Who really \"won\" the Battle of Chalons?

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Tournai, Cologne and Trier

It should be noted that all three of these towns were under Roman control in 451. Aetius re-took them in the Frankish war of 444/445.

Attila probably achieved his objective, although at great cost to both sides in that the western Roman field army which probably wasn't that strong before Chalons, took heavy casualties and never seemed to recover after the battle.

Agreed, Aetius was unable to stop the Visigothic Siege of Arelate in 453, but luckily enough Theodoric II who was friendly to Aetius and Avitus came to the throne after Thorismund was assassinated. Aetius gave Frederic the title of Magister Militum upon restoration of the treaty.

Presumably it was an honorary title, but we hear no more of the Gothic general Sigisvult who had been recruited by treaty in 426 after 448 AD, so it's possible Frederic was a replacement for Sigisvultus.

Anyways, it took a joint coalition of Aetius and the Romans, and the Visigoths, to restore Spain to the Roman Empire.

Possibly their leader was Goar/Echocar/Eothar, three names yet all the same king. We know that Bishop Germanus halted him when his Alans were ordered to crush a minor rebellion in Armorica. Since Germanus died at Rome in 448, this Goar was still living just prior to that time. His replacement was Sangiban, perhaps from the same family/ruling-class.

This can probably be solved in the same manner as the Hunnic name ending -cur. As he advanced in Rank while serving with Aetius, his name changed from Goar to Eochar when Aetius settled him in the Orleans through Tours area in 442.

angiban was Sangiban, and Sambida was the other guy.

Explained the same way as Goar - Sambida's name changed to Sangiban upon his settlement in 440 in the area of Augustonemetum, because his rank advanced.

I should probably change the name from Sambida to Sangiban.

[Michael Kerr]

Magister Militum Flavius Aetius wrote:

It should be noted that all three of these towns were under Roman control in 451. Aetius re-took them in the Frankish war of 444/445.

Not going by map of Attila's route to Orleans in 451AD. Whether some of these cities were sacked or not. The ones that were not sacked would have submitted even if for a short time so any prior Roman presence would not have mattered at least in 451AD. It would militarily be stupid of Attila to leave Roman occupied towns on his line of advance to Orleans so to my mind what the Romans occupied in the 444/445 AD would have been irrevelant in 451AD during Hunnic invasion except to reduce the size of Hunnic army as troops would be peeled off main force as needed to keep an eye on recalcitrant towns. I understand that a lot of these towns had Christian Saints who are celebrated for being martyred during Attila's invasion of Gaul.


[attachment=9916]routeofattila.jpg[/attachment]

Regards
Michael Kerr

[Alanus]

This can probably be solved in the same manner as the Hunnic name ending -cur. As he advanced in Rank while serving with Aetius, his name changed from Goar to Eochar when Aetius settled him in the Orleans through Tours area in 442.

angiban was Sangiban, and Sambida was the other guy.

Explained the same way as Goar - Sambida's name changed to Sangiban upon his settlement in 440 in the area of Augustonemetum, because his rank advanced.

I should probably change the name from Sambida to Sangiban.

In doing so, you would be using the nomen that historians have been familiar with for the past 2 1/2 centuries. This branch of the Alans actually settled around Orleans/Augustonementum immediately after they crossed the Rhine in the winter of 406-407. They had been attached to the Vandals, but they had been Christianized in Pannonia beginning in 380 by Bishop Amantius (Arian). Possibly, even probably, these were the Safrax Alans. They were settled in that area by the Praefect of Gaul, possibly through communications with Stilicho. Their neighbors were a portion of the Taifali, settled just south of the Loire, and the Britons already in Armorica. Personally, I think these "new" settlements of Sarmatians by the Romans may have been a method of stopping Briton's "expansion" onto the mainland.

The idea that Goar's name was changed to something new... or that Sambida's name became Sangiban... has no foundation in a priori manuscripts. It's a modern interpretation, or concept, espoused by shaky theory and linguistics. Some of these guys are whackos. Certainly, personalities may have been recorded by their titles, but their nomen was their nomen. Any attempt to equate the personage of Sambida with Sangiban fails. And it fails totally because there is NO LINKING historical record to back such a supposition. :dizzy:

That said, I want to encourage you on this project. You've got a very good perspective, and it's about 180 degrees out from the preponderance of shoddy work that I just criticized above. mile: mile:

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Magister Militum Flavius Aetius wrote:

It should be noted that all three of these towns were under Roman control in 451. Aetius re-took them in the Frankish war of 444/445.

Not going by map of Attila's route to Orleans in 451AD. Whether some of these cities were sacked or not. The ones that were not sacked would have submitted even if for a short time so any prior Roman presence would not have mattered at least in 451AD. It would militarily be stupid of Attila to leave Roman occupied towns on his line of advance to Orleans so to my mind what the Romans occupied in the 444/445 AD would have been irrevelant in 451AD during Hunnic invasion except to reduce the size of Hunnic army as troops would be peeled off main force as needed to keep an eye on recalcitrant towns. I understand that a lot of these towns had Christian Saints who are celebrated for being martyred during Attila's invasion of Gaul.


[attachment=9916]routeofattila.jpg[/attachment]

Regards
Michael Kerr

A lot of these towns weren't actually sacked. For example, the cities of Trier, Mainz, Worms, Strausborg, Metz, and Reims have the characteristic Ash Layer that dates to roughly 450 indicating the Huns sacked the cities, but the ones at Cologne, Tournai, Cambrai, Beauvais,and Amiens don't have an ash layer dating to roughly 450 in excavations on-site.

The proposed theory by Hughes is that the lands around these cities were ravaged by a force of Huns split off from the main group to subdue the Franks (although there were settlements of Salii in these lands, the cities themselves were under Roman control, however nominal). The Riparienses had pulled back to the main army for the Battle (Jordanes records this). The cities themselves weren't sacked because the force split off was too small to mount a siege and probably ordered to move fast.

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.

In doing so, you would be using the nomen that historians have been familiar with for the past 2 1/2 centuries. This branch of the Alans actually settled around Orleans/Augustonementum immediately after they crossed the Rhine in the winter of 406-407. They had been attached to the Vandals, but they had been Christianized in Pannonia beginning in 380 by Bishop Amantius (Arian).

Just to correct you here, the first settlement of Alans in Roman Gaul that is recorded is in 414 when they were settled in the general vicinity of Narbona: if I recall correctly, they were the same Alans as Sambida's. There is no record of Alan settlement on the Loire Valley until 442 with the Chronica Gallica 452 recording said settlement and that the settlement caused a second Aremorican uprising.

You are correct though on why they were settled on the Loire: they were critical to Aetius and he used them to prevent Aremorican, Frankish, and Visigothic expansion East/South/North respectively. Same with Sambida, who was settled near Lugdinensis/Augustonemetum to prevent Visigothic expansion East and Burgundian expansion West/South

The idea that Goar's name was changed to something new... or that Sambida's name became Sangiban... has no foundation in a priori manuscripts. It's a modern interpretation, or concept, espoused by shaky theory and linguistics. Some of these guys are whackos. Certainly, personalities may have been recorded by their titles, but their nomen was their nomen. Any attempt to equate the personage of Sambida with Sangiban fails. And it fails totally because there is NO LINKING historical record to back such a supposition.

Ian Hughes equated Sambida with Sangiban, and Goar with Eochar, which is what I went off of.

I don't know much about Alanic/Sarmatian language, only Hunnic, and even then because there's almost no information on the Hunnic language.

[Alanus]

... the first settlement of Alans in Roman Gaul that is recorded is in 414 when they were settled in the general vicinity of Narbona: if I recall correctly, they were the same Alans as Sambida's. There is no record of Alan settlement on the Loire Valley until 442 with the Chronica Gallica 452 recording said settlement and that the settlement caused a second Aremorican uprising... Ian Hughes equated Sambida with Sangiban, and Goar with Eochar, which is what I went off of.

Back to you, Evan

Your sources and mine don't seem to converge, even when I referred to 13 examples that give Sangiban, not Sambida who was obviously an Alan leader in southern Gaul, not at Chalons. The Goar-Sangiban Alans were in northern Gaul when Aetius was still a boy. I could give Bachrach and Schutz as references, but let's first hear from acedemics published by university presses. Perhaps they're more reliable:

"When the Alans, Vandals, and Sueves reached the Rhine an Alan named Goar defected to the Romans." (Goffart, Barbarian Tides, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011, p.94. Obviously this was shortly after December 31, 406.

"Shortly after the invasion of 406/7... one band of Alans under King Goar was settled in northeastern Gaul in the provinces of Belgica I and II... In 440 a group of Alans under King Sambida was settled in the territory of Valence in southern Gaul." Van Dam, Leadership and Community in Late Antique Gaul, University of California Press, 1992, p.38.

The story continues like a broken record. From Jones, The Later Roman Empire, 1986, p.196, "But other Alans appear in 412 under their king Goar with the Burgundians."

From Frassetto, The Early Medieval World, 2013, p.24, "The greatest number of Alans, however, entered the empire during the mass barbarian crossing of the Rhine River in 406. Led by their kings Goar and Respendial, the Alans entered imperial territory with the Vandals... The group led by King Goar became an ally of Rome after the king was promised land and gold. His followers were settled around Worms... and ultimately settled near Orleans by Aetius."

And most recently, here is what Kim (The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe, 2013, p77) wrote about circumstances leading up to Chalons: "It was the Alans... who were under direct attack from the Huns, since it was their territory in Orleanais (given to King Goar and then to his successor Sangiban by Aetius for the Alan assistance in subduing Armorican rebels) that was being invaded."

Kim agrees with Frassetto by mentioning two separate Amorican rebellions and two separate land grats-- the first location being Worms c.406, second one around Orleans by Aetius in the early 440s-- and he distinctly states that Sangiban was Goar's successor. Where does Sambida, a king or chieftain from southern Gaul fit in this picture? He doesn't because he lived in Narbonessis and led an entirely different bunch of Alans. At least it reads that way through a great number of author/historians... except with the amazingly singular exception of Ian Hughes.

I hope some of this will help you out. As I recall, another early reference came from Paulinus of Pella who befriended an Alanic king or chieftain. This might be the Alans that split-off from the Athaulf Goths. :-)

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Aetius was 15 and with the Visigoths in 406, not "just a boy." He was a Domesticus when he was only 10, and Tribunis Partis Militaris by the time he was 15.

I see your point, Worms is a significant distance from the Loire and we know the Burgundians crossed the Rhine under Gerontius and took Worms in 411, using it as their new capital. So that explains how Goar was expelled from Worms.

He was settled again under Aetius in 442, and notably the Chronica Gallia 452 mentions it was a "reward for military service" i.e. sort of how Legionnaires used to recieve land grants it seems.

There were also several Aremorican revolts: the first under Tibatto in 435-437 was put down by Litorius and the Huns. The second in 442 was intervened in by Germanus of Auxerre, who died sometime around 442-448. The final Aremorican Revolt was led by Eudoxius the Doctor and he was put down by Goar and Aetius, and fled to Attila the Hun.

Sambida's Alans first appear in 414 when settled in Narbonenis/Aquitaine, but their settlement was disrupted by the Goths and they went back into the Army. Sambida comes on stage sometime after that in the 430's, and in 440 is settled around Clermont-Ferrard, in Valentinois.

I have to agree that Sambida and Sangiban seem to be seperate persons.

[Alanus]

Sorry for calling a teenager a boy. :dizzy:
I was a few years off.

By settling Goar's group at Worm's, makes you wonder if they were positioned there to repulse the next invasion across the river... which obviously didn't work. Those crazy barbarians!

In the second Armorican revolt (442) Goar would have been an old man. He was at the head of the Alan column moving into the province when Bishop Germanus stopped him dead, reaching up and grabbing his reins. Noted in the Vita Germani, written not long after his death; and the Armorican story is based on an interview with his longtime lieutenant. He died at Rome in 448 right after vespers.

Ah, and Sambida. Thanks for the info on his relocation. Clermont-Ferrand is on the river Allier which runs south, not 5km from the ruins of Vercingetorix's oppidum. So he was relocated to the west of Narbonne and would appear to have no connection with the Goar-Sangiban Alans located NW of the Loire and bordering the Burgundi. Bachrach gives us a dozen "Alan" towns in that area, all something-or-other like "Les Alain." BUT there's no way to prove that Alain derived from Alan although it's "almost" a probability. ;-)

[Michael Kerr]

Magister Militum Flavius Aetius wrote:

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

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I'll get you the references, give me a bit.

Also, the column Attila sent North had to be very small because he was expecting Aetius to march against him and couldn't risk being caught with his pants down if it came to an engagement, where his army got wiped out and the second one shows up late to the party. The point of the raiding of the Frankish countryside is to win support for the elder brother, demoralize the Franks, and collects food and supplies for Attila's army.

The reasoning for the garrisoning of Aquileia and Aetius not blockading the Alps is that in other centuries when the Julian Alps were blockaded it proved pointless cause they went around. I'd have to find some examples.

[Robert Vermaat]

The reasoning for the garrisoning of Aquileia and Aetius not blockading the Alps is that in other centuries when the Julian Alps were blockaded it proved pointless cause they went around. I'd have to find some examples.

I agree. The Huns could easily have gone through Noricum (I think they did because we know of some devastated towns there) which would leave Aetius guarding the Julian passes with an enemy at his back.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Noricum was also beginning to be overrun by Rugii and Alemanni in the same timeframe (between 454 and 476), and dating ash layers isn't the most precise thing in the world. So I disagree they went through Noricum, I think they followed the Sava up towards Aquileia, but we'd have to check Siscia and Poetovio for ash layers.

[Robert Vermaat]

You are referring to Noricum Ripense, I'm talking about 'southern Noricum', Noricum mediterraneum. That's the route along the Drava/Drau.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Ah Noricum Mediterrane, yes I know what you are referring to now. I agree, it seems part of his army, if not the main army, devastated the province either on the way in or the way out.