09-06-2007, 10:20 AM
I am new to this board but have been reading the posts for the last few weeks have been impressed by the scholarly knowledge shown by the members here.
I would like to ask what seems a naive question but it is one which has always irritated my mind since I began researching the history of the later Roman Empire.
Various historians such as Ferril, Southern and Bury (for example) have always used the speech made by Attila at the battle of the Catalaunian Plains as evidence for the decline in standing of the Roman army, seeing in Attila's contempt a universal view which he merely reinforces. I quote in full from
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~vandersp/Course ... tml#attila
"Here you stand, after conquering mighty nations and subduing the world. I therefore think it foolish for me to goad you with words, as though you were men who had not been proved in action. Let a new leader or an untried army resort to that. (203) It is not right for me to say anything common, nor ought you to listen. For what is war but your usual custom? Or what is sweeter for a brave man than to seek revenge with his own hand? It is a right of nature to glut the soul with vengeance. (204) Let us then attack the foe eagerly; for they are ever the bolder who make the attack. Despise this union of discordant races! To defend oneself by alliance is proof of cowardice. See, even before our attack they are smitten with terror. They seek the heights, they seize the hills and, repenting too late, clamor for protection against battle in the open fields. You know how slight a matter the Roman attack is. While they are still gathering in order and forming in one line with locked shields, they are checked, I will not say by the first wound, but even by the dust of battle. (205) Then on to the fray with stout hearts, as is your wont. Despise their battle line. Attack the Alani, smite the Visigoths! Seek swift victory in that spot where the battle rages. For when the sinews are cut the limbs soon relax, nor can a body stand when you have taken away the bones. Let your courage rise and your own fury burst forth! Now show your cunning, Huns, now your deeds of arms! Let the wounded exact in return the death of his foe; let the unwounded revel in slaughter of the enemy. (206) No spear shall harm those who are sure to live; and those who are sure to die Fate overtakes even in peace. And finally, why should Fortune have made the Huns victorious over so many nations, unless it were to prepare them for the joy of this conflict. Who was it revealed to our sires the path through the Maeotian swamp, for so many ages a closed secret? Who, moreover, made armed men yield to you, when you were as yet unarmed? Even a mass of federated nations could not endure the sight of the Huns. I am not deceived in the issue;--here is the field so many victories have promised us. I shall hurl the first spear at the foe. If any can stand at rest while Attila fights, he is a dead man."
Apologies for the long quote but I feel it is important to put the words about the Romans in context.
My question is a simple one really but I may elaborate on it somewhat, if you don't mind!
Given that this is a speech written by Jordanes after Cassiodorus and may very well fall into the rhetoric of paraphrasing or invented speeches, what evidence actually exists to vindicate Attila's words in relation to the actual battle? I can find no extant source which corroborates 'his' views and actually find myself wondering if in fact Attila is not using 'reverse psychology' as it were, to empower his troops after seeing the regular lines of the Roman troops gain a vital ridge summit in good order? If that were the case - and obviously deep down I feel it is! - why have scholars used this evidence to justify a conclusion unless other evidence existed which I am unaware of? Hence my question here.
If anyone would know of such evidence, it would be mentioned here, I feel. Just to clarify, I am not asking about historical sources which point to a decline in Roman military abilities but the actual event of the battle which to me - in my amateur research - seems in fact to point not only to superior Roman diplomacy but also Roman battle tactics, even given the low manpower available and the reduced territories from which units could be drawn. I am aware of Hydatius but cannot locate his account at the present - help here would be appreciated also!
Any help or advice would be vastly appreciated as I can't get this nagging doubt out of my head that scholarly summation of this battle is just plain wrong and even woefully naive (perhaps like me!)
Thanks.
I would like to ask what seems a naive question but it is one which has always irritated my mind since I began researching the history of the later Roman Empire.
Various historians such as Ferril, Southern and Bury (for example) have always used the speech made by Attila at the battle of the Catalaunian Plains as evidence for the decline in standing of the Roman army, seeing in Attila's contempt a universal view which he merely reinforces. I quote in full from
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~vandersp/Course ... tml#attila
"Here you stand, after conquering mighty nations and subduing the world. I therefore think it foolish for me to goad you with words, as though you were men who had not been proved in action. Let a new leader or an untried army resort to that. (203) It is not right for me to say anything common, nor ought you to listen. For what is war but your usual custom? Or what is sweeter for a brave man than to seek revenge with his own hand? It is a right of nature to glut the soul with vengeance. (204) Let us then attack the foe eagerly; for they are ever the bolder who make the attack. Despise this union of discordant races! To defend oneself by alliance is proof of cowardice. See, even before our attack they are smitten with terror. They seek the heights, they seize the hills and, repenting too late, clamor for protection against battle in the open fields. You know how slight a matter the Roman attack is. While they are still gathering in order and forming in one line with locked shields, they are checked, I will not say by the first wound, but even by the dust of battle. (205) Then on to the fray with stout hearts, as is your wont. Despise their battle line. Attack the Alani, smite the Visigoths! Seek swift victory in that spot where the battle rages. For when the sinews are cut the limbs soon relax, nor can a body stand when you have taken away the bones. Let your courage rise and your own fury burst forth! Now show your cunning, Huns, now your deeds of arms! Let the wounded exact in return the death of his foe; let the unwounded revel in slaughter of the enemy. (206) No spear shall harm those who are sure to live; and those who are sure to die Fate overtakes even in peace. And finally, why should Fortune have made the Huns victorious over so many nations, unless it were to prepare them for the joy of this conflict. Who was it revealed to our sires the path through the Maeotian swamp, for so many ages a closed secret? Who, moreover, made armed men yield to you, when you were as yet unarmed? Even a mass of federated nations could not endure the sight of the Huns. I am not deceived in the issue;--here is the field so many victories have promised us. I shall hurl the first spear at the foe. If any can stand at rest while Attila fights, he is a dead man."
Apologies for the long quote but I feel it is important to put the words about the Romans in context.
My question is a simple one really but I may elaborate on it somewhat, if you don't mind!
Given that this is a speech written by Jordanes after Cassiodorus and may very well fall into the rhetoric of paraphrasing or invented speeches, what evidence actually exists to vindicate Attila's words in relation to the actual battle? I can find no extant source which corroborates 'his' views and actually find myself wondering if in fact Attila is not using 'reverse psychology' as it were, to empower his troops after seeing the regular lines of the Roman troops gain a vital ridge summit in good order? If that were the case - and obviously deep down I feel it is! - why have scholars used this evidence to justify a conclusion unless other evidence existed which I am unaware of? Hence my question here.
If anyone would know of such evidence, it would be mentioned here, I feel. Just to clarify, I am not asking about historical sources which point to a decline in Roman military abilities but the actual event of the battle which to me - in my amateur research - seems in fact to point not only to superior Roman diplomacy but also Roman battle tactics, even given the low manpower available and the reduced territories from which units could be drawn. I am aware of Hydatius but cannot locate his account at the present - help here would be appreciated also!
Any help or advice would be vastly appreciated as I can't get this nagging doubt out of my head that scholarly summation of this battle is just plain wrong and even woefully naive (perhaps like me!)
Thanks.
Francis Hagan
The Barcarii
The Barcarii