Alanic Sarmatian influence in the 5th century

[Michael Kerr]

Evan, I read it in Jordanes.

XXXVII But before we set forth the order of the battle itself, it seems needful to relate what had already happened in the course of the campaign, for it was not only a famous struggle but one that was complicated and confused. Well then, Sangiban, king of the Alani, smitten with fear of what might come to pass, had promised to surrender to Attila, and to give into his keeping Aureliani, a city of Gaul wherein he dwelt.

The late Austrian historian Hermann Schreiber in his book Die Hunnen is pretty scathing of Sangiban as well. He has devoted about 48 pages in his book to the campaign of Attila in Gaul and the possible location of the battlefield.

Whatever happened to Eochar, dying of old age or removed because of his age, we don't know, but the Alans would have been tribal & supported their tribal leader. Sangiban appears to have been a slippery, untrustworthy character & we don't know his relationship to the late Eochar (son, nephew, brother?) Its a pity about Chalons that it was all about the leaders & not the troops. Whereas Aetius probably trusted Eochar it is likely that he didn't place the same amount of trust in Sangiban if you go by the likely dispositions of the battle. As it was the Alans & Sangiban came through for the Romans as Attila in his haste to get at the Alans got caught in a pincer move between Thorismond on the right & other Roman auxilliary cavalry on the left with the Alans turning & pinning him from the front in a possible feigned retreat move.

Regards
Michael Kerr