08-26-2015, 06:27 PM
Magister Militum Flavius Aetius wrote:
I don’t really know whether Jordanes knew or cared whether Aetius or his wife was part Gothic and even today Aetius’s origins are conjecture. To Jordanes, Aetius represented the Romans and Jordanes was a product of the Amalis which even though they didn’t play a big role in the battle of the Catalaunian Fields are mentioned a few times in the Getica mainly in that their kings are more royal than Attila and that they played a part in the death of Theodoric. They are given prominence in the battle of the Nedao which broke the power of the Huns a few years later.
He wrote the Getica from memory as a summary of Cassiodorus’s History of the Goths for a friend Castalius around 551AD at 70 years of age and used a number of other sources including Orosius, Livy, Strabo, Tacitus, Dio Chrysostom, Ptolemy, Pomponius Mela, Ablabius, Josephus, Dexippus, and Priscus so to what extent he knew of Aetius's family origins we don't know. No google in those days. There is a possibility that Jordanes father had Alanic blood and his grandfather Palia was a notarius for an Alan King Candac who held sway in Moesia during the time of Attila. Jordanes was particularly biased against Sangipan and he cast him as cowardly and sneaky but Sangipan was probably a name or title meaning “he of the strong arm” in Osset. or “he who follows his orders” in Avestan so he sounded like a man Aetius trusted and relied upon. What connection he had to Eochar is unkown. Maybe Candac had a grudge towards Sangipan and these feelings of bias or betrayal were passed on to Jordanes through his grandfather and father and showed in Jordanes description of the Alan king present at the battle of Chalons and not through any other source. Sangipan is not mentioned elsewhere.
The oldest sources of the battle are the chronicles of late antiquity which were written shortly after the event, primarily Prosper of Aquitaine, but the information they give is scanty.
Prosper does name Aetius as the man who organised the coalition that faced Attila.
Hydatius mentions a united defence between Aetius and Theodoric where neither is given prominence.
The Chronica Gallica 452 gives little information about the battle but says that it is not a decisive victory with heavy losses. Aetius name does not occur in this passage nor does any other.
Chronica Gallica 511 is a little more detailed and mentions that both Aetius and Theodoric fought Attila.
So in Prosper, Hydatius and Chronica Gallica 511 we are given the names of the military leaders and the contribution of the Romans and Goths is equal. We hear nothing of gallantry and we have the impression that Aetius is leader and there is no hint of distrustfulness among the allies.
With the chronicle of Cassiodorus the picture of the battle begins to change.
Under these consuls, the Romans, under the leadership of Aetius, with Gothic auxiliaries, fought against Attila on the Catalaunian plains, who having been overcome by the strength of the Goths, departed.
According to Cassiodorus Attila was defeated (Hydatius said battle was discontinued) through the strength of the Goths but the leadership of Aetius is not disputed. The discrimination has started but in a subtle manner about the respective roles of the Goths and the Romans.
Jordanes enhanced the bias by stating that Attila’s soothsayers prophesised that Attila would be defeated in the battle but the supreme commander of the allies would die in the battle and Attila assumed it would be Aetius but it turned out to be Theodoric. So now Theodoric is the supreme commander of the allied forces and Aetius’s role in the battle is relegated.
Eastern authors like Procopius mention that Aetius led the allies. The chronicle of Victor Tunnensis which was written in the middle of the sixth century and it is mentioned that Aetius and no one else is the victor against Attila and the Goths are not mentioned.
In Spain the Chronica Caesaraugustana, written about 531 states that the Goths and the Huns fought on the Catalaunian Fields and that Theodoric fell and Thorismund won the day and that Attila disappeared. There is no mention of Aetius and the Romans. Isodorus of Seville wrote in the Historia Gothorum in early 7th century that Theodoric fought Attila at Chalons and that Aetius assisted him.
Gregory of Tours is a bit kinder to Aetius and mentions that Aetius, allied with the Goths defeated Attila but then gives the impression that Aetius enticed Thorismund as well as the Franks to leave the battlefield so that Aetius could sack the Hunnic camp and keep all the loot.
So it seems as time passed and the details of the battle faded that Jordanes even if he didn't realise it, tried to change history so as to glorify the role of the Goths in history. Tackholm just brought up some interesting points about how ssome sources seemed to present Aetius in a bad light.
Quote:Aetius himself was half-Gothic, something Jordanes probably knew. Pelagia was Gothic, and Aetius had spent time in the Gothic court as a hostage. I see no real reason why Jordanes would therefore marginalize Aetius, rather than attribute his achievements to his Gothic influence.
I don’t really know whether Jordanes knew or cared whether Aetius or his wife was part Gothic and even today Aetius’s origins are conjecture. To Jordanes, Aetius represented the Romans and Jordanes was a product of the Amalis which even though they didn’t play a big role in the battle of the Catalaunian Fields are mentioned a few times in the Getica mainly in that their kings are more royal than Attila and that they played a part in the death of Theodoric. They are given prominence in the battle of the Nedao which broke the power of the Huns a few years later.
He wrote the Getica from memory as a summary of Cassiodorus’s History of the Goths for a friend Castalius around 551AD at 70 years of age and used a number of other sources including Orosius, Livy, Strabo, Tacitus, Dio Chrysostom, Ptolemy, Pomponius Mela, Ablabius, Josephus, Dexippus, and Priscus so to what extent he knew of Aetius's family origins we don't know. No google in those days. There is a possibility that Jordanes father had Alanic blood and his grandfather Palia was a notarius for an Alan King Candac who held sway in Moesia during the time of Attila. Jordanes was particularly biased against Sangipan and he cast him as cowardly and sneaky but Sangipan was probably a name or title meaning “he of the strong arm” in Osset. or “he who follows his orders” in Avestan so he sounded like a man Aetius trusted and relied upon. What connection he had to Eochar is unkown. Maybe Candac had a grudge towards Sangipan and these feelings of bias or betrayal were passed on to Jordanes through his grandfather and father and showed in Jordanes description of the Alan king present at the battle of Chalons and not through any other source. Sangipan is not mentioned elsewhere.
The oldest sources of the battle are the chronicles of late antiquity which were written shortly after the event, primarily Prosper of Aquitaine, but the information they give is scanty.
Prosper does name Aetius as the man who organised the coalition that faced Attila.
Hydatius mentions a united defence between Aetius and Theodoric where neither is given prominence.
The Chronica Gallica 452 gives little information about the battle but says that it is not a decisive victory with heavy losses. Aetius name does not occur in this passage nor does any other.
Chronica Gallica 511 is a little more detailed and mentions that both Aetius and Theodoric fought Attila.
So in Prosper, Hydatius and Chronica Gallica 511 we are given the names of the military leaders and the contribution of the Romans and Goths is equal. We hear nothing of gallantry and we have the impression that Aetius is leader and there is no hint of distrustfulness among the allies.
With the chronicle of Cassiodorus the picture of the battle begins to change.
Under these consuls, the Romans, under the leadership of Aetius, with Gothic auxiliaries, fought against Attila on the Catalaunian plains, who having been overcome by the strength of the Goths, departed.
According to Cassiodorus Attila was defeated (Hydatius said battle was discontinued) through the strength of the Goths but the leadership of Aetius is not disputed. The discrimination has started but in a subtle manner about the respective roles of the Goths and the Romans.
Jordanes enhanced the bias by stating that Attila’s soothsayers prophesised that Attila would be defeated in the battle but the supreme commander of the allies would die in the battle and Attila assumed it would be Aetius but it turned out to be Theodoric. So now Theodoric is the supreme commander of the allied forces and Aetius’s role in the battle is relegated.
Eastern authors like Procopius mention that Aetius led the allies. The chronicle of Victor Tunnensis which was written in the middle of the sixth century and it is mentioned that Aetius and no one else is the victor against Attila and the Goths are not mentioned.
In Spain the Chronica Caesaraugustana, written about 531 states that the Goths and the Huns fought on the Catalaunian Fields and that Theodoric fell and Thorismund won the day and that Attila disappeared. There is no mention of Aetius and the Romans. Isodorus of Seville wrote in the Historia Gothorum in early 7th century that Theodoric fought Attila at Chalons and that Aetius assisted him.
Gregory of Tours is a bit kinder to Aetius and mentions that Aetius, allied with the Goths defeated Attila but then gives the impression that Aetius enticed Thorismund as well as the Franks to leave the battlefield so that Aetius could sack the Hunnic camp and keep all the loot.
So it seems as time passed and the details of the battle faded that Jordanes even if he didn't realise it, tried to change history so as to glorify the role of the Goths in history. Tackholm just brought up some interesting points about how ssome sources seemed to present Aetius in a bad light.
Regards
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
