Alanic Sarmatian influence in the 5th century

[Michael Kerr]

Maybe he was biased but what other sources can even come close in reporting the battle as he had access to sources closer to the action. Cassiodorus's father accompanied Aetius's son in negotiations with Attila at around this time. We all pick and choose our sources and try to point out their alleged bias. Other evidence about the battle is merely modern opinion except for the various mentions by a few Christian authors later on. Was Gregory of Tours not writing to praise the contributions of the Franks in the battle. But all the authors were biased, Gregory of Tours, Isodore for the Visigoths, Fredegar for the Franks. We have lost the works of Priscus and Cassiodorus and we know so little of the actual battle only what modern authors tell us.

We have no idea of the true dispositions of the battle only a rough sketch by Jordanes but if you want a classic comparison look at Hannibal's dispositions in the battle of Cannae where he put his most unreliable troops and probably placed himself there as well to give heart, in the centre for the Romans to attack and putting his best troops on the wing. The Romans got sucked into the centre and got crushed by the wings. Why would Aetius not do the same. Attila went for the Alans and got caught on the wings. Classic sucker punch. It seems that the Ostrogoths and Gepids on Attila's left and his other German allies on the right got taken out of the battle because Attila rushed forward and when his centre retreated the wings did likewise. Confusion reigned after that which suggests a rout. Maybe the Romans and Visigoths took a lot of casualties attacking Attila's encampment. This shot below is a rough one from my camera of one of the stages as depicted by Richardot in his book. Sure there could be other theories but I have not heard a sensible alternative one yet which is why most authors just do a summary of the battle without actually getting into the nuts and bolts of it. IMO Aetius knowing his enemy used Sangiban as bait but Aetius while being an excellent politician & probably a reasonably competent general, was no Hannibal so on the scoreboard you have to score Chalons as a tactical draw but strategic victory for the Romans as Attila's army left the field & eventually Gaul but having lost a large part of his elite Hunnic troops in the battle as they were the ones caught in the centre. I think they were going anyway so the battle was probably a waste of lives as Attila still had the strength to attack Italy later on.

But when it is all said and done we are all armchair generals and the lack of basic information about the battle means that there will always be disagreement on how battle evolved and was fought and Jordanes is the main source I am afraid biased or not and he probably was in his description of the battle and the contribution of the Visigoths. All I am saying is do we choose to ignore his opinion of Sangiban but accept his version of how the battle was won? Jordanes unfortunately was not a military man & also supposedly had Alan blood through his father so I think if there was bias it was towards Sangiban rather than the Alans in general, maybe Sangiban had a now lost bad reputation. In regards to the Strategikon why would Attila send in his vulnerable horse archers against the Alans in the centre if he knew that they would be vulnerable to heavy lancers, why not the Ostrogoths who at least had some experience with the Alannic way of fighting and in some cases probably fought the same way. Not criticizing the Alans as a military force as they played a big part in the battle but maybe Sangiban was an unsavoury character who did not warrant the trust that Eochar did?
I am in the middle of kitchen renovations at the moment so don't have the time at present to discuss location of battlefield on the other thread but when kitchen is complete I shall post.


[attachment=12353]Chalons-2.jpg[/attachment]

Regards
Michael Kerr