The Whole North Into Gaul

[Epictetus]

Hey Evan, I should get a chance to read through it this weekend.

[Renatus]

As I never heard back from you guys

I was in the middle of preparing a quite extensive critique of your article. Now it looks as if I will have to start again. Nevertheless, at a quick glance, most (if not all) of my criticisms still seem to be applicable. Give me time.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Hey Michael,

Yes, I have a friend working on a set of maps for me.

@Renatus,

Sorry Renatus, thanks for doing that.

[Renatus]

Evan,

I set out below my comments on your article. They are quite extensive and you may think that some are rather pedantic. However, it is important to get things right and not to give the editor too much work to do. My comments are largely on the presentation, rather than the content; it is your article, not mine. However, I have picked up on a few matters of detail. I do not pretend that my comments are exhaustive and I expect that others may have further points to make. They may also disagree with me on some issues. I have taken the article page-by-page.

Page 1

Title – you may need to explain the title. You could consider beginning your article by setting out the relevant passage from Sidonius.

“The day is . . . the plain below.” – I suggest you delete these two sentences. They make it look as if you are writing for a popular magazine, not a learned journal. You could substitute a short sentence noting the importance of the battle or simply pitch in with your third sentence, which I think would be perfectly adequate.

“a decent account” – “decent” is too colloquial in this context. A word like “reasonable” would be better.

“like Thompson, Hughes and Ferril” – I suggest that you delete this and take the names and full references to the relevant pages of their works to a footnote.

“Ferril” – should be “Ferrill”.

“the sources that left their brief accounts” – should be “the sources that have left . . .”, I think.

“hypothetical” – the wrong word, I think. “Plausible” might be better.

“a writer named Jordanes” – “a writer named” is superfluous. The readership will know who you mean.

“the Origins and deeds of the Goths” – either capitalize the initial letters of “the” and “deeds” or de-capitalize “Origins”.

“both he and his customer were of gothic ancestry” – not “customer”, he is not selling groceries. Substitute something like “patron” for “customer” or, maybe better, recast the sentence to something like “he and his brother Castilius, for whom he wrote, were of Gothic ancestry” and delete “His brother” from the next sentence.

“a notary for” – “a notary to” is better, I think.

“The intention is to look” – “The intention of this article is to look” is clearer.

“primary theory; the use” – a point of punctuation: a colon, rather than a semi-colon is correct, I think.

Page 2

“drop off the map” – this seems a bit colloquial, unless you really mean that they literally disappear from maps, and even then it doesn’t read well. I would think about substituting another phrase.

“in that area” – in what area?

“Tribunis Prima Cohors Frixagorum” – the tribune is the commanding officer, not part of the title, and the other words are in the wrong order. It should read “Cohors Prima Frixagorum”.

“at Vindobala” – I would suggest adding “on Hadrian’s Wall” to make its location clear.

“Scholars have suggested . . . Frisiavonum” – I think references are required.

“a tombstone . . . Frixiavorum” – this is all wrong. Carrawburgh, where the inscription was found, is certainly not “next door” to Rudchester (Vindobala) and it was not a tombstone. This should read, “an altar found outside the fort at Carrawburgh dedicated by a member . . .”.

Note 1: “1st ed. (South Yorkshire, Pen & Sword Books Ltd.), 2012, 144” – there is no need to refer to the edition, if there is only one, and the format of the rest of the reference is wrong. It should, I think, be “(Barnsley: Pen & Sword Books, 2012), 144”. The comment about editions applies equally to other notes but I will not mention it again.

Note 5 – I am not familiar with this work but the format of the reference does not look right.

Note 6: “Not. Dig. In Partibus Occidentis 40.21” – I think that convention requires further abbreviation and the reference is wrong. It should be “Not. Dig. Oc. 40.36”. This comment about abbreviation applies to other references to the Notitia but I will not repeat it.

Note 7: “RIB I p.485” – this is not the way to cite RIB. It should be by inscription number, in this case “RIB 1523”.

Page 3

“the trips by Germanus” – “trips” seems rather colloquial. “Visits” might be preferable.

“adamant to support” – is “adamant” the right word? Another might be better.

“Aetius’ army is not actually recorded” – what does this mean? Does it mean that his army is not mentioned or that its constitution is not given in detail or something else?

“Sidonius Apollinaris 7.329” – I don’t think that you need include this in the text, when you give a detailed reference in the footnotes. The same comment applies to other similar instances later in the piece.

Page 4

“The olibrones are likely a corruption” – “Olibrones is probably a corruption” reads better, I think. The choice of “likely” or “probably” is largely a matter of personal preference but, to my mind, “likely” is too colloquial and colloquialisms should be kept out of academic articles.

“or biscuit eaters” – I don’t think this is necessary.

“The Placidi valentiniani felices . . . Notitia Dignitatum” – I don’t understand this. These three units seem to be separate units. What does “a unit proposed by Jones” mean? If you are suggesting that he was proposing that the three units should be regarded as one and the same, he certainly does not say so on the page that you have cited. The correct names for the three units, according to the Notitia, are Placidi Valentinianici felices, Valentinianenses iuniores and Valentinianenses felices or Felices Valentinianenses.

“Sidonius remarks . . . sparse auxiliaries” – a reference for this is required, I think.

Page 5

“The Notitia, however, was written in 395 CE” – do we know this?

“we know who participated . . . Strasbourg and Adrianople” – do we? Some units, perhaps, but not all, surely.

“Sambida is settled” – “Sambida was settled”, I think.

“Alans in the area of Paris and possibly Aurelianum” and Note 19 – Not. Dig. Oc. 42.64-70 lists six settlements of gentiles Sarmatarum in Gaul. Are these necessarily Alans? If you are satisfied that they are, the two settlements mentioned by you are, presumably, Oc. 42.66 and Oc.42.70 (assuming the incomplete “Au . . .” is Aurelianum) and Note 19 should read “Not. Dig.42.66, 70”.

Note 16 – this needs a page number.

Page 6

“who did extensive research into the Goths in the 90’s” – “90’s” should be “1990s” but is this clause necessary?

“the Roman side probably couldn’t” – contractions such as this are absolutely forbidden. Substitute “could not”.

“did not come back until 443 CE” – this is ambiguous and probably colloquial. Do you mean that they returned to their homes or that their numbers were restored? Is 443 CE a definite date or an approximation? I suggest that this passage be redrawn.

Page 7

“in his work A History of Attila in the Huns” – I don’t think that this is necessary, as the work is cited in the footnotes. If you decide to keep it, you will need to correct the title.

“the amount of men Attila could feed” – “the number of men . . .” is more correct.

“than what Thompson suggests” – delete “what”.

Page 8

“Aetius died in 454” – would “Aetius was murdered in 454” be better?

“Other sources . . . Campus Mauriacus” – references are required, I think.

“once thought to be Theodoric I” – should this be “once thought to be from the grave of Theodoric I”?

“very interesting for a few reasons” – “for a number of reasons” is better.

Page 9

“meaning that Alan activity” – “meaning” seems too definite. “Suggesting” might be better.

“isn’t nearly steep enough” – another contraction. Substitute “is not”.

Note 38 – I think that the convention is that, when a website is cited, the date the site was accessed should be stated.

Page 10

“events of the battle played out” – “played out” is colloquial. Another phrase should be used, I think.

Page 11

“uses the phrase testudineque” – substitute “word” for “phrase”.

Page 12

“whom but a little while before were no earthen walls would withstand” – delete “were”.

“the Alans could lure the Huns into a feigned retreat” – this reads as if the Huns were lured into staging a reigned retreat. It should be redrawn.

Page 13

“very difficult to discern from an actual rout” – substituting “distinguish” for “discern” would be better, I think.

“heavily armored horsemen called Catafractarii and Clibanarii” – you know my views on this terminology, that these terms should only be used in relation to Roman forces. That aside, while catafractarii may have been equipped on the Sarmatian model, I don’t think that there is any evidence that the Alans were as heavily armoured as clibanarii. Personally, I would rather that you simply referred to them as “heavily armoured horsemen” and left it at that. Alternatively, you could use the generic term “cataphract”.

Page 14

“forgotten to the annals of time” – I know what you mean but I don’t think that this is the way to express it. “Annals of time” seems a bit odd and I would suggest that you consider rewording it.

“one monumentous battle” – I don’t think that “monumentous” is even a word. “Momentous” would be appropriate, if you mean “important”; “monumental”, if you mean “stupendous”, but you use that in the next sentence.

Generally, I would have a close look at your footnotes. I think that several of them fail to meet the requirements of the journal.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Thanks Renatus, I'll be sure to make these changes when I get back on Sunday.

Also, about the Placidi Valentiniani, Jones proposed the unit was an Auxilia Palatina unit raised on the coronation of Valentinian III (based on the name and the fact that it does not have a shield emblem). I am the one proposing the Valentinianenses Iuniores and Valentinianenses Felices were where the unit was edited again into the text. In fact the emblem of the Valentinianenses felices reminds me heavily of coins of Valentinian III. I should have clarified that.

As to the footnotes I'm still working on getting exact citations on a handful of them.

[Renatus]

Also, about the Placidi Valentiniani, Jones proposed the unit was an Auxilia Palatina unit raised on the coronation of Valentinian III

Two points on this unit: first, the title appears in the Notitia as Placidi Valentinianici felices; secondly, Jones suggested that it was raised "in 420 or later".

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I know it is listed as Valentinianici, but that is probably a coypist' error because Valentinianici is incorrect. It should be Valentiniani. I discussed this with my Latin teacher a while back.

EDIT: I have made the suggested changes.

[Renatus]

If that is the case, I am surprised that Jones and numerous other scholars have accepted it at face value. This may be something for the philologists amongst us to resolve. However, I would be inclined to follow the accepted reading.

A slight correction to my comments on your article. I suggested that, in referring to the Notitia, "in partibus occidentis" should be abbreviated to "oc." In this, I was following Seeck's edition. However, I see that the more modern trend is to abbreviate it to "occ.", so I suggest that this is the form to adopt in your article.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I will add the extra c :wink:

Thanks Renatus, I look forward to others' reviews and hope to have all of the necessary changes implemented soon.

I am still working on explaining the title in the first paragraph, I have also decided to add a paragraph about the aftermath; discussing casualties and the standoff for the next day (or two?) between the two armies, and some reasons why Aetius chose not to decimate Attila's forces then and there.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Sixth Draft - with edits and a paragraph detailing the aftermath of the battle.

I'm thinking about including a lead-up to the battle, but have to work out how to fit it into my article. It also means I'd need to hunt down another 5 or 6 sources (could probably cut some of that out with secondary sources though). I'd have to cover Aetius' advance and construction of the Alliance and then the siege of Aurelianum.

[Michael Kerr]

Magister Militum Flavius Aetius wrote:

I have also decided to add a paragraph about the aftermath; discussing casualties and the standoff for the next day (or two?) between the two armies, and some reasons why Aetius chose not to decimate Attila's forces then and there.

Hi Evan, in regard to the aftermath of the battle & the political state of the Western Empire around Aetius's time. The days of Rome destroying enemy nations was long past. With numerous enemies & potential enemies around by his time, containment, not destruction, was the political & probably military reality. (Your enemy today could be your ally tomorrow & vice versa) so politics may have played a part in his thinking especially towards the Visigoths. So did he allow Attila's army escape to act as a counter to the Visigoths potential power? Possibly, but if he killed Attila, who's name was burned into Roman consciousness for fear, pillage & destruction, like Hannibal in earlier times, or if he had destroyed his army it would only have added to his prestige & cemented his own position. Attila himself, even feared this when he made a pyre of saddles for him & his wives to burn just to deny Aetius or Rome of his capture (if that story is true). Rumours & whispers about him letting Attila escape would have been “manna from heaven" to his enemies at the court in Ravenna as well. So could the reason that he didn't finish off Attila be a purely military one in that maybe he knew that his army was not in a fit state for a pursuit due to sheer exhaustion.
In the prelude to the battle did he have to gather his forces quickly by series of forced marches etc.? Did he have adequate provisions left for a pursuit?
If Aetius had fresh reserves did he commit them in the battle?
Casualties taken by Romans & allies of horses as well as Huns during the battle could have been a major factor in his decision. For example where did Attila get the saddles from for his pyre? Unless this indicates lots of riderless horses returning to his encampment.
With both armies having large cavalry components could losses of horses & the fact that remaining horses & men were just spent play a factor. Cavalry on both sides would have been busy scouting, foraging & patrolling in lead up & then taking part in the battle & we have no idea on provisioning needs or access to water for horses after the battle and from what I gather horses need more time to recover as well as a fair bit of attention from their riders or grooms. I am sure the Visigoths would have been keen on a pursuit to avenge their fallen king but Huns were Steppe people & Aetius would have been aware or cautious of the Huns pulling a feigned retreat on their strung out pursuers. So was decision a result of all above factors & the fact that Attila's forces although beaten were still strong enough to constitute a threat so risk was too great. His aim may have been to check Attila & get him out of Gaul & on achieving this, further losses would have been pointless. Anyway good luck with your draft.
Regards
Michael Kerr

[Flavivs Aetivs]

You raise some excellent points, but as far as I can tell, it seems the Romans had not taken the brunt of the battle. Tonatius Ferreolus had supplied Aetius and his Allies for the campaign (Sid. Apol. Epist. 7.9) and the Romans had Attila pinned in his camp. It was simply a matter of surrounding Attila to destroy him at that point.

However, Ian Hughes suggests that Aetius still thought he could rely on the Huns for support in the future, and therefore let them go. I agree with this, but there were probably factors in play that haven't been passed down to us.

We also know that the Romans still had the capability to outright destroy some of the smaller tribes - the Burgundians were destroyed by Aetius' and Litorius' Hunnic retainers in 436 and 437. The Salian franks were driven back across the Rhine and that border was secured by 446.The Bacaudae in Armorica, Raetia, the Alps, and Spain were quelled several times as well.

[Robert Vermaat]

The Salian franks were driven back across the Rhine and that border was secured by 446.

Evan, I already posted about that in the Terp Trizum thread: you may be wrong there. Aetius won a victory, but he did not drive them across the Rhine. They had been there since Julianus allowed them to settle in the area and they were federates under Aetius afterwards. Merovech and Childeric are from that group, right? Their powerbase was in Toxandria and Paris shortly afterwards.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Paris wasn't captured until 487 or so, when they overran the Domain of Soissons. In fact it wasn't even an important city for another few centuries.

They certainly probably stayed, but they no longer had the power to claim that land as their territory - they now were under Roman control (again) and were living in Roman lands as Roman federates. But they certainly deserve credit for being able to expand all the way up to Trier and Arras and taking 2 decades to come back under the Roman domain. After Aetius died they were free to go.

Also the name Merovaeus (Merovech) is only conjectural, there is no evidence for the name of the younger son of Chlodio whom succeeded the him.

[Renatus]

Evan,

These are my comments on your latest draft. Some are new; some are points I missed the first time. Where you have not adopted my previous suggestions, I have generally made no further comment; as I have said, it’s your article, not mine. However, there is one that I could not let pass.

Page 1

“The Battle of the Catalaunian Plains is one of the few” – in your earlier draft, you gave the date of the battle, which I think is a good idea. I suggest, “The Battle of the Catalaunian Plains, fought on the 20th June 451 CE, is one . . .”

“were of gothic ancestry” – capital G for “Gothic”, I think.

“Both of these men may have expected a high opinion towards the Goths” – would “Both of these men might be expected to have had a high opinion of the Goths” be better? I appreciate that it changes the emphasis of your sentence slightly.

Note 2 – “Arthur Ferrill” should be “Arther Ferrill”. Unusual spelling but that’s how it is. I think that you should give page references for their accounts of the battle, if you can.

Page 2

“many barbarian groups; the Visigoths” – should be a colon, rather than a semi-colon.

“requirement of military service; except for” – should be a comma, rather than a semi-colon.

“an altar found in the fort” – should be “outside the fort”. It was actually found in Coventina’s Well, outside the fort.

Page 3

“suggested that the Liticians were an error, and that it was meant to say laeti” – “suggested that ‘Liticians’ was an error and that laeti was meant” is better, I think.

“somewhat legendary” – rather an odd phrase. Something like “famous” may be more acceptable to the editor, if an adjective is necessary at all.

Page 4

“or freedmen, and are described as” – I would start a new sentence, “They are also described as”.

“bucellarius” – should be “bucellarii”.

Page 6

“If assumed is the usual 2/3 strength to account for” – this doesn’t read right at all. Would “If it is assumed to be two-thirds of its usual strength to account for” be better?

Page 9

“isn’t nearly steep enough” – this is the point I mentioned earlier. Contractions are not acceptable. Substitute “is not”.

Page 10

“Theodoric is slain” – who is he? Presumably the Theodoric I previously mentioned but you have not introduced him or explained his role in the battle. Is his death associated with the collapse of the Alans or merely coincidental?

“Thorismund then charges” – the same applies; who is he and what is his role? From this, I cannot work out whether he is a Goth or an Alan.

Page 11

“a prestigious case” – is “prestigious” the right word? I would try to think of an alternative.

“Thorismund . . . is on the left flank with the Alan cavalry” – do you mean “Gothic cavalry”? I thought that the Alans were supposed to be in the centre and elsewhere it seems that Thorismund is a Goth. If it is the Alan cavalry, how does that fit in with Jordanes’ claim that the Goths effectively won the battle?

“assuming a Roman center” – would “expecting” be better than “assuming”? I don’t suppose there is a great deal in it.

“and having to commit all their forces” – I think “and had to commit” is better.

Page 12

“the Visigothic right wing arrived last . . . Thorismund and the Alans holding the center. Theodoric I led the charge on the right flank . . . the Alans retreated and Thorismund and the Goths also rallied” – I can’t make head nor tail of this, especially when read with what has gone before. A much more coherent account is required, I think.

“The Battle of Chalons is not the only instance of Alans behaving in an untrustworthy manner” – but your thesis is that the Alans staged a feigned and possibly planned retreat which led to the victory. This is not “untrustworthy” behaviour, surely.

“nearly slew Attila, he whom prudently took flight” – is this what your translation says? It doesn’t look right to me. I would substitute “who” for “he whom”.

Page 13

“a similar style to the Huns utilizing mostly cataphracts and horse-archers” – are you suggesting that the Huns used cataphracts? You seem to contradict that on the next page.

Page 14

“On the contrary” – this seems to suggest that you are contradicting what you have previously said, when you are actually contrasting the practices of the Alans and the Huns. I would suggest, “On the other hand”.

“Thorismund noticed a crisis point in the battle” – this implies that Thorismund spotted an opportunity and took it, not that he was executing a pre-planned manoeuvre following a feigned retreat by the Alans. On this basis, it does not matter whether the Alans’ retreat was feigned or genuine.

“Jordanes 165,000 is impossible” – I suggest, “Jordanes 165,000 is also impossible”.

“the Frankish king then consulted Aetius” – “then” is superfluous and should be deleted.

“how to proceed, who tells them to head home” – the past tense is required. I suggest, “how to proceed and he told them” or “how to proceed; he told them”.