Roman Army of Aetius at Chalons

[Flavivs Aetivs]

We are not arguing that the army was composed entirely of pureblooded huns, we are just saying that the "hunnic" contingent of his Army was the core of his force, and was mostly horse-archers.

The invincibility of the Huns was going to be short-lived anyways - the Huns introduced a 7 lath asymmetric bow, while the Alans before them only had a 4 lath asymmetric bow bow. The use of 3 laths in the handle gave the Huns more penetrating power at the same range as the Alans, allowing them to cut down armored opponents. Eventually the Romans and Sarmatians adopted the Hunnic bow, and they relied on good leadership and skill as horse-archers to maintain an advantage.

Zozimus records that an army of 7000 Kutigur Huns innvading Scythia Minor in the late 5th or 6th century was considered an unusually large force (at the time as the Huns had lost their unity) and a serious threat.

[sonic]

I mean - do all these archers die with Atilla? beacause we encounter 'Hun cavalry' much longer afterwards, and somehow their invincibility is gone with Atilla. The elderly Belisarius manages to scare them off - with a scrap force of militia no less. :!:

But under Belisarius, at the Battle of Ad Decimum Gibamundus and his 2,000 Vandals were routed by 600 mounted Huns due to their reputation as fierce warriors. (Proc. 3.18.18-20)

[Michael Kerr]

Hi Robert, I was not suggesting that Hunnic armies were composed purely of horse archers, The bow was merely their primary long range weapon, they were handy with the javelin as well (steppe tribes used javelins for hunting). Depending on their wealth Huns had a variety of close combat weapons like lances, swords, maces, battle axes as well as lassos & even though the nature & composition of Hunnic armies probably changed from the time of Adrianople to Chalons (especially in armour) I think the horse archer remained an essential part of Hunnic armies. There is a written account by Sozomen of a Hunnic soldier leaning on his shield at Tomis which even allowing that the Hun soldier was probably a short man still doesn't seem practical for a horseman so they probably had infantry but I still think the horse archer remained the “core component" of their armies because the Huns remained primarily herders & shepherds. Priscus's description of the ‘no man's land' on his journey to Attila's camp basically describes deserted farms & towns where Huns had no desire to live a sedentary lifestyle but used the lands for pasture for their herds (horses, cattle & sheep). From a Roman's point of view the land was like a desert & wasteful but to a Hun this was open land & good for his particular type of occupation namely herding & grazing. If I may digress it seems very similar to the granting of ‘deserted lands' around Valence in 440 AD to Sangipan's Alans by Aetius where they probably used land for grazing their herds & not agriculture (at least for the first few generations) but I am straying from the point.
With the death of Attila & the break-up of his confederation, the Hunnic tribes splintered & although an occasional nuisance they were no longer a major threat to Rome (the Romans had more to worry about with the Germanic tribes or groups).
Although you are correct about Belisarus chasing off Huns. He also had Huns fighting for him in Italy against the Ostrogoths (winning a battle against them while dismounted and pursuing on foot in one case) & Narses used Huns in his cavalry & I think they were valued in Byzantine armies because even though the Byzantines adopted the hunnic bow (which in itself means that they thought it was a superior weapon for their mounted archers at least) & had capable mounted archers their Huns were still considered the best archers & horsemen although maybe hard to control. mile: Of course this is only my humble opinion.
Regards
Michael Kerr

[Diocle]

I mean - do all these archers die with Atilla? beacause we encounter 'Hun cavalry' much longer afterwards, and somehow their invincibility is gone with Atilla. The elderly Belisarius manages to scare them off - with a scrap force of militia no less. :!:

But under Belisarius, at the Battle of Ad Decimum Gibamundus and his 2,000 Vandals were routed by 600 mounted Huns due to their reputation as fierce warriors. (Proc. 3.18.18-20)

I think we should not forget that in the VI century the word Huns covers a wide range of peoples, for the Roman-Byzantines all the peoples coming form the lands once blonging to Attila, had to be called Huns, meanwhile the Avars were already a real threat ...

I have some perplexity about the possibility of calling Huns the people of the trans-Danubian lands after the fall of the Hunnic Empire; in the end, meanwhile our dear Procopius continues to use the old word 'Huns', the Avars and the Bulgars were already a real threat for the Germanic peoples living in Pannonia: Langobards and Gepids well knew the new names of the Eastern threat ...

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Avars and Bulgars would not arrive until the late 6th century though Diocle. At this point Huns probably meant Huns, the Kutigur, Utigur, and Onogur Huns (the 6th century groupings of Huns and Proto-Bulgars) it is believed all shared the same proto-turkic origins as the Bulgars, and the Avars would be the first Turks.

[Diocle]

Avars and Bulgars would not arrive until the late 6th century though Diocle. At this point Huns probably meant Huns, the Kutigur, Utigur, and Onogur Huns (the 6th century groupings of Huns and Proto-Bulgars) it is believed all shared the same proto-turkic origins as the Bulgars, and the Avars would be the first Turks.

From Wiki, Evan:

"The earliest clear reference to the Avar ethonym comes from Priscus the Rhetor who accounts that, c. 463, the Saraghurs, Onoghurs and Ughors were attacked by the Sabirs, who had been attacked by the Avars. In turn, the Avars had been driven off by people fleeing “man-eating griffins” coming “the ocean” (Priscus Fr 40).Whilst Priscus’ accounts provides some information about the ethno-political situation in the Don-Kuban-Volga region after the demise of the Huns, no equivocal conclusions can be reached. In fact, Denis Sinor has argued that whoever the “Avars” referred to by Priscus were, they were different to the Avars who appear a century later, during Justinian’s reign."

At the end of the Italian war the Langobards and the Gepids were already under the pressure by the Avars, and in 568 many Bulgars followed King Alwin in Italy, they settled in the Southern part of the Peninsula, when the Langobards reached those lands.

I don't think that the the second half of the VI century, the Age of Justinian and Theodora, can be definied 'late sixth century', Evan.

During the 'late VI century' actually we can observe the 'growth' of the Avar threat, culminating with the Siege of Byzantium in the first half of the VII century, when, exactly in 626 AD, a powerful army mainly composed by ... but this is another story.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

That may be true, but the Huns were still around, and it is believed they had not been overrun until around 550 when the Avars came.

However, Hun continued to refer to a confederation - there were many poeples who made up the first Hun confederation and many would make up later confederations. The Huns themselves were probably closely related to the Acatziri, a people under the Hun confederation who were mostly nomadic horsearchers and settled above the old Bosporan Kingdom and along the Black sea down to Scythia Minor. They appear to have been incorporated into the later Carpathian and Pontic Gothic Groups.

[Robert Vermaat]

We are not arguing that the army was composed entirely of pureblooded huns, we are just saying that the "hunnic" contingent of his Army was the core of his force, and was mostly horse-archers.

Not everyone seems to argue that here. But I agree that the Hunnic army was not all horse archers, if only to stiffen the Hunnic centre in the same way that the western allies used infantry to stiffen the Alanic centre.

But under Belisarius, at the Battle of Ad Decimum Gibamundus and his 2,000 Vandals were routed by 600 mounted Huns due to their reputation as fierce warriors. (Proc. 3.18.18-20)

Agreed but different – Belisarius uses Huns in a specialist role, and one can argue that this is an elite force which is at least in part improved by its employment in the Roman army. Atilla’s Huns were different, as were the ones stopped by Belisarius later on, which are more to be compared to Atilla than the ones fighting at Ad Decimus.

I think we should not forget that in the VI century the word Huns covers a wide range of peoples, for the Roman-Byzantines all the peoples coming form the lands once blonging to Attila, had to be called Huns, meanwhile the Avars were already a real threat ...
I have some perplexity about the possibility of calling Huns the people of the trans-Danubian lands after the fall of the Hunnic Empire; in the end, meanwhile our dear Procopius continues to use the old word 'Huns', the Avars and the Bulgars were already a real threat for the Germanic peoples living in Pannonia: Langobards and Gepids well knew the new names of the Eastern threat ...

Exactly. I daresay that also at Chalons, the ‘Huns’ under Atilla are also not ‘just’ Huns but also the peoples which we later meet when Atilla is gone and the ‘Hun’Empire shattered. We know the Roman problems with identifying barbarian tribes, and as with the Goths, many groups can and probably will have been ‘hiding’ under the single lump sum ‘Huns’ – not just Huns and other nomadic groups, but also Germanic groups long since integrated.

[Robert Vermaat]

Back to the main thread - what units of Romans were under Aetius' command/

[Flavivs Aetivs]

EXTREMELY Difficult to say.

The only unit we can even dubiously assume was under Aetius command were the Placidi Valentiniani Felices Iuniores et Seniores, raised as Auxilia Palatina in 419 or 425 and probably serving as Bucellarii in the Gallic Field Army. After the Notitia there is no reference to them again.

I try and give some extrapolations of the Roman forces in my article, in which I state Aetius was leading Ripenses and Riparienses (Ripuriani in Jordanes) when Sidonius references his crossing of the Alpes to gather his forces in Arelate.

It's likely that a significant portion of the Gallic Field Army was also intact, but by this point they were probably no longer on the imperial payroll and were serving out of Loyalty and the prospect of Plunder, along with whatever Aetius could pay them. Any limitanei in Gaul were probabaly recalled ahead fo the Hunnic advance to join the Gallic Army. The remnants of the praesental army were likely guarding the Alpes or garrisoned in Italian towns, in the event Aetius was defeated he'd have a second force to harass Attila with.

The Olibrones probably account for Aetius' personal Bucellarii, as well as the Palatina and Comitatenses units of the Gallic field army, as the are described as 'once roman soldiers and now the flower of the allied forces.'

The only other units known from the time of Aetius were Limitanei Garrisons in Noricum, whose identities can be extrapolated from the Vita Sancti Severini. It is unlikely they joined the army that went to Chalons as they were heavily undermanned and poorly equipped even at the beginning of the VSS, which was right after Attila's death.

However it is also possible that the reason they were undermanned was because they had joined that army, and were sent back to their posts on the Danube. This is still highly unlikely, but if it is we can assume the Cohors Novae Batavorum, the II Lauriacenses and Lanciarii Lauriacenses, and part of I Noricorum joined in the battle. But the odds that they participated are extraordinarily slim.

[Michael Kerr]

Paul the deacon ca.720-99 mentions that at the battle of Catalaunian fields some of the allies who fought for Aetius Franks, Saxons, Ripaurians, [Oli]briones, Sarmatians, Amoricans, Liticiani and almost all the peoples of the west who made a military alliance with Aetius. Not Roman units though.
Regards
Michael Kerr

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Paul the Deacon was copying Jordanes though.

We know Roman forces were at the battle, but what units were there have to be extrapolated. Of that we can only guess at one, maybe two.

[Michael Kerr]

Hi Evan, I have started reading bits of Jordanes & as you mentioned him do you have an opinion on his entry in Getica 225-228 where he talks about a 2nd campaign occuring in Gaul, where while in Italy after meeting Pope Leo he leads his army by different routes than the year before to threaten the Loire Alans? Another battle is fought with Visigoths & Alans again defeating Attila this time without Aetius. I am puzzled by this entry.
Did Jordanes make this up or get his dates wrong? Perhaps a scribal error?
My understanding of Attila's invasion of Italy was that he turned back his army after meeting pope Leo for unknown reasons, whether it was “Divine Intervention", bribes, superstition on his part or disease in his army, turned & returned home. It seems like Jordanes is describing Aetius's campaign from the previous year but replacing him with Thorismond. Attila threatening the Alans who are holding Orleans & Liger (Loire) River to break up the alliance Aetius has cobbled together & Thorismond discovering Attila's plans, by a series of forced marches gets there just before Attila & together with Alans defeats Attila again. It just seems like a repeat of Aetius's campaign but Jordanes says the Huns got there by using different routes than the earlier campaign.
I am just new to late Roman history but do you think this 2nd campaign in Gaul ever happened?
Is it a case of a biased historian/cleric with an agenda trying to change & airbrush history & downplaying Aetius's victory in 451AD in subtle ways, like adding a similar campaign the following year with no Roman participation?
Secondly if this battle did take place where was Aetius & his army?
Could it have been a minor skirmish between a diversionary Hunnic scouting or raiding force under the leadership of one of his officers & Thorismond's forces that was blown up into a major battle by Jordanes where Atilla was leading the Huns?


Regards
Michael Kerr

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Jordanes probably read Hydatius, who puts the battle of Chalons as occuring in 452, probably when news of the battle reached Gallaecia.

There was no battle in 452 though between Thorismund and Attila. I think it's likely something similar to what happened in 436 where a group of Hunnic mercenaries went rogue and had to be put down by the Alans. But it is more likely Jordanes is just trying to further downplay the role of the other nations in 451.

[Robert Vermaat]

I try and give some extrapolations of the Roman forces in my article, in which I state Aetius was leading Ripenses and Riparienses (Ripuriani in Jordanes) when Sidonius references his crossing of the Alpes to gather his forces in Arelate. [..] Any limitanei in Gaul were probabaly recalled ahead fo the Hunnic advance to join the Gallic Army. The remnants of the praesental army were likely guarding the Alpes or garrisoned in Italian towns, in the event Aetius was defeated he'd have a second force to harass Attila with.

My guess would be that here you have the Roman limitanei, who are sometimes referred to as Ripenses when guarding a river frontier. Unfortunately the gap between ND and this battle is too large to assume that any of the units mentioned was still in place, but it's not impossible. Especially the Mainz section was reorganized c. 420 and could be in place. Otherwise, we are looking at Ripuarian Franks here (who of course may be those very same units). The limitanei were not recalled to Italy I think (see Procopius). If serving in towns they would havee been in towns in Gaul. Gaul was never abandoned.

It's likely that a significant portion of the Gallic Field Army was also intact, but by this point they were probably no longer on the imperial payroll and were serving out of Loyalty and the prospect of Plunder, along with whatever Aetius could pay them.

Unlikely. The state was short of funds but Aetyius would hardly have been able to pay them. Plus, as I wrote earlier, there was still an 'exercitus Romanorum' after Aetius.

The Olibrones probably account for Aetius' personal Bucellarii, as well as the Palatina and Comitatenses units of the Gallic field army, as the are described as 'once roman soldiers and now the flower of the allied forces.'

I agree up to a point, but to put all those units in one group seem a bit too much. I'd rather think of one (ethnic) group that had until recently fought in the Roman army, not all palatina and comitatenses forces.

However it is also possible that the reason they were undermanned was because they had joined that army, and were sent back to their posts on the Danube. This is still highly unlikely, but if it is we can assume the Cohors Novae Batavorum, the II Lauriacenses and Lanciarii Lauriacenses, and part of I Noricorum joined in the battle. But the odds that they participated are extraordinarily slim.

Extremely unlikely. Noricum is too far off.