The Whole North Into Gaul

[Flavivs Aetivs]

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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

Thank you.

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/Chapte...nian_Plain