The Whole North Into Gaul

[Renatus]

OK, here is the link:
http://www.x-recherche.com/cgi-bin/xsear...&langue=en

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Great! My "Roman Sources" bookmarks folder on Firefox is now too long for the page!

[Timianus]

What do you guys think so far?

My own meager contribution.

Although he makes a does an excellent job of making Avitus seem gifted in the martial arts, there is some truth in this passage.

1. Delete "makes a"

2. I am assuming you meant Aetius, not Avitus. If you meant the latter, you should introduce him before the quote.

3. I don't know if "although" is the correct introductory word to use. Using "although" leads the reader to believe you are setting up two contrasting ideas. But, as written, the two clauses of this sentence are not in conflict with one another. Consider maybe changing it to "Although this passage might be read merely as an embellishment of Aetius' martial skills, there is some significance to the tribes listed."


Also, this passage contains a comma splice: First to note is that he distinguishes between the Salian Franks and the Franks in general, it would seem that he was referring to the Salii as a group of foederati under their own command. I would suggest either changing the comma to a semicolon or period. In addition, I would not start the sentence with "First to note is that." Consider simplifying to "First, he distinguishes between....."

Finally, as someone not nearly informed in this area as you, what leads you to conclude that Sidonius is listing tribes that were part of Aetius' force? He simply could be comparing his characteristics to those of known barbarian tribes.


.....My 2 cents.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

It is Avitus, not Aetius, I fixed that by making the introduction to the quote longer.

Sidonius was talking precisely about Aetius' campaign in 436 against the Burgundians (also mentioned by Hydatius and I believe Prosper Tiro). I made the intro longer and it explains this to the reader.

Thank you for your suggestions Tim. I will change the "First to note" and "Although" as you mentioned.

[Timianus]

Thank you for your suggestions Tim..

No prob. Your article sounds very interesting. My last bit of advice is that when you are editing, ruthlessly attack/edit complex sentences and don't assume your audience has the background knowledge that you do. I teach writing in my profession (law), and one of the biggest problems I see with students is that they try to "sound" scholarly by writing complex, run-on sentences in passive voice. I am not saying you have to write down to a "See Dick run" level, but when discussing a topic with an audience that does not have your level of knowledge of the subject matter, I find it is best to write short, precise sentences, using active voice (action verbs instead of "is/be"), and avoid nominalizations and avoid personifying abstract concepts.

Good luck.

[Michael Kerr]

Hi Evan, is the main theme of your paper still 'the feigned retreat of the Alans' or have you expanded it to the political situation & makeup of the opposing forces. Just curious.
Regards
Michael Kerr

[Flavivs Aetivs]

The feigned retreat is now only part of the paper; it has been expanded to cover ALL aspects of the Battle of Chalons.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I found these in the footnotes of one of heather's works, does anyone know where to get them? I'm gonna search JSTOR and then Google here in a minute:

Altheim, Attila, chs. 5-6. Stein, Bas Empire, pp. 334-6, Zecchini, Aezio, ch.11; O'flynn, Generalissimos, pp. 98-100; U. Tackholm, 'Aetius and the Battle on the Catalaunian Fields', OpuscuU Roman*, vii (1969), 159-76.

[Renatus]

You will need to go to the Bibliography to get the full titles etc. I have got O'Flynn, if you want a quotation from it.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Sure, he has a lot to say about Aetius and covers Chalons. Thanks Renatus.

[Michael Kerr]

Hi Evan, below is a link to google books for pages 98-100 in O'Flynn's book if that helps. What Heather book or paper are you referring to? Just scroll to page 98.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=yngy...us&f=false

Regards
Michael Kerr

[Flavivs Aetivs]

This one would be very useful:

http://books.google.com/books/about/Aeti...4XcgAACAAJ

[Michael Kerr]

Hi Evan, in regard to troop numbers available to Rome prior to Aetius, I managed to borrow a copy of Meaghan McEvoy’s book “Child Emperor Rule in the Late Roman West, AD 367-455” where she mentions that Flavius Constantius had limited troops at his disposal when dealing with first usurpers and then barbarians. She states that by 420AD the western field army had been reduced to a staggering one-third of its size prior to 395AD. Furthermore, the creation on ninety-seven ‘new units’ to refill the ranks of the comitatenses since 395 was merely superficial, for a large number of the supposedly new regiments were in fact old frontier units which were recalled and reclassified to become part of the mobile army, with no indication that such garrison troops were themselves replaced. And it was not only depleted military numbers with which he had to deal with but massively reduced financial resources also.
She goes on that in Italy after the invasion by the Visigoths by 413 major tax concessions reduced the liability of a large number of areas to a mere one-fifth of their former assessment, and in 418 a further massive concession reduced the liability of Campania to one-ninth and that of Picenum and Tuscany to one-seventh of their previous levels. Years after the conflict had passed, these regions were still struggling to recover from the damage they had sustained. In addition regions such as Gaul and Spain had been beyond imperial control for years and failed to bring in any revenue at all. Revenues from Britain and Amorica were lost by this time. Author’s comments not mine.
Regards
Michael Kerr

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Yeah, a lot of that work is also mentione dby other authors I have. Thanks for the info Michael.

It seems many of the New "Units" were Limitanei, but some were genuinely new. Furthermore we have no indication that the Limitanei were inferior to Comitatenses in quality, other than a probable neglect of supply and pay.

Using Jones' numbers for the Roman Field Armies (34000, 28500, 14500), and Heather's Numbers for the Loss of Africa alone puts a maximum number of 17,000 for Aetius' Roman Field Army between 439 and 454. Throwing in Lost Revenue from Italy and Gaul you may be looking at around 10000 men, provided the Limitanei were also cut.

[Michael Kerr]

Hi Evan, just on McEvoy, as I don't really know what exactly you are after I suppose There is not much I can help you with in her book but she did mention a few authors with modern analyses of the battle of Catalaunian fields so I shall post them below.
F.M. Clover 'Geiseric and Attila' (1973) Historia, 22: p. 104-17 which is available on Jstor if you have an account, I think you can read 3 articles without downloading.
S.I. Oost 'Galla Placidia Augusta: a biographical essay' (1968) p.296ff not sure wher to get this as Jstor only has a review
Ulf Tackholm which is hard to get and in German I think.
Below is a google books link for S. Barnish 'Old Kaspars: Attila's invasion of Gaul in the literary sources. unfortunately there are about 3 pages missing.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=lHGO...es&f=false

Hugh Elton's book 'Warfare in Roman Europe AD350-425 is interesting as he points out that 5th century Huns were a lot more sedentary than 4th century ones especially around Hungarian Plain which as was pointed out was much different to modern Hungary with lots of River wetlands and probably more forest as opposed to 20th century. Hope this helps.

Regards
Michael Kerr