05-18-2014, 05:38 AM
Magister Militum Flavius Aetius wrote:
I take your point in your post about Rhine cities mentioned not being sacked but with the country around them being devastated, starving garrisons in these towns would not create too many problems, so the Hunnic column for these towns looks slightly smaller than the main one, but I bet they picked the surrounding countryside clean of food & livestock. BTW what books did you get the evidence or non-evidence of destruction of cities in 450AD? I am not disputing this as you can't argue against archaeology, I am just interested.
In regards to Aetius, I have to disagree with you in regards to Aetius & Aquileia, I too have read Ian Hughes book where he states that Aetius decided not to guard the Julian passes as a strategy to stall Attila in his siege of the city by beefing up the garrison there to use up time in campaigning season. It worked the previous year but I think Aetius, while at the top of his game in 451AD made a crucial mistake this time by not sending troops to guard the passes of the Julian Alps, it probably would have entailed fewer troops than what were barricaded up in the Aquileia siege & he totally underestimated Attila's ability to invade Italy in 452AD. I was not really convinced with the argument that the Julian alps were not high enough & the passes would have been harder for Aetius to defend. In the end Aquileia did fall even though we hear stories about how the Huns were considering abandoning their siege but Attila hung tough & took it & I am assuming that the extra garrison troops that Aetius left were lost as well, weakening the western army further. Lots of theories about famine in Northern Italy, superstitions of Huns regarding the death of Alaric, Attila meeting the pope or pressure on Attila caused by Marcian attacking further east are all the reasons I hear about Attila's withdrawal but in the end I think maybe a bit of all but I am pretty sure the Romans paid a hefty bribe to Attila to head back home, until the next campaigning season.
I think Attila got what he wanted which was loot to reinforce his leadership & luckily for both eastern & western empires Attila died the following year.
In fairness to Aetius, his power base was probably the Gallo-Romano landholders & various allied people, so rebuilding of his position in Gaul as well as his army in Gaul & not the defence of Italy & an unfriendly emperor was highest on his priority list for that year. Chalons was fought at a heavy cost to all the combatants involved so Aetius was probably not expecting Attila to rebound so quickly, so his reactions could have come from political pressure from Italian aristocracy. I even read where he tried to convince Valentinian III to abandon Italy altogether. In 451AD Orleans was held by Alans & locals with little cost to actual Roman army but I am assuming that Roman troops were used in the defence of Aquileia the following year, further weakening the army. :?
Regards
Michael Kerr
Quote:Aetius realised that sieges delayed and weakened Attila, and used that effectively in 452 when he stationed a large garrison at Aquileia to block Attila's advance. Attila was forced to either besiege the city or leave several thousand Roman soldiers at his rear, cutting off his escape.
I take your point in your post about Rhine cities mentioned not being sacked but with the country around them being devastated, starving garrisons in these towns would not create too many problems, so the Hunnic column for these towns looks slightly smaller than the main one, but I bet they picked the surrounding countryside clean of food & livestock. BTW what books did you get the evidence or non-evidence of destruction of cities in 450AD? I am not disputing this as you can't argue against archaeology, I am just interested.
In regards to Aetius, I have to disagree with you in regards to Aetius & Aquileia, I too have read Ian Hughes book where he states that Aetius decided not to guard the Julian passes as a strategy to stall Attila in his siege of the city by beefing up the garrison there to use up time in campaigning season. It worked the previous year but I think Aetius, while at the top of his game in 451AD made a crucial mistake this time by not sending troops to guard the passes of the Julian Alps, it probably would have entailed fewer troops than what were barricaded up in the Aquileia siege & he totally underestimated Attila's ability to invade Italy in 452AD. I was not really convinced with the argument that the Julian alps were not high enough & the passes would have been harder for Aetius to defend. In the end Aquileia did fall even though we hear stories about how the Huns were considering abandoning their siege but Attila hung tough & took it & I am assuming that the extra garrison troops that Aetius left were lost as well, weakening the western army further. Lots of theories about famine in Northern Italy, superstitions of Huns regarding the death of Alaric, Attila meeting the pope or pressure on Attila caused by Marcian attacking further east are all the reasons I hear about Attila's withdrawal but in the end I think maybe a bit of all but I am pretty sure the Romans paid a hefty bribe to Attila to head back home, until the next campaigning season.
I think Attila got what he wanted which was loot to reinforce his leadership & luckily for both eastern & western empires Attila died the following year.
In fairness to Aetius, his power base was probably the Gallo-Romano landholders & various allied people, so rebuilding of his position in Gaul as well as his army in Gaul & not the defence of Italy & an unfriendly emperor was highest on his priority list for that year. Chalons was fought at a heavy cost to all the combatants involved so Aetius was probably not expecting Attila to rebound so quickly, so his reactions could have come from political pressure from Italian aristocracy. I even read where he tried to convince Valentinian III to abandon Italy altogether. In 451AD Orleans was held by Alans & locals with little cost to actual Roman army but I am assuming that Roman troops were used in the defence of Aquileia the following year, further weakening the army. :?
Regards
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
