+- 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 Journal of Late Antiquity - Flavivs Aetivs - 10-16-2013
Thanks Renatus, will be sure to fix this stuff.
I should note that Bucellarii is a funny term. A unit of Bucellarii acting as a guard is called a Bucellarius, but several units of these mercenary soldiers are called Bucellarii. Furthermore, the term also applies to individual members and several members of a Bucellarius.
I would say the term is similar to "comitatus, comitatensis and comitatenses."
I have made the other changes, and am working on sort of a prelude, where I will discuss causes for the invasion of Gaul. I already have Aetius' and Attila's rallying of allies in there, so I will simply expound a little upon that and add a paragraph for the Siege of Orleans.
The Journal of Late Antiquity - Renatus - 10-16-2013
Quote:I should note that Bucellarii is a funny term. A unit of Bucellarii acting as a guard is called a Bucellarius, but several units of these mercenary soldiers are called Bucellarii. Furthermore, the term also applies to individual members and several members of a Bucellarius.In that case, I withdraw my comment. I wonder if there is a way of wording this to prevent others falling into the same trap as I did. You might say, "these men were members of Aetius' personal bucellarius".
The Journal of Late Antiquity - Flavivs Aetivs - 10-16-2013
That sounds like a good idea.
Scrapped the idea for a lead up to the invasion of Gaul, the article is too developed to fit it in without having this awkward chunk that disrupts the flow.
However, a brief few sentences about the siege of Aurelianum fit well with the area discussing the location of the battle.
The Journal of Late Antiquity - Flavivs Aetivs - 10-16-2013
Oh, on another note I'm looking for the Vita St. Anianus of Aurelianum (not of Alexandria), I need him for the June 14th date of Aetius' arrival at Aurelianum.
The Journal of Late Antiquity - Flavivs Aetivs - 10-17-2013
Draft Seven. Fixed a few things I missed that Renatus mentioned, as well as that second set of fixes.
Still waiting on some source information.
The Journal of Late Antiquity - Renatus - 10-17-2013
Evan,
Just a few more points arising out of your latest draft:
Page 1
Note 1: Publication details of Hughes’ and Thompson’s books need transferring from Note 3 and Note 23 respectively. Publication details for Bury required.
Page 4
“these men were Aetius’ personal bucellarius – I’m not sure if you were intending to adopt my suggestion that they be described as “members of Aetius’ personal bucellarius”.
Page 6
“a low strengthIf it is” – no comment necessary.
Page 7
“client nations; listed by Sidonius” – a comma, rather than a semi-colon, is required, I think.
Page 8
“Other sources also refer to them” – in view of the alterations made to the text, “it” is better than “them”, I think.
“one problem; the Catalaunian plains – a colon, rather than a semi-colon, is required, I think.
Page 9
“for a few reasons” – I let this pass last time but I do think that “a number of reasons” is better.
Page 12
“the bent shape of a crowbar . . . resemble that of a crowbar” – one of these is unnecessary.
“the fact that the both the” – delete the second “the”.
Page 14
“wasted opportunity, and Hughes” – would “but Hughes” be better?
Page 15
“Aetius was almost forgotten entirely” – I think that “Aetius was almost entirely forgotten” is better.
The fact that I keep noticing things that I had previously missed illustrates the importance of reading and re-reading the text, preferably with a few days in between. That way, one approaches it with fresh eyes and is less likely to see what one expects to see, rather than what is actually there.
The Journal of Late Antiquity - Flavivs Aetivs - 10-17-2013
Will get these. Probably gonna take a break from this for a few days, hopefully my belt parts or something will come in tonight and give me something to do.
I have an essay to write for economics tonight anyways.
The Journal of Late Antiquity - Flavivs Aetivs - 10-20-2013
After 3 days, I am uploading it again. Looked at it with fresh eyes today, but didn't find anything.
If you guys could look over it once more, it would be much appreciated. Be nitpicky!
The Journal of Late Antiquity - Michael Kerr - 10-21-2013
Hi Evan, I read your latest draft on the battle & have a few humble suggestions about your paper.
1. When you write about the reasons why Aetius didn't attack Attila's fortified encampment maybe one of the reasons was the danger of well positioned Hunnic archers, even dismounted ones inflicting heavy casualties on an attacking force.
2. I like your point on the loss of some or all of his loot as there was a whole season's raiding in that stash so any significant loss would have damaged his prestige among his Allies & probably one of the reasons he invaded Italy later. Maybe an attempt regain lost prestige & keep tribes together as well as gathering spoils to recoup losses from raid on Gaul.
3. Why the use of name Sambida instead of Sangipan. I only ask as I thought they were different leaders. They well could be the same person & their names mixed up due to scribal errors but the timeline doesn't match so I don't see the connection except the beginnings of their respective names. Sambida's group was given land around Valentina (Valence) in 440AD, yet in 447/8AD Eochar leads Alans in Amorica until at least 450AD & then Sangipan becomes king & fights with Aetius at Chalons, of course that is assuming they are the same group of Alans. Unless you are making a connection with names it might be best to refer to his name as in the sources Sangipan or Sangibanus, just a suggestion.
Just thought I'd add a few snippets about the names Sambida & Sangipan
Sambida's name has unknown etymology but is similar to Armenian Smbat, Sambit or Georgian Sumbat while Sangipan (Sangibanus, cangi-ban, Tsongi-Bon) has a number of meanings below mostly Osset.
He who distinguishes himself by [his] orders.
He who has power in his arm.
He who has power in his "wing" which could in a purely military sense mean a commander of a corps of cavalry or a wing. So if he lived up to what his name or title suggests Sangipan would not be the untrustworthy wimp that Jordanes tries to paint him as.
All these meanings come from Agusti Alemany's book Sources on the Alans.
Regards
Michael Kerr
The Journal of Late Antiquity - Flavivs Aetivs - 10-21-2013
I've been using Sambida/Goar because Ian Hughes calls them that. Best ask sonic.
Point 1 is... an excellent point!
The Journal of Late Antiquity - sonic - 10-21-2013
Quote:Why the use of name Sambida instead of Sangipan. I only ask as I thought they were different leaders. They well could be the same person & their names mixed up due to scribal errors but the timeline doesn't match so I don't see the connection except the beginnings of their respective names. Sambida's group was given land around Valentina (Valence) in 440AD, yet in 447/8AD Eochar leads Alans in Amorica until at least 450AD & then Sangipan becomes king & fights with Aetius at Chalons, of course that is assuming they are the same group of Alans.
It is usually assumed that the two names Sambida/Sangipan are the same, simply different pronunciations being spelt in different ways (c.f. Gaiseric, Geizeric, Genseric etc). If I remember correctly, I explained in 'Aetius' that this was the assumption I was going with, although it was possible that one succeeded the other.
Don't forget that there were two different settlements of Alans in Gaul: one in the north (usually ascribed to Goar/Eochar) and one in the south (Sambida).
For more information on the names, see PLRE 2, Goar (p.514-5) and Sambida (p.975).
Sorry about the brief entry: I'm deep into the reign of Anthemius and am trying not to get myself confused! :dizzy:
The Journal of Late Antiquity - Flavivs Aetivs - 10-21-2013
Anthemius had a fun reign. I planned to include the Invasion of Africa (468) in my IBUR mod as a Historical battle, but it never came to fruition.
Anyways, Sambida and Sangiban were names just seperated by time. Its believed Sambida gained control of Goar's holdings (he was a seperate group, the one settled in 442 to control the Armoricans as you have mentioned), likely because Aetius could trust Sambida with control of the Alan federates.
Anyways, I agree that the Hunnic troops would have made a siege of Attila's camp difficult, especially when you compare it to Athens' long walls. The Athenians used Scythians patrolling up and down the walls, and it would be the same concept of rapid reaction force with the "wagons" of Attila's camp and his Huns.
(I think Attila threw up a palisade, not wagons. How else would Thorismund confuse his camp with Attila's?)
The Journal of Late Antiquity - Flavivs Aetivs - 10-21-2013
Anyways, looking over this in PDF format (which for some reason is easier for me than Word format) I can see I should delete the sentence talking about the Younger Brother of the Franks on Page 5, and need footnotes in paragraph 2 of page 6.
Need to work on that transition from paragraph 1 to paragraph 2 on page 8.
Need a fottnote for the sentence mentioning he split his army up on page 9.
Page 11 need to change "Alan Cavalry on his right" to "Alan cavalry on his left." Also need to change "Bulk of the Visigothic force" to "Rest of the Visigothic Force" and put it on "far right."
Need to include a footnote to the Strategicon regarding the Fulcum, providing I can get the reference. Might be able to find a reference in Vegetius or Ammianus.
Page 14 - Remove "After" in "After which the Visigoths proceeded to attack." Need to mention Hunnic Archers would have made a siege of Attila's camp difficult.
The Journal of Late Antiquity - Michael Kerr - 10-27-2013
Hi Evan, in regards to Strategikon and References to Fulcrum (Foulkon)
Strategikon Book XII (Mixed Formations, Infantry, Camps, and Hunting)
7. The Formation called Convex
Then the infantry comes out of the deep formation of the files it had gone into, and the force again fills the gaps in the line and stands to resist the enemy. If the enemy advances to within bowshot and attempts to charge and break up our phalanx, a very dangerous move for them, the infantry should close ranks in the regular way. The first, second, and third men in each file form a foulkon, interlocking their shields, fix their spears firmly in the ground, holding them inclined forward and straight outside their shields, so that anyone who dares come too close will quickly experience them. They also lean their shoulders and put their weight against their shields to resist any pressure from the enemy. The third man who is standing nearly upright, and the fourth man hold their spears like javelins, so when the foe gets close they can use them either for thrusting or for throwing and then draw their swords.
14. Infantry Drill Movements
They should become accustomed to these movements, so that at a spoken command, a nod, or some other signal, they march or halt, reduce or divide the depth of the files, march steadily in close order for a good distance over various kinds of terrain, close or tighten their ranks in depth and width, march in a foulkon, engage in a mock battle, sometimes using staffs and sometimes naked swords.
16. How to Begin the Above Movements
They move in a foulkon when the two lines, ours and the enemy’s are getting close, and the archers are about to open fire, and the front-rank men are not wearing coats of mail or knee guards. The command is “Form foulkon.” The men in the front ranks close in until their shields are touching, completely covering midsections almost to their ankles. The men standing behind them hold their shields above their heads, interlocking them with those of the men in front of them, covering their breasts and faces, and in this way move to attack.
24. Synopsis of the Above Drills Which Should Be Known by the Tribunes or Commanders of Infantry Tagmas
They should become used to manoeuvring at a signal, whether by voice or gesture, to march and to halt, to thin out or divide their ranks. The command is given: “Leave the file.” They march steadily and in close order for a distance. If the front of the tagma is uneven, the command is “Straighten the front.” To reduce or tighten depth and width, the command is “Close ranks.” To march the command is: “Form foulkon.” Hope these refs help.
Regards
Michael Kerr
The Journal of Late Antiquity - Michael Kerr - 11-01-2013
Hard to find a thread so as Thorismond was part of Aetius's army this will do.
Aetius has received a lot of criticism over time for not finishing off Attila's army after the battle of Chalons & telling Thorismond to take his army & return home to look to his crown against his brothers because he wanted to possibly use Huns as a counter to Visigoth power in the future. Maybe it was just sage advice from an experienced politician to a young inexperienced king, and as it turned out, probably sound advice. Two years after Chalons Thorismond was assassinated by his brother Theodoric II.
Regards
Michael Kerr