Forging the Blade, a New Novel About the Goths

[Marja]

Recruiting part of a scola from the Alans, or a vexillatio from the Alans, wouldn't necessarily have anything to do with recruiting a larger group from the Alans, or receiving part of one tribe of the Alans as federates or laeti or otherwise. Against Attila, I think we're dealing with a larger group of federates and/or laeti.

The Notitia lists an auxilium of Anglivarii. Just an example, nothing to do with the Alans. It doesn't imply that any Anglii were federates, or that Anglian federate-soldiers, if they existed, were more closely integrated into the Roman army than other federate-soldiers. It may imply that some formations of Anglian mercenary-soldiers were. The same goes for countless other 'tribal' units in the late Roman army, and potentially for the Alani in the scolae.

[Theodosius the Great]

Ah, that makes sense. Aetius had a Hunnic bodyguard even though the Huns were definately not integrated into the army.

Thanks for pointing that out, Marja.

~Theo

[koechlyruestow]

On the other hand, them (the Alani) being stationed in the centre suggests they were not seen as barbarian auxilliaries but as Roman troops, even elite troops.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Although the Alans would have made up the bulk of the 'Allied' Cavalry at Chalons, I don't think it was them being so much elite troops as a tactical ploy - the Alans were there becausethe huns would break an infantry center. The Alans had experience with fighting Huns, and their style of warfare was similar to the Hunnic style. The Visigoths or Romans, who probably hadn't of had to fight Hunnic groups in Decades,

@Marja

Aetius wasn't the only one with a Hunnic Bucellarius. Litorius is recorded as having one too, and so are Marcellinus and Julius Nepos of Illyria. Some of Valentinian III's guard were Huns as well. By this point the Huns were becoming part of the Army, although they were still seperated into their own units, probably because they were more effective that way.

The Adoption of Lance-And-Bow style warfare had probably begun in the 4th century and by the 5th century, it was so prevalent that the Alans could have been put into Roman units and maintained effectiveness, as well as fought in their own units. What I'm saying though is that although they msotly were all Alanic units, they were probably organized like the Roman System, with names and sizes and officer. The Alans are one of the few examples of Barbarians who were throughly in the process of being "Romanized" in the 5th century, along with the Frisians and possibly the Visigoths were beginning the process.

[Robert Vermaat]

On the other hand, them (the Alani) being stationed in the centre suggests they were not seen as barbarian auxilliaries but as Roman troops, even elite troops.

They were certainly good soldiers, but in this case I think it was mentioned that their position in the centre was caused by a lack of faith?

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Jordanes makes that mention and it has been frequently discredited, the Alans of Sambida (Sangiban) were under no threat by the Huns when the Army met at Arelate, as they were settled in the area east of Auvergne. The Alans of Goa (Goar) were settled along the Loire in the 430's to deal with Armorican revolts, they were under the most immediate threat.

Both had been in the empire for years, so their loyalty was probably not easily swayed; in fact Thorismund attecked them before sieging Arles, probably in order to cripple the Gallic Army.

[Theodosius the Great]

Although the Alans would have made up the bulk of the 'Allied' Cavalry at Chalons, I don't think it was them being so much elite troops as a tactical ploy - the Alans were there becausethe huns would break an infantry center. The Alans had experience with fighting Huns, and their style of warfare was similar to the Hunnic style. The Visigoths or Romans, who probably hadn't of had to fight Hunnic groups in Decades,

This makes the most sense to me. Just knowing a unit's position on the battlefield means nothing. The general's battle strategy is what matters. If, for example, Aetius was going to fight defensively (i.e. not take the initiative) then placing the Alans in the center may suggest they were the least reliable troops. OTOH, if Aetius is going to fight aggressively then he'd probably want his center to be as strong as possible, suggesting the Alans were his most reliable troops (or among the most reliable).

Maybe Aetius had a habit of placing his weakest or strongest troops in the center. Do we have enough information on his previous battles to know one way or the other? I doubt it. I haven't read Hughes book on the man yet.

~Theo

[Flavivs Aetivs]

There are only a handful of accounts of his battles, during the siege of Narbonne the Arrival of Litorius was a surprise to the Goths and they were unable to form a coherent formation. At Mons Colubrarius Aetius used an ambush as well

"At the Mountain the ancients call... Snake Mountain [Mons Colubrarius]... he surprised - as is his custom -and killed the greatest part of the enenmy; once the infantry units, which were very numerus, were routed, he himself followed hard on the scattering cavalry troops and overwhelmed those standing fast with his might, those fleeing with his eager rapidity. Not long after the king himself was on hand with the remainder of his forces, and, stupefied with sudden horror near the trampled bodies..."

In 439, after the defeat of Litorius, Aetius returned to gaul and with the help of Vertericus (a goth) ambushed the goths again and defeated them.

Aetius did not fight large-scale battles. But he did not like the Late Roman tactic of Outmaneuvering enemies to cut them off without a fight. Aetius liked to fight aggressively, and it worked.

Putting the Alans int he Center meant he probably was putting his best troops there, but also the Alans performed a feigned retreat allowing Thorismund to out-flank the Hunnic center.

[Alanus]

I always thought it strange that Jordanes, a Goth who should have known better, didn't figure it out. The feigned retreat was the oldest trick in the book, as we learn from Herodotus when mentioning Darius getting bogged down in Moldova. But, then again, it also fooled Attila... who really should have known better. :dizzy:

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Attila probably was unable to see his position, they didn't have overhead views and stuff back then, and Aetius was the one on the hill and could see where his troops were.

Having part of an army doing a feigned retreat is much harderto discern than a whole army doing a feigned retreat, it was late into the battle and losses on both sides were heavy, I wouldn't put it past the Huns that they made that mistake.