The Battle of Chalons AD 451

[Justin Swanton]

As for Attila's speech, if his house troops did remember his words it'd be something along the lines of 'gods but he got that one wrong.'
I see no reason why any of these people should have recorded it, and frankly given in the middle of a battle with everything that was going on, I'm not convinced that all that many people heard it. In reality he might have rallied men by grabbing a standard and riding forward holding it. He might have shouted something at the same time, but the idea that everything went quiet as he delivered his address doesn't sit well with me.

Jim

Bear in mind that the battle had reached a pause at this stage. The Visigoths and Alans weren't moving.  The Romans and Auxilia had taken the ridge and were redressing their ranks there without advancing. The Huns on the right flank had fallen back to their main lines. Attila's own men - who were able to hear his speech - had not moved yet. Everything was for the moment quiet and still, and he was perfectly capable of making a short speech before the next act. Since a battle speech was unheard-of from him, all the more reason for his hearers to remember it afterwards.

[aligern]

Attila positions his army. Which probably takes an hour or two he sends a force to dispute the ridge and no doubt is waiting with his commanders for the outcome. They are with him in case orders change and also because they cannot do any defecting whilst they and their heirs are in his presence. When the action on the ridge goes wrong he does a bit of motivating and repurposing  and then dismisses them to their commands. the question is really whether we can so dissect  a speech with a most likely oral transmission statement down to the words that are used,testudo  for example?
Oral memory would very likely transmit the gist of a speech , the attack along the line or hold off against the Romans , hit hard on the Alans parts, but the actual words and terms would need a written transmission. I cannot see that route being practicable.

it is reasonably well known that people remember only 15 -20% of what they hear. It is relatively unlikely that Attila made a powerpoint presentation and handed the deck out afterwards so we should expect only the broad brush  portrait of events and perhaps a specific order to the group to whom the carrier of the tradition belonged to survive. Hence the vector is probably not a Gepid, but maybe a Hun or an Ostrogoth?
Roy

[Jim Webster]

As for Attila's speech, if his house troops did remember his words it'd be something along the lines of 'gods but he got that one wrong.'
I see no reason why any of these people should have recorded it, and frankly given in the middle of a battle with everything that was going on, I'm not convinced that all that many people heard it. In reality he might have rallied men by grabbing a standard and riding forward holding it. He might have shouted something at the same time, but the idea that everything went quiet as he delivered his address doesn't sit well with me.

Jim

Bear in mind that the battle had reached a pause at this stage. The Visigoths and Alans weren't moving.  The Romans and Auxilia had taken the ridge and were redressing their ranks there without advancing. The Huns on the right flank had fallen back to their main lines. Attila's own men - who were able to hear his speech - had not moved yet. Everything was for the moment quiet and still, and he was perfectly capable of making a short speech before the next act. Since a battle speech was unheard-of from him, all the more reason for his hearers to remember it afterwards.

Actually if you believe Jordanes he says the whole army had fallen back, and that he's telling them in his speech to smite the Visigoths, which must mean the Ostrogoths are supposed to be listening to it as well because according to Jordanes the Visigoths didn't fight the Huns until they defeated the Ostrogoths and then fell upon the huns
So Attila had a hell of a voice to be heard over that distance. Perhaps the Gepids missed out on hearing him but he was apparently heard over two thirds of the battle field

Jim

[Patrick Waterson]

it is reasonably well known that people remember only 15 -20% of what they hear. It is relatively unlikely that Attila made a powerpoint presentation and handed the deck out afterwards so we should expect only the broad brush  portrait of events and perhaps a specific order to the group to whom the carrier of the tradition belonged to survive. Hence the vector is probably not a Gepid, but maybe a Hun or an Ostrogoth?
Roy

People nowadays remember only 15-20% of what they hear, but people from non-literate societies are different: they remember 95-100% of what they hear.  This emerged during studies of Sioux oral history (by Eleanor Hinman), and I quote an example of Sioux warriors narrating fights from about sixty years previously.

"They seldom disagreed, and when they did it was over some minute detail ... One such disagreement, for example, involved the Second Arrow Creek Fight, which took place around 1870.  In a sketch of the battle Bad Heart Bull had numbered the warriors who counted first, second, third and fourth coup on a fallen Crow.  He Dog disagreed with the order in which Bad Heart Bull had placed the fortunate Oglala coup counters, saying that the man listed as third was really second." - Stephen Ambrose, Crazy Horse and Custer, p.123-4.

One contributory factor to good memory in illiterate societies is social prestige: get it wrong and there are a lot of people with good memories around to remind one of the fact.  Another, especially in illiterate tribal societies with strong leadership, is that verbal transmission of messages must be 100% accurate - verbatim memorisation is not only routine but essential.

Actually if you believe Jordanes he says the whole army had fallen back, and that he's telling them in his speech to smite the Visigoths, which must mean the Ostrogoths are supposed to be listening to it as well ...

Not necessarily.  If a Visigothic contingent was propping up the Alans, as has been surmised and suggested earlier, an attack against the allied centre - primarily Alans - would include this Visigothic contingent.  These would be the Visigoths whom Jordanes has 'separating themselves from the Alans' later in the action.

[Jim Webster]

Actually if you believe Jordanes he says the whole army had fallen back, and that he's telling them in his speech to smite the Visigoths, which must mean the Ostrogoths are supposed to be listening to it as well ...

Not necessarily.  If a Visigothic contingent was propping up the Alans, as has been surmised and suggested earlier, an attack against the allied centre - primarily Alans - would include this Visigothic contingent.  These would be the Visigoths whom Jordanes has 'separating themselves from the Alans' later in the action.

But I don't believe it. There is no evidence for it, it's not mentioned in any of the sources and the battle can take place perfectly well without this surmise. Jordanes may merely mean that by placing the Alans in the centre they were surrounded by reliable troops. From what I can make out, it's a lot easier for troops on the wings to quietly ride off.
The surmise that there is a second line isn't supported by any evidence, just reading far more onto Jordanes that Jordanes may have intended.

The whole 'This is an authentic speech from Attila's lips' argument demands far too much surmise, 'perhaps' and 'maybe' to be at all convincing. I'm perfectly happy to believe it's what Jordanes believed Attila would have said. Actually I'm perfectly happy to believe it's what Cassiodorus wrote because it fits nicely with the writer who had to glorify the Goths and who's predecessor had been executed, probably for being assumed to be conspiring with Constantinople and for being too pro-Roman.

Jim

[aligern]

Well Jordanes says eatlier that the auxilia are surrounding the Alans so , if we follow Jordanes internal logic  the Visigoths are most unlikely to be behind the Alans. Furthermore, I made in the original thread and Justin and I have made a good case for Thorismud starting out on the allied  left. I then showed that it makes most sense of Thorismud's journey to find his father bringing him up against Attila's camp if he is on the left at the end of the battle and crosses back to the right. If you are basing your case on Jordanes' accuracy then that positioning of Thorismud   must be accepted, because he does not mention the Visigoths being detached from the left to go to the centre. Thorismud is on the ledt because the Roman contingent is small and they must front up against the Gepids.

As to this business of memory Patrick, I would accept that memorialisation is better if the story is repeated often and thus reinforced. Of course, false memories can be created, repeated and reinforced too! the extent to which your Sioux remember their, or their comrades actions will be very different from the remembrance of a leader's orration.

Roy

[Jim Webster]

Well Jordanes says earlier that the auxilia are surrounding the Alans so , if we follow Jordanes internal logic  the Visigoths are most unlikely to be behind the Alans.

But in my copy (Mierow, 1915) "When Theodorid and Aetius 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."

This isn't at the battle itself, indeed it is an unknown length of time before it (depending on where we think the battle was fought and how long Attila had been retiring.)

In the battle itself "They placed in the centre Sangiban...thus contriving with military caution to surround by a host of faithful troops the man in whose loyalty they had little confidence."

This may merely mean that the Alans, being in the middle, couldn't just fade away to one side. Jordanes cannot literally mean surround, because that would mean that there were allied troops in front of the Alans as well.

Also, let's just look at the whole Sangiban issue, there is no evidence in the account that the Alans didn't fight well. As far as I know there's no evidence from other sources that the Alans were about to change sides. We have to beware of Jordanes or Cassiodorus painting the Alans as potential traitors to throw the Goths into high relief as valiant allies (of the Romans or the Huns, whoever's side they were on.)
In the great heap of memoirs and histories that were obviously being written about this battle, it's just a shame that nobody's 'History of the Alani' has come down to us :-)

As to this business of memory Patrick, I would accept that memorialisation is better if the story is repeated often and thus reinforced. Of course, false memories can be created, repeated and reinforced too! the extent to which your Sioux remember their, or their comrades actions will be very different from the remembrance of a leader's oration.

Roy

Memory is good, but after a century transmission gets tricky. An example of this is from my own experience.
I once sat and listened to an old man (He probably wasn't my age now!) tell of his time in the First World War, and he mentioned hiding in a knocked out tank to avoid shelling. He didn't describe the tank, I didn't ask for details, but at the age of six I knew what a tank was because I'd seen them. Without reading (not an option in the oral culture) I would have passed on to my children and putative grandchildren this story, but if asked about the tank, I would have described a Centurion to them, not a Mark IV, because it was the Centurion I saw in my minds eye when the old man told the tale.
But perhaps my putative hearers didn't ask for a description of the tank, as there's no books with pictures of the Mark IV in, then they might picture the old man hiding in a Challenger 2 or even a Scimitar.
Now we have enough Memorials (Kendal has a good one) to show infantrymen in WW1 kit, so as I grew older I'm likely to notice that soldiers no longer wear what my Grandfather wore, but if we assume our pre-literate society doesn't travel all that much, it's perfectly possible for someone to model their picture of (for example) the Machine gun corps, from the memorial to them near Hyde park corner. Their memorial shows (from memory) two beautifully modelled Vickers machineguns, a pile of gas capes, and the man himself, stark naked with a double handed sword.

I suppose it did at least make it easier to wash the mud off :-)

Jim

[aligern]

Jim, I don't see that Aetius or Theoderid make it to Orleans before Attila arrives. Thus the surrounding occurs at the battle. Remember that Jordanes does not describe Attila falling back from Orleans, so his timing is nit sequential. I suggest that your suggestion that 'surrounding' means that the auxilia are all around The Alans is stretching the point too far. He could be surrounded on three sides. If they were all around him at the siege he could not fight there!

As to why put troops behind the Alans, well why would they just drift to the side? There is a logic to say that they would go straight back. There just is not a logic to saying that Thorismud was there. The simplest choice of back up troops are those already so delegated if it was done at Orleans or those delegated on the battlefield, that is the auxilia.
I recall that there was bad blood between the Goths and the Alans and that next year Thorismud launches an expedition against them. Hence I see ho need to doubt Jordanes that the Alans are thought to be negotiating with Attila. The problem for your. argument there is that there is no souce that is contradicting Jordanes about Sangiban.
Roy

[Patrick Waterson]

But I don't believe it.

[yoda mode]

That is why you fail. 

[/yoda mode]

[aligern]

Pease let us keep this civil!!

Roy

[Patrick Waterson]

Or at any rate military.

Jim, is this attempted impugning of Jordanes' veracity rooted in a desire to damnify any possible references to Roman regularity in the 5th century AD?  The poor fellow has been accused of outright invention and practically writing the story from scratch - he may not be a Procopius-class historian, but I wonder why he is being treated so severely.

[Erpingham]

Or at any rate military.

Jim, is this attempted impugning of Jordanes' veracity rooted in a desire to damnify any possible references to Roman regularity in the 5th century AD?  The poor fellow has been accused of outright invention and practically writing the story from scratch - he may not be a Procopius-class historian, but I wonder why he is being treated so severely.

Don't want to put head in lion's mouth but IMO the issue is a completely different view of how to critically analyse the text.  Jim has a minimalist approach - that not all of this is going to be true so which bits do we trust - and Patrick has a maximalist view - every word is true, how do we interpret them.  So you are going to find each other's views frustrating because the other doesn't seem to "get" where you are coming from.  You also have different views of how late antique history was done.  To Patrick, Jordanes spent hours in archives, reading official reports, critically appraised published sources (e.g. Cassiodorus) and even tracked down Hunnic veterans for eye witness testimony.  To Jim, he had a glance at Cassiodorus and wrote a precis while sitting in his villa.  If we are going for yoda-like statements, I advise seeking the middle ground. 

[Jim Webster]

Jim, I don't see that Aetius or Theoderid make it to Orleans before Attila arrives. Thus the surrounding occurs at the battle. Remember that Jordanes does not describe Attila falling back from Orleans, so his timing is nit sequential. I suggest that your suggestion that 'surrounding' means that the auxilia are all around The Alans is stretching the point too far. He could be surrounded on three sides. If they were all around him at the siege he could not fight there!

As to why put troops behind the Alans, well why would they just drift to the side? There is a logic to say that they would go straight back. There just is not a logic to saying that Thorismud was there. The simplest choice of back up troops are those already so delegated if it was done at Orleans or those delegated on the battlefield, that is the auxilia.
I recall that there was bad blood between the Goths and the Alans and that next year Thorismud launches an expedition against them. Hence I see ho need to doubt Jordanes that the Alans are thought to be negotiating with Attila. The problem for your. argument there is that there is no souce that is contradicting Jordanes about Sangiban.
Roy

The seige section comes in XXXVII, the surrounding in battle occurs in XXXVIII. Sitting with the book in my lap they do seem very separate
Jordanes in XXXVII says "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. [You ain't just whistling dixie there boy]
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 then dwelt. When Theodorid and Aetius learned of this, they cast up great eathworks around that city before Attila's arrival and kept watch over the suspected Sangiban, placing him with his tribe in the midst of their auxiliaries. Then Attila, king of the Huns, was taken aback by this even and lost confidence in his own troops, so that he feared to begin the conflict."

So Jordanes specifically has the allies arrive before Attila

Jim

[Patrick Waterson]

Don't want to put head in lion's mouth but IMO the issue is a completely different view of how to critically analyse the text.  Jim has a minimalist approach - that not all of this is going to be true so which bits do we trust - and Patrick has a maximalist view - every word is true, how do we interpret them.  So you are going to find each other's views frustrating because the other doesn't seem to "get" where you are coming from.  You also have different views of how late antique history was done.  To Patrick, Jordanes spent hours in archives, reading official reports, critically appraised published sources (e.g. Cassiodorus) and even tracked down Hunnic veterans for eye witness testimony.  To Jim, he had a glance at Cassiodorus and wrote a precis while sitting in his villa.  If we are going for yoda-like statements, I advise seeking the middle ground.

Essentially true, though I think it was not Jordanes who spent hours in archives, but Cassiodorus, who anyway did that sort of thing as part of his job.  The observation that Patrick finds Jordanes innocent until proven guilty and Jim seems to find him guilty until proven innocent does ring true - and Patrick does balk at the idea of wholesale invention because if Jordanes were a notable inventor we should have some spectacular inventions enhancing the Goths at every turn during the campaign.  This we do not see - the Goths are content to be led along by the Romans and although Thorismund puts in a good tactical performance Aetius looms large as 'an older man and of more mature wisdom').  What we do get is a very Goth-centred account, and the trick is to try and work out what else is going on in addition to the view from the Gothic seat in the stalls.

[Justin Swanton]

The seige section comes in XXXVII, the surrounding in battle occurs in XXXVIII. Sitting with the book in my lap they do seem very separate
Jordanes in XXXVII says "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. [You ain't just whistling dixie there boy]
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 then dwelt. When Theodorid and Aetius learned of this, they cast up great eathworks around that city before Attila's arrival and kept watch over the suspected Sangiban, placing him with his tribe in the midst of their auxiliaries. Then Attila, king of the Huns, was taken aback by this even and lost confidence in his own troops, so that he feared to begin the conflict."

So Jordanes specifically has the allies arrive before Attila

Jim

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