the Taifali in the area of what is now Tiffauges who were possibly Sarmatian types settled by Gratian in the early 380s
There is a Taifali unit in the Notitia.


Roy

Patrick, there is a literature on ancient marching rates.  One example that comes to hand is Belisarius marching a mixed infantry cavalry force along the coast from Caput Vada to Carthage. it is in Procopius Vandal War and is likely to be accurate because was there and involved in the logistics of the march.

Roy

This forum is getting busy - just two days offline  and I'm clearly way behind in this thread, let alone any others!

Quote from: aligern on July 01, 2012, 12:30:44 PM
Litacani in Jordanes might well be Laeti ...

That's one common suggestion, yes.

Howard Wiseman, in "A British legion stationed near Orléans c. 530?", http://www.ict.griffith.edu.au/wiseman/DECB/Wiseman-Dalmas-JAEMA.pdf (http://www.ict.griffith.edu.au/wiseman/DECB/Wiseman-Dalmas-JAEMA.pdf) suggests that "the Liticiani or Litiani (in various manuscripts) who are otherwise unrecorded" may be "an easily explicable scribal error for Litavii, that is the people of Litavia. This last is the name the Britons gave to Brittany, suggesting that the Litavians were Brittonic settlers." (If the Litavii were Britons in Brittany, the argument then goes, the Armoriciani "Armoricans" in the list must be Gallo-Romans from those areas of Armorica in its wider sense - Brittany plus Normandy roughly - that hadn't yet fallen to migrating Britons.)

As for the Olibriones, one theory (see http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat.html?func=view&catid=20&id=126236&view=entrypage (http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat.html?func=view&catid=20&id=126236&view=entrypage)) notes that Jordanes' list Saxones, Ripari, Olibriones, quondam milites Romani... is copied in Paul the Deacon's Historia Romanorum as Saxones, Riparioli, Briones ... (the ex-Roman soldiers bit has gone). This suggests that the mss of Jordanes available in the 8th century had Briones, not Olibriones. It is in turn suggested that Briones was an earlier error for an original Britones.

This is possible but it raises two questions for me:
(1) Surely Litavii and Briones can't both be Britons? One suggestion must be wrong.
(2) If it was originally Riparioli, Bri[t]ones, then who are the Riparioli? Ripari could be either Ripuari, the well-known Ripuarian Franks, or else a variant of Riparenses, that is limitanei, the men of the ripae. But Riparioli? Who they?

cheers,
Duncan

Quote from: aligern on June 28, 2012, 05:53:23 PM
I might draw two conclusions that support a view that  Germanic troops of the Vth century could form shield wall.

I hope that we aren't starting to diverge and argue at cross-purposes here. My original argument was not, quite, that Germans couldn't form a shield-wall, but rather that Jordanes' use of testudo for the Romans suggested a difference between "Roman" infantry and non-Romanized Germans, and that the Germans'  smaller round shields wouldn't allow them to form such an effective or visually striking shield-wall as the Late Roman testudo-foulkon of large broad oval shields - not anything that an observer might call a testudo. And therefore that Aetius' troops from Italy were infantry armed in Roman style, whatever their ethnic origins.

QuoteFirstly 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.

But I think it does hold true, for Continental Saxons and Franks, at least. (And one might add Scandinavia, where the buckler-like shields in Vendel-era art certainly seem to be much smaller than later Viking-era shields.) This from Guy Halsall, Warfare and Society in the Barbarian West, p.167:

"Many sixth-century shield-bosses from Germany, northern Gaul and Britain terminate in a circular disc, rather like a golf-tee. This was probably designed to catch the blades of enemy weapons. When coupled with the fact that earlier post-Roman shields in northern Europe appear to have been smaller than later examples, this seems likely to suggest that sixth-century fighting styles may have been rather looser."

One of Halsall's main sources, and probably the main source of the Angelcynn article, is Tania Dickinson and Heinrich Härke, Early Anglo-Saxon Shields (1992). This from pp.43-47:

"In the absence of English bog deposits or other waterlogged sites with Anglo-Saxon shield remains, the ost cmplete evidence for the shape and size of the wooden board is provided by pictorial sources. The earliest of these date to the eighth century: the Repton stone ... and the Franks casket ... Both appear to show circular shields of a very moderate size ... Late Saxon manuscript illuminations ... show markedly larger Anglo-Saxon shields (diameter about 2.5ft to over 3ft ....

Burials provide earlier, and more abundant, evidence for the shape and size of the shield-board, but it is often less conclusive; ... The twenty-three cases of probable board sizes inferred from the various types of evidence range from 0.42 to 0.92m ...

This evidence suggests the existence of at least three size groups of early Anglo-Saxon shields:

small - 0.34 to 0.42m (about 1 to just under 1.5 ft)
medium - 0.45 to 0.66m (about 1.5 to just over 2 ft)
large - 0.70 to 0.92m (about 2ft 4in to 3ft)

The medium size group, by far the best represented, ...

There appears to be some correlation between the age of the individual buried with the shield, and shield size. The youngest person in the sample ... juvenile, age 5-6 ... had a shield which cannot have been larger than 0.36m in diameter. The largest shields were buried with mature individuals ...

Indeed, the link between shield size and date is much more obvious. None of the small shields is associated with late boss types ... It seems, therefore, that shield boards increased in size towards the end of the Early Saxon Period. ...

In comparison with Continental shields, the Anglo-Saxon boards seem small, on average, although it is interesting that the tenth-century historian Widukind of Corvey (Res gestae Saxonicae, I.9) refers to the 'small shields' of the Continental Saxons."

So smallish shields seem to be used not only by the Anglo-Saxons but by Continental Saxons as late as the 10th century; and the correlation of shields getting bigger later on is stronger than the correlation with age or wealth of the wielder. All this supports the idea that at least the north-western Germanic troops at Catalaunium - perhaps not necessarily the Goths? - mostly carried round shields two feet, or less, across. This is very different from Roman-style shields.

QuoteSecondly 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.

Indeed, this is more or less my point: if Rome is supporting your unit - because your unit is an ethnically-German auxilium of the army of Italy - then your unit will have big oval Roman shields. If not, you'll have a mix of shields mostly two feet or less in diameter, with which you can't form the impressive testudo which Jordanes associates with the "Roman" contingent. I think this makes the identification of Roman-style "regular" infantry in Aetius' command quite strong: it's what Jordanes says, and in this case what he says fits the evidence.

QuoteWe 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.

Or it might just be that, because the Alan contingent is much smaller than the Hun centre, that Hun centre also faces part of the Visigoth command on the allied right. So King Theoderic faces, and is killed by, the Ostrogoths while Prince Thorismund commands that part of the Visigoth line that's next to the Alans, opposite the Huns - the left extremity of the allied right wing. (That would probably imply that there are a lot more Visigoth than there are Ostrogoths, but given Jordanes' form as a cheerleader for the Amals it is hardly surprising if he exaggerated their role.) 

QuoteIt 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.

By that definition, Napoleon's invasion of Russia was "a sort of giant raid". Even apart from attacking and sacking cities, Attila needed to be able to challenge the Gothic and Roman armies in the field, and to do that he'd have taken every man he thought he could feed, cavalry or infantry. It's not a binary "a campaign is either a conquest or a raid". Whatever your definitions, I don't find the concept of "raid" helpful in understanding this campaign, and I don't find the arguments for an all-mounted force, nor even for an initially mounted for picking up infantry in Gaul or western Germany, convincing for either side.

QuoteAs 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.

And do we have any evidence that they adopted such a flexible defence - as opposed to just cowering behind city walls (manned by infantry)?

cheers,
Duncan

Excuse me if I take them one at a time Duncan!!
I have Dickinson and Harke and I am quite prepared to buy the thesis of change in fighting style over a period until the Anglo Saxons  (of course they are not that yet) move from raiding forces to being the armed force of substantial kingdoms.  It fits, I think , with their progression of shield bosses which moves from something that looks as though it is actively used to a much more rounded  shape that would suit better in passive ranks.  However, we should be careful of  being so deterministic because 'shieldwall ' carries such connotations of  armies fighting from behind the line of shields and being very static. There is a lot of romance in that image of the stolid Saxon shieldwall which may be misleading.  the linear formation may be  rather looser and involve more individual fighting. The buttons on shields might be more aimed at individual duelling that played a part in battles only at the end and was more related to looser everyday combat situations.  Shields in Lombard art are also small and they have buttons on the shield too.  It is also correct to say that Germanic art has small shields, for example the Pleizhausen disk.However, we have the contrary evidence of the Frankish shield wall at Rimini and the Ostrogoth king Teias having to change his shield when it has ten? javelins sticking in it. Those imply large shields.  Lombard shields are small on the Agiluf helmet plate, but the reconstruction that I have seen based upon the surviving iron work of the grip is much more like a 3ft diameter.

Jordanes impressive tested may just be a classicisation, however, Philip Rance makes a very good case that the foulkon formation is just a shield wall as well as an all round tortoise and that it is characteristically Roman. Of course, around 50BC Ariovistus men (and Celtic warriors much earlier) are forming such formations.  As I said, shield wall is a commonplace.

The shield size/age correlation is really interesting. Younger men have smaller shields Does this represent a formation that has big shields up front or are we talking about different tactical treatment here where young men form flexible units that advance and retreat and use as a base a unit of older men that holds position and gives a base for action?

As to Attila's raid... well that.s how I see it. That is how Attila operates. He doesn't invade the Roman Empire,  take territory and garrison it. He advances, loots cities, makes a demand for tribute and goes.  This raid fits into that concept because he starts with  a tour of Germany and North East Gaul. Supposedly he takes Rheims, Cambrai, Trier, Metz, Cologne, Amiens, Beauvais, Paris (maybe), Tongres Tournay, Therouanne . The list is a later compilation and reliant upon such sources as Saint's lives (Hodgkin, Italy and her invaders II p118). What does not seem in doubt is that this was a very extensive ravaging  and takes perhaps  two to three months (depending upon when the snows allowed him to start from Hungary and how easy the process was and the speed of his column.
I am not aware that Napoleon's invasion of Russia can be in any way compared, he does not divert off to St Petersburg to loot the palaces there or send a column off to Kiev. Napoleon is seeking battle and submission,  Attila is seeking cash .  That is unless you believe that he really thought that he could marry Honoria and obtain half the Empire. That and his claim against the Visigoths are pretexts for which he will accept a sum of money, though showing their subjects the length of reach of Hunnic revenge was always on the agenda.

You raise a good point that there might be a lot more Visigoths than Ostrogoths, of course that would be likely if the Ostrogiths are just the mounted contingents go the three ruling brothers and the Visigoths are a full levy from much nearer at hand.  You don't mention that the Visigoths also front the Gepids and that  a Gepid might well have slain Theoderid,  However, I think your deployment idea struggles in two areas. firstly the sense of Jordanes is that peoples face off and this is congruent with the style where warfare is 'heroic' and  the battle lines are not necessarily contiguous. Secondly Thorismund has to almost blunder into the Hun camp on his return.  That is a lot more likely if, having advanced a long way, the Hun camp is between him and his father. If he is alongside his father's contingent then he would just make a straight return to where he had left him.
We also have to account for the occupation of the hill. This is apparently done by Thorismund and Aetius. If  Thorismund is not in a separate body then   Aetius must be on the flank with him so where are the Alans???

Of course that doesn't preclude other deployments, it is just that we should strive for best fit and having Thorismund with Aetius and separate from the main Visigoth force does fit well.

I don't want to paint myself into a corner on the infantry or not point, but I don't find it convincing that Attila would take infantry from the Middle Danube to  Northern Gaul. I have given the reasons why not, perhaps the biggest being that he could command sufficient mounted men to provide an army that was entirely horsed. and that at least all the Germans in  that army could happily dismount.

Roy

Reference 'Briones'  There are in  the Tirolian Alps a people called the Breoni whom Wolfram claims are under the command of the Dux of Raetia. IIRC that's from a Letter of Theoderic via Cassiodorus. The Breones are a local militia of tough hillmen.
Now I am not sure how a militia from the Inn valley gets to be part of Aetius' army, but it is a similar name of a people with military potential.

Woffram 'History of the Goths' 1979, 1990 pp8, 301, 316

Roy

Another and wildcard thought on Briones or rather Olibrians.

We are reliant upon Jordanes , or rather Cassiodorus for this name for Roman troops.   If this is a piece of information that Jordanes has copied from him, though J's claim to have read C and not have a copy in front of him  makes the remembrance of such detail as this list  remarkable.  Is it possible that the troops in question are being referred to by an honorific title, such as Honoriani or Theodosiani.  They would then be troops who had been honoured by the emperor Olybrius. Unfortunately he reigned for  at most eight months in 472 which is 20 years after the battle.    There is just a chance that the unit(s) concerned were honoured by Olybrius for whatever reason in 472 and that Jordanes refers to them from the perspective of 550 AD when he was writing, by their subsequent honorific.  That sort of thing does happen. If asked who fought at Waterloo one might list out the regiments by their subsequent 1880 titles rather than by their  numbers  as that would mean more to the audience.

Anyway i offer you this tortuous logic for  the obscure name Olibriones.

Roy

Bernard Bachrach wrote an article, "Who were the Ripariolibriones?".  It's in his Armies and Politics in the Early Medieval West collection, but I haven't been able to find so far where it was originally published. It sounds as if it might be useful if anyone can get their hands on it.

As for the Breones, you're not alone, Roy:  none other than Gibbon (http://tinyurl.com/86bh2hy (http://tinyurl.com/86bh2hy))  makes the same suggestion, as more recently does Barnish at http://tinyurl.com/br5b6nb (http://tinyurl.com/br5b6nb).

Cassiodorus, Variae I.11 (from Project Gutenberg):

11. King Theodoric to Servatus, Duke of the Raetias.
It is your duty to repress all violence and injustice in the Provinces over which you preside. Maniarius complains that his slaves (mancipia) have been without any cause taken away from him by the Breones [a Raetian tribe dwelling near the pass of the Brenner], who are continuing in peace the habits and maxims of war.

If this proves to be a true complaint, see that justice is done, and speedily.

cheers,
Duncan

Wonderful Duncan, I was able to find it on the shelves,. I knew I had read something about them years ago and couldn't put my finger on  where.
Bachrach's conclusions are that:
Franks = Franks
Burgunfians = Burgundians from Savoy
Saxons= Roman  military colonists (federates) from around Bayeux
Sarmatians gentiles settled in military colonies around Gaul in the IVth century as we said
Litacani are Laeti as said and both they and the Sarmatians appear in the Notitia which Bachrach dates to 408

Ripari have been taken as Ripuarian Franks, but this is a designation from the VIIIth century.
Olibriones should be Roman soldiers , but they are not mentioned in the Notitia.
Bachrach suggests that Riparii are  Riparienses . Riparii is a term that is used to designate Egyptian poilice officers so they could be Roman soldiers whose role has declined to paramilitaries.

B thinks that there may be a confusion within the text and that Olibriones should really be read as (O) a redundant O, (liberi) meaning free men and (ones) which is there to mirror Burgundiones and Saxones  as Jordanes mirrors Armoricani with Litacani, the Liti or Laeti.


Thus there are no Olibriones, they are conjured from an adjective that describes Riparienses, Roman soldiers who now look like Llaeti, but are free and thus legally distinguished from them.
Roy

So whether they're Rhaetian Breones militia, or Riparii Liberiones freemen frontier-troops, we're looking at some sort of "Roman" provincial, semi-barbarised, part-time militia? Interesting.

cheers,
Duncan

And not mounted :-))
Roy

Quote from: Duncan Head on July 04, 2012, 01:31:39 PM
So whether they're Rhaetian Breones militia, or Riparii Liberiones freemen frontier-troops, we're looking at some sort of "Roman" provincial, semi-barbarised, part-time militia? Interesting.

cheers,
Duncan

I must admit I've often wondered what happened to the sundry Diogmitai, Stationarii, Dekanoi which sort of lurk at the edge of the picture.
Whilst a lot would just fade away, much like regular Roman units, it has struck me that some might have been more 'resiliant' than regular units, being paid/supported/reliant on their local area. I wonder if some of these could have hung on to become the semi-barbarised, part-time militia?

Jim

What happens to all those Roman soldiers as the West goes down is interesting. That Procopius remarks on Roman soldiers in Gaul who still carry the same standards and wear the same footwear is often cited.  There are several references to Romans in 'barbarian' successor kingdom armies and Procopius famously cites  men who continue on a Roman tradition with the same standards and kit into the VIth century.  Also in that era the Dux Rhaetiae is continuing on with responsibility to Theoderic, but commanding limitanei. They could be newly settled barbarians and Casiodurus using an antiquarian term but I doubt it. When Justinian retakes Africa he passes a law that refers to limitanei who might have remained in place throughout funded by the Vandal govt., not however as part of a field army. Many towns will have already been supporting their garrisons as the Empire faded and could continue doing so albeit to a lesser extent as economic dislocation reduced revenues and political collapse the ability to enforce taxation.. (though there is an argument that revenues could increase as the central govt lost the ability to tax.)
The oft cited  case of St Severinus argues that when the pay stops coming the soldiers leave. However, that is in a frontier province with barbarians raiding up to the walls of Patavium regularly.
Of course many of these ,Roman, soldiers  are barbarian immigrants anyway so they do not have far to go to convert their officer into a warlord . This is I think, Liebschutz's theory and as part of a range of scenarios in which local landlords and their forces take over and the Roman garrison disperses and others  in which the town  garrison marches off with a pretender, never comes back and the town relies upon a militia to defend the walls I would find it plausible.
Of course we are faced with th question of the fate of the field armies. What happens to them?  They are  at a longer distance up the supply train from troops in town billets. The evidence of Sidonius  and Jordanes suggests that they are largely replaced with hired barbarians, though it may be that these folk are just more interesting and colourful to mention than regular units.

Roy

Unless you have a regular system of recruiting and bringing units up to strength, field armies will fade away on their own as men get to the end of their service and go. I was quite taken by the picture painted in 'The Last Legionary' http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Last-Legionary-Roman-Soldier/dp/1862273634

Jim

Reference the Litacani.  I wonder if these are troops garrisoned on the Saxon shore the Litus Sxonicus. I think they might keep their regular status longer than  some others because the forts are sufficiently remote to have their own local supply organised.

Roy

I've attached a translation of a 19th-century French paper on the location of the Catalaunian Fields/Campus Mauriacus battle, which I had translated for the amusement of the group preparing for the DBMM game at the 2013 Battleday. The French text can be found online at http://www.mediterranee-antique.info/Auteurs/Fichiers/GHI/Girard_MA/Camp_Attila/Camp_Attila.htm (http://www.mediterranee-antique.info/Auteurs/Fichiers/GHI/Girard_MA/Camp_Attila/Camp_Attila.htm) (among other places).

If anyone has access to a university or similar library that might have an original copy of Revue Historique for 1885, I'd be interested to know if there were any maps attached to the original - though there don't seem to be references to any in the text, so perhaps not.

Apart from general interest in the location of the battle, the main battlefield-level point is probably Girard's interpretation of Jordanes' description of the crucial hill.

Excellent stuff Duncan and really useful. A Map would indeed help, especially if it gave any indication of army frontage. The author has an interesting twist on ancient numbers. He claims that Ancient armies could cram into very small spaces, but does not follow the logical conclusion that the armies were much smaller than the sources claimed.
Roy

Quote from: aligern on June 27, 2012, 09:08:56 AMHave a look at the army that Majorian takes to Spain, it is in Sidonius. That is a string of barbarian names, again that would reinforce your suggestion as regards Aetius.

I note that Bachrach (http://tinyurl.com/b2b5yt2 (http://tinyurl.com/b2b5yt2) p.25) suggests that the Alites in Majorian's army are the Equites Mauri Alites of the Notitiia. I'm not completely convinced that we have one Roman unit mentioned in the middle of a list of barbarian ethnic names, but if he's correct, that's one identifiable Roman unit that survives until a few years after the Catalaunian Fields, so may very likely have  been in Aetius' army at that battle.