The Whole North Into Gaul - Printable Version

The Whole North Into Gaul - Printable Version

+- 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)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

The Whole North Into Gaul - Flavivs Aetivs - 08-26-2015

Candac (Kandak) was a Hun, the name is Oghur Turkish.

Great points, especially about Kandak and Sangiban. Do you have a copy of Tackholm, per chance?

The Whole North Into Gaul - Michael Kerr - 08-27-2015

Magister Militum Flavius Aetius wrote:

Quote:Candac (Kandak) was a Hun, the name is Oghur Turkish.

Maybe, at least that is what German historian Franz Altheim argued stating that Candac is based on Oghur –Turkic name Candik or Qandїq, but Alemany also says that the name could be Old Iranian with the ac ending like the Alan king Addac who was killed by the Visigoths of Wallia in 418, or Osset if the name has an ag or ak ending like kӕn-dak (he who wears sackcloth) maybe Andag mentioned below as the man who killed Theodoric had Alanic links. Others by the reading of Jordanes below think he was a Scirian as well. I am no expert on languages so I cannot be sure and Kim in his book thinks Altheim’s theory is difficult to confirm or reject and thinks that Candac was a Hunnic-Alanic leader (a lot like Saul who fought and died against Alaric in the army of Stilicho, who although leader of the Alans, going by the description of Claudian, seemed to have Hunnic features).

Marital ties were a common feature in steppe relations and were probably used by Attila to cement his various alliances so Candac may have had an Alan wife or himself a Hunnic father.

In Getica 265 Jordanes wrote

Quote:The Sciri, moreover, and the Sadagarii and certain of the Alani with their leader, Candac by name, received Scythia Minor and Lower Moesia.

Candac possibly had matrimonial ties with the Amalis as well as his sister married Andag who according to Jordanes in Getica 209 may have killed Theodoric with a spear. Although in the same section Jordanes says Theodoric fell off his horse. Maybe more bias by him towards the Amalis even though they were on the losing side.

I have a hard copy of Tackholm but it won’t fit on my A4 scanner.

Regards
Michael Kerr

The Whole North Into Gaul - Luka Borščak - 09-02-2015

Could you please elaborate on the meaning of Sangiban's name? Which Osset words would be roots of it? Do you have any other Sarmatian names you know meaning of?

The Whole North Into Gaul - Michael Kerr - 09-03-2015

Luka Borščak wrote:

Quote:Could you please elaborate on the meaning of Sangiban's name? Which Osset words would be roots of it? Do you have any other Sarmatian names you know meaning of?

Information about Alanic names that I wrote above come from the book “Sources on the Alans-A Critical Compilation” by Agustí Alemany. He has references to the possible meanings of a lot of prominent Alans from ancient times up to the times when Alans were serving in the armies of the Yuan Chinese. He tries to put in various etymologies for names if possible (Avestan, Ossetic, Georgian, Armenian, Old Iranian, Middle Persian, Chinese, Slav etc) but he does stress that they are only possible meanings.

Other possible meanings for various prominent Alans
Goar/Gochar “obtaining cattle”, Eochar who could possibly have been the same man as Goar, has an etymology of “eater of millet” (Ossetian “jœw-xwar”). Millet being a staple cereal grain in Sarmatian and Alan diets due to the wild grasses growing on the banks of the major river systems and wetlands which they occupied seasonally.

Aspar, Rasparangus, Respendial could have Old Iranian or Ossetian (rafsœrœg) “horseman” or “who advances or attacks or he who takes the offensive”. In Respendial’s case he took the offensive and defeated the Franks when they had his allies, the Hasdingi Vandals under their king Godigisel on the ropes. Maybe the Sarmatians/Alans were big on titles rather than names?

Sambida has an unknown etymology but Alemany suggests maybe a Caucasus origin as name is similar to Armenian Smbat, Šambit or Georgian Sumbat.

Saphrax, although a Greuthingi chieftain supposedly had Sarmatian/Alanic origins and the name could possibly be a Latin transliteration of the word “saurag” literally “black back” to do with horses but if you look at Ossetian the word saurag could stem from “sœw-rag” or “early-riser”. Some think that the name Saphrax might have Hunnic origins as well.

The Nart stories have a lot of possible Sarmatian names as many had Sarmatian origins but over time the stories have blurred with a lot of Greek and Turkic influences and up to the early 20th century these tales were oral stories told from memory.

In regards to Sangiban he mentions a few possible meanings, not only Osset but Avestan. Below is a jpeg file of Sangiban/Sangibanus.

[attachment=12727]Sangibanus.jpg[/attachment]

Hope all this helps :-)

Regards
Michael Kerr

The Whole North Into Gaul - Luka Borščak - 09-03-2015

Very interesting, thank you. I will try to get Alemany's book.

The Whole North Into Gaul - Flavivs Aetivs - 09-03-2015

Hmm... fascinating. I need to find that book too.

RE: The Whole North Into Gaul - Flavivs Aetivs - 02-29-2016

So here is a draft of Chapter 8... "The Battle on the Catalaunian Plain."

I haven't had a chance to work on this in ages, but I decided to just dump like 10 hours into it this weekend and update it with stuff from MacDowall's Osprey book, and I need to include stuff from Kim's article on Herodotean Allusions in Jordanes (although The introduction will primarily focus on that).

This chapter is a lot of theory, and quite convoluted. I'd appreciate a review of this guys.

Thanks,
MMFA

RE: The Whole North Into Gaul - Flavivs Aetivs - 05-15-2016

https://www.academia.edu/s/0abc6dfa17?source=link

I'd appreciate any feedback on my chapter on the battle itself.

RE: The Whole North Into Gaul - Justin Swanton - 05-25-2016

(05-15-2016, 05:12 PM)Flavivs Aetivs Wrote: https://www.academia.edu/s/0abc6dfa17?source=link

I'd appreciate any feedback on my chapter on the battle itself.

I'm a new arrival on the forum so these are off-the-cuff remarks.

First I'm impressed by the erudition of the article. It is very thoroughly done.

Re your request for input, there was a very interesting discussion on the Society of Ancients forum a couple of years back on this topic. I woudl like to take up just one point. I notice you affirm that the Alans were the most reliable of Aetius's allies. This however is not what Jordanes says:

Dextrum itaque cornum cum Vesegothis Theoderidus tenebat, sinistrum Aetius cum Romanis, conlocantes in medio Sanguibanum, quem superius rettulimus praefuisse Alanis, providentes cautioni militari, ut eum, de cuius animo minus praesumebant, fidelium turbaconcluderent.

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.

The latin term for 'surround' is concludere: it means to shut up, enclose, confine, surround, encompass. The implication is that Sangiban had allied troops all around him, not just the sides but the rear too, leaving him no choice but to fight the Huns.

The right flank Visigoths fight Gothic opponents; the Alans fight Huns, notably Attila himself. For a Visigothic contingent to fight Huns suggests a separating between Huns and Gothic allies, which implies the Huns drove the Alans back whilst the Visigoths held firm or advanced against their own opponents. Then we get this:

Then the Visigoths, separating from the Alani, fell upon the horde of the Huns and nearly slew Attila.

Question: who were behind the Alans? The Romans and Auxilia were on the left flank and there is the suggestion that the Romans were weak in cavalry (Thorismund looks like a left flank cavalry guard for the Roman and Auxilia foot). If it was Visigoths who quarterbacked the Alans, then it makes sense that these troops, not yet locked in battle (unlike the main Visigothic army), would be free to swing round the Alans' right flank, now separated from the engaged Visigothic force, and plough into the Huns, nearly killing Attila. Here are some diagrams to illustrate the hypothesis:

The initial deployment:

The race for the ridge. The Roman regular troops and Auxilia, helped by Thorsimund, win the initial fight.

The Alans and Visigoths move up in support of the Roman left. Attila exhorts his men.

The Huns and their Gothic allies attack the Alans and Visigoths. The Alans are driven back whilst the Visigoths stand firm or advance.

A gap opens between the Hunnic centre and their Gothic left wing. The Visigoths behind the Alans detach from them and use this gap to flank the Huns, nearly killing Attila who withdraws.

RE: The Whole North Into Gaul - Flavivs Aetivs - 05-26-2016

Jordanes can't be taken at face value though. It is well known the Alans were Aetius' most reliable allies. They defected to the Romans at Bazas in 414, and had served faithfully as the cavalry arm of the Gallic army for decades by the time of Chalons. Bachrach in his "History of the Alans in the West" explicitly notes Jordanes is extremely biased against the Alans. Tackholm mentions this severe bias too, and so does the more recent Ian Hughes and Hyun Jin Kim.

I'm gonna post some images for my current thoughts of how the battle went. I have to draw up a map of the Les Maures ridge first though.

Thank you for your comments though.

RE: The Whole North Into Gaul - Michael Kerr - 05-26-2016

It would seem odd that Aetius would put such "unreliable" allies as the Alans in charge of such a strategic city as Orleans which if lost would have opened up Gaul south of the Loire. Jordanes does appear biased in his treatment of Sangiban in particular and the Alans, but Aetius seemed to trust them. We have such scant information on Sangiban & what relationship he had with Eochar who seems to have died a few years before Chalons. Was he a relative of Eochar (son, grandson, brother or nephew as many steppe tribes practiced lateral leadership changes rather than father to son) or was he chosen or backed by Aetius to lead the Loire Alans because he knew he would be the best man to ensure their continuing loyal service to the Romans.
Regards
Michael Kerr

RE: The Whole North Into Gaul - Justin Swanton - 05-26-2016

(05-26-2016, 01:53 AM)Flavivs Aetivs Wrote: Jordanes can't be taken at face value though. It is well known the Alans were Aetius' most reliable allies. They defected to the Romans at Bazas in 414, and had served faithfully as the cavalry arm of the Gallic army for decades by the time of Chalons. Bachrach in his "History of the Alans in the West" explicitly notes Jordanes is extremely biased against the Alans. Tackholm mentions this severe bias too, and so does the more recent Ian Hughes and Hyun Jin Kim.

I'm gonna post some images for my current thoughts of how the battle went. I have to draw up a map of the Les Maures ridge first though.

Thank you for your comments though.

My own feeling is that if one starts discounting important sections of Jordanes' account - and he is our principal source on Chalons - then we are left with very little we can say with certitude about the battle other than that it took place. Doubt has been cast on other aspects of his narrative: Attila's speech, the presence of trained Roman infantry (the 'testudos'), etc. My own approach is to accept at face value what the primary sources affirm unless they are provably wrong or self-contradictory - but please feel free to ignore what I say!

Alans could have been reliable allies before deciding that they were backing the losing side. It was Attila they were facing after all. The Franks served the Gallo-Romans faithfully for decades until they turned against them in 486. Jordanes may not have liked the Alans, but would that dislike have enabled him to make up something as important as the fact that Aetius surrounded them with faithful troops at the deployment?

The list of authorities is impressive, but what evidence do they offer that the Alans were in fact reliable at the time of Chalons?

Having said all that, I am impressed by the erudition of your article.

RE: The Whole North Into Gaul - Justin I - 05-26-2016

(05-15-2016, 05:12 PM)Flavivs Aetivs Wrote: https://www.academia.edu/s/0abc6dfa17?source=link

I'd appreciate any feedback on my chapter on the battle itself.

I would give it a read but the link doesn't seem to work in my browser.

RE: The Whole North Into Gaul - Flavivs Aetivs - 05-27-2016

Quote:My own feeling is that if one starts discounting important sections of Jordanes' account - and he is our principal source on Chalons - then we are left with very little we can say with certitude about the battle other than that it took place. Doubt has been cast on other aspects of his narrative: Attila's speech, the presence of trained Roman infantry (the 'testudos'), etc.

I discuss in the first chapter that the entire account of how the battle went could be fabricated. My interpretation is based on the concept that Jordanes took the truth, and twisted it to fit his own narrative.

But it is an interpretation. Unless I magically got the funding to go to Troyes and find the battlefield, or someone finds the lost history of Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus or the rest of Priscus' account on the Hunnic war, we will never know what happened with any certainty.

**It's entirely possible someone could find such a text on reused vellum from a medieval manuscript. It's how we found Merobaudes, and recently someone found a 3rd century text in such a manner only a few months ago discussing one of the Gothic invasions in the 260's.

Quote:My own approach is to accept at face value what the primary sources affirm unless they are provably wrong or self-contradictory - but please feel free to ignore what I say!

Don't get me wrong, I am enjoying discussing this with you.

Quote:Alans could have been reliable allies before deciding that they were backing the losing side. It was Attila they were facing after all. The Franks served the Gallo-Romans faithfully for decades until they turned against them in 486. Jordanes may not have liked the Alans, but would that dislike have enabled him to make up something as important as the fact that Aetius surrounded them with faithful troops at the deployment?

Umm... Aegidius and Childeric were allies, but Childeric killed Paul and vassalized Syagrius in 465, and then Syagrius revolted against Childeric in 486, retook Soissons, and then was defeated and his lands absorbed into the Frankish kingdom.

Prior to that, from 449-457, under Merovech, the Franks were loyal allies of Aetius and then Avitus.

Quote:Jordanes may not have liked the Alans, but would that dislike have enabled him to make up something as important as the fact that Aetius surrounded them with faithful troops at the deployment?

Yes. I recommend you read Walter Goffart's "Narrators of Barbarian History."

Quote:The list of authorities is impressive, but what evidence do they offer that the Alans were in fact reliable at the time of Chalons?

Mainly the conflicting accounts in other sources. Other primary sources show the Alans' loyalty: the Vita Sancti Aniani, which is fairly contemporary considering the hagiographies were compiled in the 480's AD, states that Sangiban and the Alans put up a staunch defense of Aurelianum (Orleans). Other sources state that they built additional earthen fortifications (ditches, palisades, etc.) around the city before the Hunnic siege. Theophanes 5934, and Gregory of Tours 2.7 for example. They both state the city was laid siege to, but only Jordanes gives any indication the Alans were going to defect.

Hughes suggests the Alans defecting goes back to Jordanes' mention of letters to the Goths and Romans. These letters from Attila giving conflicting information to the two parties are elsewhere confirmed in the primary sources, and Hughes theorizes that Attila sent such letters to all the Gallic federates.

Quote:Having said all that, I am impressed by the erudition of your article.

Thank you. Smile

Quote:I would give it a read but the link doesn't seem to work in my browser.

You have to have an account to join the session. You can read it though here:

https://www.academia.edu/25346482/Chapter_8_The_Battle_on_the_Catalaunian_Plain

RE: The Whole North Into Gaul - Justin I - 05-28-2016

(05-27-2016, 02:04 AM)Flavivs Aetivs Wrote: You have to have an account to join the session. You can read it though here:

https://www.academia.edu/25346482/Chapter_8_The_Battle_on_the_Catalaunian_Plain

Yeah I have an Academia account, it's a great site. Strange that it wouldn't work. This second link is good though.

It's well-written. I just have a few nitpicky things. I should note that I'm a professional editor by trade, not a historian, so I'm not really scrutinizing the history here, just spelling/grammar/punctuation.

Page 1- Sometimes you write "Catalaunian fields," other times "Catalaunian Fields" with a capital F. It should be consistent.
Page 2- In "Treasure of Pouan," you have the comma inside the quotation marks, but in "Heva", it's outside of them. The first is correct in American English, the second is correct in British English. The same goes for periods. Just another consistency thing, it varies throughout the paper.
Page 4- Here, you capitalize the D in "Simon MacDowall." Earlier, it was "Macdowall."
Page 6- In the first sentence, beginning "It is known that steppe armies," you should use a semicolon instead of a regular colon, and put a comma after "Strategikon," before "which." A few sentences later, "the Alans were therefore perfectly suited to this task" should also be preceded by a semicolon.
Page 7- "a very well organized Germanic opponent" should be "well-organized" with a hyphen; it's a compound modifier. Also, use "something to which they had been forced to adapt" instead of "something they had been forced to adapt to."
In the next paragraph, "any army numbering less than 24,000 men" should use "fewer" instead of "less;" quantities of men are measured as discrete units, not degrees.
Also, use "among" instead of "amongst." And a few sentences later, in "not enough information survives in order to say what kind of a deployment," the words "in order" are superfluous.
Page 9- Tackholm's name is "Tackhom," missing the L. It should have an L, right? Either it's wrong there or it's wrong on the previous page.
Page 11- Near the bottom of the page, "close combat situation" should be hyphenated, "close-combat situation."
Page 12- In the second sentence, "in order" is superfluous. Deleting it doesn't change the meaning of the sentence.
In the second-to-last sentence, "unable to venture out of their own camp due to the Roman archers" should be changed to "because of the Roman archers" instead of "due to." Due to and because of are not interchangeable. (Like I said, nitpicky, but it's a rule).
Page 16- The T in "Gregory of tours" should be capitalized.