+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: The Whole North Into Gaul (/showthread.php?tid=22674)
The Whole North Into Gaul - Flavivs Aetivs - 05-05-2014
I've been tied up in other things, I only just got back to work on it.
The Whole North Into Gaul - Robert Vermaat - 05-06-2014
Quote: I hope to finish the draft over the summer and have some members here read it, if you guys are up to it.I seem to have time now, so hit me if you want. :-)
The Whole North Into Gaul - Flavivs Aetivs - 08-27-2014
So finally back to this thread.
After a lot of work I have expanded my article significantly, although it's not nearly complete. I have a variety of more ideas to add, as well as the whole chapters on the Huns and their Foederati. I also need to write and extend/revise the section on Roman Foederati, and still have the whole chapter on Attila's campaign through Gaul. The analysis of the battle itself has yet to be expanded, as after writing up sections on Hun, Roman, German, and Alan warfare I plan to use that to go even more in depth into the battle.
Anyways, I need some fresh perspective, and was wondering if you guys would look over it and make suggestions for changes/etc.
Also, excuse the cheesy chapter titles. I'll probably turn them into something more professional later.
The Whole North Into Gaul - Flavivs Aetivs - 06-20-2015
https://www.academia.edu/13124202/Chapter_2_The_Roman_Army
A Draft of Chapter 2. I'd appreciate it if you guys read it and gave some suggestions for improvement.
EDIT: It still appears to be being converted ATM but it will be up soon.
The Whole North Into Gaul - Justin I - 06-20-2015
Quote:https://www.academia.edu/13124202/Chapter_2_The_Roman_Army
A Draft of Chapter 2. I'd appreciate it if you guys read it and gave some suggestions for improvement.
EDIT: It still appears to be being converted ATM but it will be up soon.
Note: you posted this on June 20, the anniversary of the battle.
Tomorrow's Lake Trasimene. A nice battle weekend.
The Whole North Into Gaul - Flavivs Aetivs - 06-20-2015
Yes that was intentional
The Whole North Into Gaul - Justin I - 06-24-2015
I am an editor by trade so this may seem nitpicky:
- In the second sentence, Gallienus is misspelled.
- Right before footnote 23, you should use "who" instead of "whom;" Valentinian is the object.
- Just before footnote 25, you use auxilia palatine, I think you mean palatina.
- I think Macezel is spelled "Mascezel" and Zozimus is "Zosimus."
- God Bless Aremorica!
The Whole North Into Gaul - Flavivs Aetivs - 06-24-2015
Thanks Justin, I caught a few other errors myself but didn't catch those.
The Whole North Into Gaul - Robert Vermaat - 06-25-2015
"Beginning around the year 325 [..] resulting in the Notitia Dignitatam."
Does Coello suggest 325 to be a date for the composition of the ND? I think that the current consensus is c. 394-5?
"Amongst the comitatenses grade were another grade of unit: the auxilia and legiones palatinae"
Can you have a grade within a grade? If the palatinae units are a subdivision of the comitateneses? You thereafter mention the scholae palatinae and the protectores domestici as a grade next to the limitanei and comitatenses as a personal army for the emperors, but isn't that what the auxilia and legiones palatinae were also meant to be?
Your quotes of Sidonius, while interesting in a discussion about the Roman field army c. 455, do not offer arguments in a discussion about the troops themselves. For a Roman field army could (and now I'm assuming the role of devil's advocate) consist of Germanic volunteers as easily as men drawn from the provinces, and still be large, under full Roman command, and addressed as scholae, agmen, turmae and palatinae. I mean, it's been assumed that especially the guard units attracted many Germanic volunteers, so we could argue either way.
About quoting ancient sources, it's of course very good to use the Original text, but for many readers it would be more helpful to use the English translation in the text of the article and perhaps the Latin in the notes.
"This suggests that Aetius’ Roman manpower was limited: he was unable to promote garrison troops because they refused to leave their homes undefended"
How do you see that? Limitanei were bound to their station by law, but that does of course not mean that their units could not be ordered to new stations, or taken up into the field army.
You then state that Aetius had no access to them because they refused to leave their homes. Who tells you that? Even the famous uprising of Julian's troops a century before is no argument for that, because those same troops followed Julian immediately after their rebellion all the way to Persia! Aetius might have more trouble mobilizing the Germanic federates who had replaced the regular Roman limitanei on the border, but even they are mentioned along the allies.
Your suggestion that the word 'ripuarii' refers to Germans stationed along the Rhine while not referring to the Ripuarian Franks I find a bit mystifying - either you have limitanei units (called ripuarii) which could be quite Germanic or you have federates settled to free/replace those units for the field army, but still quite Germanic. The origins of the Ripuarian Franks, it seems, is as federates settled by the Romans, so there might not be a problem to begin with, even though the term 'Ripuarian Franks' is encountered later.
Olibrones – why would their description as ‘the flower of the allied forces’ mean they were well-equipped? I think we can similarly argue for troops from northern Gaul (Toxandria) for instance, once supplying the best Roman infantry but now de facto under control of Frankish leaders and probably therefore serving in their armies. Does not Sidonius describe Roman officers fighting for the Visgoths as well? Either way we don’t have any other reference to these ‘Olibrones’.
“the Comes Britannium was created after 395, but prior to 405, and did not arrive in Gaul until 408”
Are you referring to the Comes Britanniae, the Comes Britanniarum or the Comes litoris Saxonici per Britanniam?
“By the year 450, the remaining units in Britain, Africa, and Spain had all been destroyed”
A bold statement sir.
I’d say it would be less challenging to say that these units no longer existed, and leave the manner of their disappearance open?
“The Aremoricans, who probably had control of the Comes Britanniarum’s army, would cut another 12,736 comitatenses from the Gallic field army, provided this army wasn’t destroyed under Constantine III’s rebellion, totaling the field forces at 79,072 men."
Once more I think you are making very bold while detailed statements. Why would ‘the’ Aremoricans have the control of the comes Britanniarum’s army? Even if Jones is correct and this army was created post-418, by 454 it may have been moved out of Gaul? The number of men taken from a Gallic field army (12.736 and not 12.735 or 12.737?) seems way too detailed to defend? Similar for the other numbers – I think you should mention rough amounts and perhaps mention the detailed numbers in a note as a result of the computations made above?
The Whole North Into Gaul - Flavivs Aetivs - 06-25-2015
Quote:Does Coello suggest 325 to be a date for the composition of the ND? I think that the current consensus is c. 394-5?
I've had qualms about that sentence too, what I mean to say was that these changes were beginning to be formalized around 325 AD, which would later result in the Notitia. I do need to change that I think to convey my meaning more clearly.
Quote:Can you have a grade within a grade? If the palatinae units are a subdivision of the comitateneses? You thereafter mention the scholae palatinae and the protectores domestici as a grade next to the limitanei and comitatenses as a personal army for the emperors, but isn't that what the auxilia and legiones palatinae were also meant to be?
I don't equate the Schola and Protectores as a grade next to the Limitanei. The Palatina units were part of the mobile field armies (comitatenses) ergo it is logical to group them in that category.
Quote:Your quotes of Sidonius, while interesting in a discussion about the Roman field army c. 455, do not offer arguments in a discussion about the troops themselves. For a Roman field army could (and now I'm assuming the role of devil's advocate) consist of Germanic volunteers as easily as men drawn from the provinces, and still be large, under full Roman command, and addressed as scholae, agmen, turmae and palatinae. I mean, it's been assumed that especially the guard units attracted many Germanic volunteers, so we could argue either way.
Germanic recruits in a professional Roman army are still Roman soldiers. Aetius relied entirely on Romanized Alans for his cavalry which the Gallic Chronicle of 452 implies were organized into military regiments and not serving as separate bands of Foederati. (Actually, I should mention that...) .
My point is to say that there was still a professional Roman army in existence, even if it wasn't composed of Roman recruits.
Quote:About quoting ancient sources, it's of course very good to use the Original text, but for many readers it would be more helpful to use the English translation in the text of the article and perhaps the Latin in the notes.
I use the Latin here because its important for the interpretation of Sidonius' two passages (well... not really the first one). Elsewhere I use English.
Quote:How do you see that? Limitanei were bound to their station by law, but that does of course not mean that their units could not be ordered to new stations, or taken up into the field army.
Frankly I'm just going off of Liebschuetz's argument there. Should cite that.
Quote:Your suggestion that the word 'ripuarii' refers to Germans stationed along the Rhine while not referring to the Ripuarian Franks I find a bit mystifying - either you have limitanei units (called ripuarii) which could be quite Germanic or you have federates settled to free/replace those units for the field army, but still quite Germanic. The origins of the Ripuarian Franks, it seems, is as federates settled by the Romans, so there might not be a problem to begin with, even though the term 'Ripuarian Franks' is encountered later.
My argument here is that "Ripuarii" is a corruption of the word "Ripenses" or "Riparienses." The point I'm trying to make is that you have a mix of Germanic-recruited Limitanei and Federates (like Severinus records in Noricum) on the Rhine which resulted in a unique culture that became the Ripuarian Franks.
Quote:Are you referring to the Comes Britanniae, the Comes Britanniarum or the Comes litoris Saxonici per Britanniam?
I meant the Comes Britanniarum, thank you. And it's Dux Britanniae, I do believe, not Comes.
Quote:I’d say it would be less challenging to say that these units no longer existed, and leave the manner of their disappearance open?
Agreed, although some were most certainly destroyed by the Vandals (the African field army for sure, was annihalted in 3 consecutive battles with Gaiseric under Bonifacius, Sigisvult, and Aspar between 430-432.)
Quote:Once more I think you are making very bold while detailed statements. Why would ‘the’ Aremoricans have the control of the comes Britanniarum’s army? Even if Jones is correct and this army was created post-418, by 454 it may have been moved out of Gaul? The number of men taken from a Gallic field army (12.736 and not 12.735 or 12.737?) seems way too detailed to defend? Similar for the other numbers – I think you should mention rough amounts and perhaps mention the detailed numbers in a note as a result of the computations made above?
I'm basing this off of Halsall, who states that the Aremoricans and Britons probably were the old British units that were moved to Gaul.
The numbers are very precise due to the computations but I mention that in my final estimate and round them off to a rough amount.
It's not finished overall, still have to add some stuff from Hugh Elton's "Warfare in Late Antiquity" and other books. Thanks for all the comments Robert, this helps a lot.
The Whole North Into Gaul - Flavivs Aetivs - 08-22-2015
Slight update with the suggested improvements and also some other ones, trying to make it flow better:
The Journal of Late Antiquity - Scipio Second - 08-23-2015
In my academic experience and research, it is the abstract which entices the reader/researcher (or not). I suggest that you submit an abstract to the publisher. Keep it brief. If it appeals to the publisher, then it is likely you will be contacted.
Petrus Augustinus
(aka Pierre Kleff)
The Whole North Into Gaul - Michael Kerr - 08-23-2015
Can’t really add much to your chapter on the Roman army except to say that Alemany in his book ‘Sources on the Alans’ surmises that Sambida (in 440 at least) was recognised by the Romans as a chief and not a king like other prominent Alans like Goar/Goachar/Echocar, Respendial and the unknown Alan king at the siege of Bazas.
I have not seen an update on the section of your paper covering the actual battle of Catalaunian Fields but Ulf Tackholm has an interesting take on Jordanes version of the battle and the period following the battle in his paper “Aetius and the Battle of the Catalaunian Fields”.
He wrote that Jordanes and to a lesser extent Gregory of Tours have attempted to rob Aetius of his rightful place as the victor of the battle. He mentions the possibility that after the allies’ victory over Attila that rather than Aetius suggesting to Thorismund that he takes his army and leaves the field to return home to ensure his succession against his brothers on the death of Theodoric that Thorismund, who was not a fan of the Romans and an unwilling participant in the battle decided to take his army back to Aquitaine to weaken and prevent Aetius from destroying Attila totally. According to Jordanes the battle was won by the Visigoths and the contribution of the Romans, Alans and other assorted allies were quietly put aside.
Attila himself by his actions in setting up a pyre of saddles to prevent himself being captured left no doubt about how he expected to be treated by a victorious Aetius. But with the withdrawal of the Visigoth troops as well as the Frankish allies that Aetius remaining army had little choice but to watch as the remainder of Attila’s army withdrew from Gaul unmolested from the battlefield and as was proven the following year still able to invade Italy.
He feels Jordanes basically wrote Aetius out of the battle and although they didn’t play a prominent role in the battle except possibly killing Theodoric, he couldn’t help himself by writing that the Ostrogoth kings, Valamir, Theodemir and Videmor were more noble than Attila himself even though they didn’t seem to play a prominent part in the battle except in the battlefield death of Theodoric. Tackholm also thought that it was very unusual for a leader like Attila to have a speech in the middle of a battle and that maybe the previous day’s battle was merely a skirmish with opposing forces feeling each other out with no real idea of enemy dispositions. Tackholm thinks that Jordanes didn’t have much knowledge of military tactics and it showed in his description of the battle.
Both Jordanes and Gregory write that at the end of the battle Aetius talked the Visigoths and the Franks out of finishing off the Huns as he feared that the Visigoths would grow too powerful and according to Gregory he wanted to keep all the Huns’ loot for himself. Tackholm asks though who did he fear most once Attila was defeated? The Visigoths or the Vandals who controlled Africa. So was Aetius a victim of Gothic propaganda. Not only Gothic propaganda but also the works of Sidonius where his father-in-law Avitus talked the Visigoths into joining Aetius against the Huns and not Aetius himself.
He covers a lot on the various sources of the battle and finds a lot of variations on Aetius' role in the battle and I think he is quite the admirer of Aetius and his role in stitching up the coalition to defeat his old enemy Attila but he does mention that without other sources we must take Jordanes account at face value. It is something to think about anyway.
Regards
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
The Journal of Late Antiquity - Flavivs Aetivs - 08-23-2015
Thanks guys!
Quote:In my academic experience and research, it is the abstract which entices the reader/researcher (or not). I suggest that you submit an abstract to the publisher. Keep it brief. If it appeals to the publisher, then it is likely you will be contacted.
Petrus Augustinus
(aka Pierre Kleff)
Well right now I'd at least have to have an initial draft of the entire book completed before I submit an abstract to a publisher. Currently I have two out of nine chapters at that stage.
Quote:Can’t really add much to your chapter on the Roman army except to say that Alemany in his book ‘Sources on the Alans’ surmises that Sambida (in 440 at least) was recognised by the Romans as a chief and not a king like other prominent Alans like Goar/Goachar/Echocar, Respendial and the unknown Alan king at the siege of Bazas.
I need to get this, particularly for the section on the Alans.
Quote:I have not seen an update on the section of your paper covering the actual battle of Catalaunian Fields but Ulf Tackholm has an interesting take on Jordanes version of the battle and the period following the battle in his paper “Aetius and the Battle of the Catalaunian Fields”.
I'm aware of Tackholm's work but can't find it. Not online, at least.
Quote:So was Aetius a victim of Gothic propaganda. Not only Gothic propaganda but also the works of Sidonius where his father-in-law Avitus talked the Visigoths into joining Aetius against the Huns and not Aetius himself.
I somewhat disagree with this. It is rather certain that Avitus did negotiate with the Gothic court in 451, because sources other than Sidonius confirm that he had negotiated the treaty of 439. So this is probably an exaggeration on a real action he took.
Aetius himself was half-Gothic, something Jordanes probably knew. Pelagia was Gothic, and Aetius had spent time in the Gothic court as a hostage. I see no real reason why Jordanes would therefore marginalize Aetius, rather than attribute his achievements to his Gothic influence.
Quote:I have not seen an update on the section of your paper covering the actual battle of Catalaunian Fields...
I might as well upload it. Need to do more regarding examining the original Latin, in regards to Whately's theory that it's a political statement.
The Whole North Into Gaul - Michael Kerr - 08-26-2015
Magister Militum Flavius Aetius wrote:
Quote:Aetius himself was half-Gothic, something Jordanes probably knew. Pelagia was Gothic, and Aetius had spent time in the Gothic court as a hostage. I see no real reason why Jordanes would therefore marginalize Aetius, rather than attribute his achievements to his Gothic influence.
I don’t really know whether Jordanes knew or cared whether Aetius or his wife was part Gothic and even today Aetius’s origins are conjecture. To Jordanes, Aetius represented the Romans and Jordanes was a product of the Amalis which even though they didn’t play a big role in the battle of the Catalaunian Fields are mentioned a few times in the Getica mainly in that their kings are more royal than Attila and that they played a part in the death of Theodoric. They are given prominence in the battle of the Nedao which broke the power of the Huns a few years later.
He wrote the Getica from memory as a summary of Cassiodorus’s History of the Goths for a friend Castalius around 551AD at 70 years of age and used a number of other sources including Orosius, Livy, Strabo, Tacitus, Dio Chrysostom, Ptolemy, Pomponius Mela, Ablabius, Josephus, Dexippus, and Priscus so to what extent he knew of Aetius's family origins we don't know. No google in those days. There is a possibility that Jordanes father had Alanic blood and his grandfather Palia was a notarius for an Alan King Candac who held sway in Moesia during the time of Attila. Jordanes was particularly biased against Sangipan and he cast him as cowardly and sneaky but Sangipan was probably a name or title meaning “he of the strong arm” in Osset. or “he who follows his orders” in Avestan so he sounded like a man Aetius trusted and relied upon. What connection he had to Eochar is unkown. Maybe Candac had a grudge towards Sangipan and these feelings of bias or betrayal were passed on to Jordanes through his grandfather and father and showed in Jordanes description of the Alan king present at the battle of Chalons and not through any other source. Sangipan is not mentioned elsewhere.
The oldest sources of the battle are the chronicles of late antiquity which were written shortly after the event, primarily Prosper of Aquitaine, but the information they give is scanty.
Prosper does name Aetius as the man who organised the coalition that faced Attila.
Hydatius mentions a united defence between Aetius and Theodoric where neither is given prominence.
The Chronica Gallica 452 gives little information about the battle but says that it is not a decisive victory with heavy losses. Aetius name does not occur in this passage nor does any other.
Chronica Gallica 511 is a little more detailed and mentions that both Aetius and Theodoric fought Attila.
So in Prosper, Hydatius and Chronica Gallica 511 we are given the names of the military leaders and the contribution of the Romans and Goths is equal. We hear nothing of gallantry and we have the impression that Aetius is leader and there is no hint of distrustfulness among the allies.
With the chronicle of Cassiodorus the picture of the battle begins to change.
Under these consuls, the Romans, under the leadership of Aetius, with Gothic auxiliaries, fought against Attila on the Catalaunian plains, who having been overcome by the strength of the Goths, departed.
According to Cassiodorus Attila was defeated (Hydatius said battle was discontinued) through the strength of the Goths but the leadership of Aetius is not disputed. The discrimination has started but in a subtle manner about the respective roles of the Goths and the Romans.
Jordanes enhanced the bias by stating that Attila’s soothsayers prophesised that Attila would be defeated in the battle but the supreme commander of the allies would die in the battle and Attila assumed it would be Aetius but it turned out to be Theodoric. So now Theodoric is the supreme commander of the allied forces and Aetius’s role in the battle is relegated.
Eastern authors like Procopius mention that Aetius led the allies. The chronicle of Victor Tunnensis which was written in the middle of the sixth century and it is mentioned that Aetius and no one else is the victor against Attila and the Goths are not mentioned.
In Spain the Chronica Caesaraugustana, written about 531 states that the Goths and the Huns fought on the Catalaunian Fields and that Theodoric fell and Thorismund won the day and that Attila disappeared. There is no mention of Aetius and the Romans. Isodorus of Seville wrote in the Historia Gothorum in early 7th century that Theodoric fought Attila at Chalons and that Aetius assisted him.
Gregory of Tours is a bit kinder to Aetius and mentions that Aetius, allied with the Goths defeated Attila but then gives the impression that Aetius enticed Thorismund as well as the Franks to leave the battlefield so that Aetius could sack the Hunnic camp and keep all the loot.
So it seems as time passed and the details of the battle faded that Jordanes even if he didn't realise it, tried to change history so as to glorify the role of the Goths in history. Tackholm just brought up some interesting points about how ssome sources seemed to present Aetius in a bad light.
Regards
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr