Roman Army of Aetius at Chalons

[Mrbsct]

Can someone give me details on the Roman army at Chalons? The style of fighting the Romans and Huns had is debated. Many people say the battle was infantry dominated(since the Huns were placed in the center, and center is usually were infantry goes.) Others say the battle was ALL cavalry.

How was the Roman army deployed infantry/cavalry wise? The Roman Legionaires were placed on the left, Visigoths on the right and Alans in the center. Would these be 3 separate armies or 1 army with standard deployment?

The Romans probally at this time wore chainmail, round shield, Hasta, Pilum, Darts and Spatha. How did the Visigoths and Alans fight?

I believed Aetius learned some Hunnic tactics.

Would the deployement would go like this?



Roman cavalry__Roman infantry_____Alan cavalry_______Visigoth infantry_____Visigoth cavalry.

Atilla saw the center of weak horsemen, charged it and he Romans and Visigoths destroy Atilla's Germans and sandwhich Atilla Cannae style?

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I have done extensive research into this.

Aetius and the Gallic Field Army deployed on the left of the formation, probably with his cavalry on the Roman right between the infantry and the Alans.

The Alani under Sambida deployed in the center, likely with support from Roman infantry and smaller federate nations (Franks, Armoricani, Liticiani, Burgundii).

Thorismund and the Visigothic Cavalry deployed on the Visigothic left between the Visigothic infantry and the Alans. The majority of the Visigoths deployed on the far right.

This would have surprised Attila, who probably thought he was facing a Roman center with Federate and Cavalry wings. However, in reality he was facing a Cavalry center backed by Infantry Wings. Suddenly Attila's advantage of Mobility with his cavalry center was neutralized by the Alans, who were mostly medium or heavy lancers.

The theory of an attempt to recreate the Battle of Cannae is false. The Visigothic right wing under Theodoric did not attain the crest the allies were attempting to hold, and therefore the battle line took the form of a crowbar, not of a crescent, and the Hunnic force could never have been encircled anyways due to their sheer mobility.

What happened is the Alans began retreat, and Thorismund, leading the Alan and Gothic lancers, broke from the retreat and slammed into the Hunnic center. The Alans won the day.

As to the appearance of the Armies, they would have looked more or less the same. The Romans used large Round/Ovoid shields and the Contus, an 8 foot lance, with Chainmail, scalemail, and Ridge Helmets. They also had large numbers of men using lead darts called plumbatae and javelins called Spicula and Verruta.

The Visigoths and Alans had been using Roman equipment for some time, so they both likely looked similar to the Roman army, but most would not have had metal armor still unless Ferreolus had enough to supply them with it before the battle.

The Huns generally wore Lamellar when they wore armor, and overall their force would have resembled the Romans' federate allies.

The battle certainly was infantry dominated, it was the actions of the cavalry that turned the tide, but infantry slogged it out and won the day.

Hope this clarifies things.

[Mrbsct]

The Alans saved the day? No way man. The Visigoths and the Romans did. Atilla charged the Alans and routed them. It was the Romans the routed Atilla's right, and the Visigoths routed the Atilla's left. Making Atilla almost get sandwhiched, it was the darkness that saved the Huns.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Then I shall refer to my Article:

http://cdn.romanarmytalk.com/media/kunen...Draft8.pdf

It's an older draft, but explains some of the unknowns of the battle rather well.

[Michael Kerr]

I don't think Attila routed the Alans but I do think that they felt the pressure & retreated. I wonder if Aetius might have had some infantry like maybe Franks to stiffen Alan centre but if Alans were routed that would have enabled Huns to charge through gap created by fleeing Alans & split allies then wheel and hit Visigoths or Romans in flank or rear. More likely a tactical or feigned retreat rather than rout IMHO. Alans having a similar fighting style to Huns probably ran the Huns ragged tiring their horses & using up their arrow supplies thus making them easy targets for Visigoth cavalry.
Regards
Michael Kerr

[Mrbsct]

Something tells me that the battle was mostly infantry. Its quite rare to have cavaly in the center between infantry. The Huns were known to be horse archers, its hard to believe that charged uphill as well as straight into the Alan line. I think the Huns would have dismounted. a 80,000 cavalry army seems to surreal. Even the lowest estimate 30,000, its hard to field that many horses in Europe over a long time.

The Sassanids at the Battle of Ctesiphon deployed their heavy cavalry in the center but their light cavalry on the wings. Their infantry in the rear. So maybye Atilla's cavalry were mostly lancers? While the German cavalry were mostly horse archers?

Maybye like this?(facing each other)

German infantry____Hunnic infantry____German infantry.
Horse archers_______Hunnic heavy cavalry_____Horse archers


Roman infantry_______Alan heavy cavalry________Visigothic cavary
Roman cavalry________Alan infantry________Visigoth infantry.


Maybye the cavalry only engaged on the right and center. The Roman infantry fought on the right, and all the other infantry were reserves for skirmishing(the reason the battle was a stalemate,) After the Hunnic cavalry retreated,their infantry retreated as well.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

No that's not how it worked. The Huns could not fight on Foot, neither could the Alans the sources say they were awful infantrymen. Thats why they were stiffened with Germanic and Roman Infantry.

We also know the Huns were not lancers, the Alans were but the Huns could out maneuver and shoot the Alans down.

The battle was mostly an infantry battle, but this would be the last time infantry were ever used offensively (or at least the concept that Infantry were offensive and Cavalry were support died out after Aetius' death, after this for the next 1000 years infantry were thought of just defensive troops to hold the line while cavalry won the battle), and even then the Cavalry still determined the outcome.

And where are you getting an 80,000 cavalry Army? The maximum plausible for the Hun coalition is 70-80K. Well over 60% of that was infantry on either flank of the hunnic center.

[Mrbsct]

So you telling me the Hun horse archers were placed in the center?

Isn't it awkaward to place cavalry in the center between two infantry lines, expecially light cavalry?

[Flavivs Aetivs]

The tactic worked. Huns could pick infantry formations to pieces, and were too mobile to be countered. All infantry could do is hold their shield up and hope the formation didn't break or he didn't get shot. By deploying lancers and archers against the Huns, the Hunnic forces could be countered and held off. Aetius also likely deployed his Huns against the Hunnic center.

[Michael Kerr]

With the time of battle taking place in late afternoon it seems Attila had a bad feeling about this battle & was probably forced into making a stand at Chalons. Whether his troops were reluctant to fight or Attila himself was reluctant we don't know. Maybe a choice of saving his army & losing spoils collected which to a steppe tribal leader was unacceptable as distribution of loot kept army & tribes under his sway. Two examples I can think of where Steppe tribes lost battles defending their spoils to the Romans would be Roxolani on Lower Danube in 69AD & Iazyges crossing Danube in about 173AD where battle was fought on the ice on frozen Danube as described by Cassius Dio. Attila was told by a seer/shaman that one of the leaders would die on the field the next day & I am sure he assumed or hoped it would be Aetius or possibly even himself going by reports of him ordering the building of pyre of horse saddles in Hunnic encampment so Romans could not take him alive so Huns & even Attila himself, were very superstitious. In 439AD Litorius, one of Aetius' generals whose army was destroyed by Visigoths beneath the walls of Toulouse was supposedly the last Roman general to perform the ancient pagan rites before battle & Prosper wrote that he lost the battle because he refused to listen to the advice of his officers & instead trusted the responses of the haruspices. Maybe he was a pagan but unlikely and another Christian writer Salvian wrote that the Romans lost the battle because unlike the Goths, they did not put their hope in God but relied on their Hunnic auxiliaries. So Litorius's Hunnic troops wanted to know result of battle before engaging the enemy & rites were performed by Hunnic diviners so it was probably normal for Attila to consult these seers as well. So maybe diviners played a part in the Huns deciding to fight with Attila having little choice in matter. I also think that Attila's forces may have been short on fit horses after a long campaign of looting in Gaul with the need for extra horses to haul spoils & unsuccessful siege of Orleans so maybe performance of Hunnic cavalry was not as effective as usual which Aetius exploited with his dispositions before battle.
Regards
Michael Kerr

[Michael Kerr]

Just on whether Huns could only fight on horseback. I remember reading Procopius the Gothic wars Book VI about a battle involving dismounted Hun archers & it seems the only source I can find but shows it would be wise not to underestimate a dismounted Hun horse archer which could be one of the reasons Aetius didn't attack Hunnic encampment after the battle at Chalons. What is surprising is that their archers could shoot accurately while pursuing foes on foot. Reference is from Procopius The Gothic Wars book VI Chap I lines 9-10.

Now on the occasion in question, since Constantinus could neither overcome the throng of the Goths nor flee without great danger, he caused all the Huns to dismount from their horses, and on foot, in company with them, took his stand in one of the narrow passages there. Then by shooting from that safe position they slew large numbers of the enemy. And for some time the Goths withstood their missiles. For they hoped, as soon as the supply of missiles in the quivers of the Huns should be exhausted, to be able to surround them without any trouble, take them prisoners, and lead them back to their camp. But since the Massagetae, who were not only good bowmen but also had a dense throng to shoot into, hit an enemy with practically every shot, the Goths perceived that above half their number had perished, and since the sun was about to set, they knew not what to do and so rushed off in flight. Then indeed many of them fell; for the Massagetae followed them up, and since they know how to shoot the bow with the greatest accuracy even when running at great speed, they continued to discharge their arrows no less than before, shooting at their backs, and kept up the slaughter. And thus Constantinus with his Huns came back to Rome at night.

Regards
Michael Kerr

[Diocle]

Yes, In my opinion the Huns at the time of Chalons were a large mix of germanic tribes and Steppe peoples, I quote as an example, the Langobards, who for the time corresponding to the age of Atilla, had a serie of kings with Hunnic names (Paul of Winfrid, Historia Langobardorum), probably many Eastern Germans and various tribes of different ethnic origins, from the whole area of the Balkans were now part of the Hunnic people.

We should not forget that the ethnic identity for the Germanic peoples wasn't a matter of blood but more a choice, made by individual or groups; you simply had to accept the founding legend of the main tribal group, that is, the cultural oral tradition. of the 'sippe' and you became part of the Langobard nation or of the Burgundian Frank or Gothic nations ... so, in the large Empire of Attila probably many were the styles of warfare and the military traditions, and we should also remember that few are the evidences about the Hunnic army fully on horseback during the age of Attila, probably the Huns were able to field a very large and wide choice of good infantry, (with also many Romans I presume ...).
In the end the Hunnic army was a strong military machine well balanced and diversified.

So, the miracle of Chalons is that Attila didn't exploited the hole created by the Alans in the center ... a miracle so miracolous that you might be tempted to think:

'And if it has been all a big plot?'

In the end the spectacle of thousands of Goths killing each other, it should have been a very pleasant and almost delicious show for both: The Magister, looking the Gothic King Theodoric dying in the furious fratricidal melee, and Attila was watching delighted the two most powerful Germanic nations killing themselves each other.

If it wasn't a plot, it should have been! 8+)

[Flavivs Aetivs]

It wasn't a plot - originally Attila tried to trick both the Visigoths and the Romans into thinking he was an ally of each, but the Romans figured it out and told Theodoric that Attila was planning to attack the Goths and the Romans. Avitus negotiated an alliance.

The Huns had a large number of Germanics in their army, but the core was still Hunnic Horse-Archers. Furthermore, the Ostrogoths were not united at this point - Attila brought with him the Amali of Valamir and his brothers, and large numbers of Carpathian Goths. Jordanes generalized these all under "Ostrogoths" but in reality they were disjunct groups of Goths. The Gepid kingdom had only just united probably.

Furthermore, nobody knew Theodoric was slain until they found his body a day or two later.

The Alans did not create a hole in the center, they began a withdrawl and that lured the Huns forwards, because it is well known that Alans had a tendency to break under missile fire. Thinking they had routed the Alans, the Huns would have been surprised when Sambida and Thorismund turned the Alans around and smashed into the pursuing Huns. It was a risky tactic, but Aetius must have known it would work and therefore planned for it to happen.

@Michael Kerr
That is indeed interesting - I like the reference to "Massagetae," and I still wonder if they were indeed descendents of the Scythians who had been expelled centuries before.

[Michael Kerr]

I have to agree with MMFA on Hunnic horse archers being the core of Hunnic armies & their tactics. The Hunnic bow was their primary weapon & it was the ultimate killing weapon from ancient times till the mongols so although over a few generations some Huns became sedentary & some may well have became infantry the horse archer remained the core component of his army. The Huns German allies never adopted the composite bow after many years of fighting & living alongside Huns but that could be because they could never master the art of making them. They had useful foot archers but they didn't use composite bows. I have read that they used lasso after contact with Huns & Alans but never horse archery. But I do think the Huns mixed with other tribes through marriages. For example when Claudian described Alan leader Saul who fought under Stilicho he seemed to be describing a man with Hunnic features. But it is interesting what you said about “sippe".
Regards
Michael Kerr

[Robert Vermaat]

I have to agree with MMFA on Hunnic horse archers being the core of Hunnic armies & their tactics. The Hunnic bow was their primary weapon & it was the ultimate killing weapon from ancient times till the mongols so although over a few generations some Huns became sedentary & some may well have became infantry the horse archer remained the core component of his army.

Is this really a fact or is it an widespread assumption? I mean - OF COURSE the Hunnic horsearchers were terrific and their bows very powerful. But do we really KNOW the composition of their forces? Are we perhaps comparing too much with Mongol and Turkish forces 9of which we do know the details) and extrapolate that to the Hun army?

I mean - do all these archers die with Atilla? beacause we encounter 'Hun cavalry' much longer afterwards, and somehow their invincibility is gone with Atilla. The elderly Belisarius manages to scare them off - with a scrap force of militia no less. :!:

I suggest that we may look at Atilla's Hunnic army in the centre as a more balanced force, containing many horse archers but also lancers and infantry - perhaps not pureblooded Huns but subject peoples. After all it's never written anywhere that Atilla commanded only 'racially pureblooded' Huns.