Roman Legions At Chalons

[Nikephoros Phokas]

Jordanes wrote a history of the Goths for the Gothic royals. He weaves fact and fiction to provide ties between the Gothic royal families of his age with the ancient Gothic kings. Given his Gothic audience and the role played by the Visigoths at Chalons, he may be exaggerating the decadence of the Roman military.

 

Aetius was the senior Roman general (magister) and his forces represented the rump of the imperial field or mobile armies in the western provinces. How large a force this was is debatable although Elton, Drinkwater, MacDowall, Heather and other modern writers do provide some glimpses during the twilight of the west. One theory is that Aetius kept a large force at his disposal so that no other Roman general could challenge him. His relationship with the government of Valentinian III was based on control of the military. He had already fought the equivalent of civil wars to guarantee his supremacy prior to Chalons.

 

Unfortunately, there is no enough evidence to do more than guess at the Roman component at Chalons. The presence of Visigoths is likely a result of military and political ties. The Visigoths were historically responsible for providing troops upon request as part of the treaty (foedus) that led to their settlement in southwestern France. The Alans were likely present because Aetius did not trust their king, who may have be willing to aid Attila. The Alans were also settled in France under the terms of a treaty. Frankish foederati were included in the Roman contingent. Jordanes also lists Sarmatians, Armoricans, Liticians, Burgundians, Saxons, Olibrones (whom he describes as "once Roman soldiers and now the flower of the allied forces"), and other Celtic or German tribes. Some of these may have been archaic names no longer used by the peoples so identified. They may also have been used to disguise the Roman units. Given the frequency of Celtic, German and non-Latin names in Roman unit titles, Jordanes may have been easily confused (or just pretending to be ignorant).

 

Thus the Roman army represented a cross section of the known military forces serving in France or surrounding regions.

[Mrld]

So I'm guessing if there were any Roman legions left there wern't many. Right?

[DecimusCaesar]

... Jordanes also lists Sarmatians, Armoricans, Liticians, Burgundians, Saxons, Olibrones (whom he describes as "once Roman soldiers and now the flower of the allied forces"), and other Celtic or German tribes. Some of these may have been archaic names no longer used by the peoples so identified. They may also have been used to disguise the Roman units. Given the frequency of Celtic, German and non-Latin names in Roman unit titles, Jordanes may have been easily confused (or just pretending to be ignorant).

 

Thus the Roman army represented a cross section of the known military forces serving in France or surrounding regions.

 

 

You make a good point there. It was typical of Late Roman historians to make allusions to the past when describing contemprory events. This was done to show their learning - Ammianus Marcellinus makes use of archaic Roman military terms in his histories; while Priscus description of the siege of Naissus sound suspiciously like Thucydides account of the siege of Platea in 431 BC, according ot Heather. Priscus description is obviously meant to show that he is familiar with the classics.

Edited May 5, 2007 by DecimusCaesar

[Mrld]

I wonder what the standard carriers like the Signifers, Aquilifers, and the Vexillarius looked like in the 5th century legion. Does anyone have any pictures?

[DecimusCaesar]

I wonder what the standard carriers like the Signifers, Aquilifers, and the Vexillarius looked like in the 5th century legion. Does anyone have any pictures?

 

I believe that the 'Draco' standard became the most popular standard of the Late Roman period. I also believe that during the Christian period that the cross was carried into Battle. If my memory serves me right, I believe that Constantine I might have carried a cross and some other Christian symbols into battle. Other Emperors that followed him must have done so.

 

Here is an illustration by Gerry Embleton, showing a Draco standard bearer:

 

 

These Draco standards were introduced by the Sarmatians.

[Northern Neil]

I wonder what the standard carriers like the Signifers, Aquilifers, and the Vexillarius looked like in the 5th century legion. Does anyone have any pictures?

I think such terms were obsolete by this stage. By the time of Gallienus (mid 3rd century) the old legions had undergone many of the changes officially attributed to Diocletian, who merely ratified what had been evolving throughout the 3rd century and even earlier. Standard bearers in the late empire carried wind - sock type standards. These had an animals head with an open mouth at the front, and a silk or linen 'body' which was tubular with a hole to the rear - hence the wind sock term.

 

Here is a picture of soldier from the LEGIO QVINTA MACEDONIA, 5th - 6th centuries.

The fact that his unit is so named shows that the legion was still a tactical battle unit, although it was by now a 1'000 strong unit. That the East still had these units until the seventh centuries leads me to suppose, tentatively, that the West still had them too. This soldier, although quite different from the legionaries of Trajan's time, still looks like a soldier from the classical world. Moreover, Ammianus Marcellinus, writing 75 or so years prior to the time under discussion, discusses the use of legions in Julian's Persian campaign, and in the Roman victory against the Allemanni at Strasbourg. At Chalons there probably were units called 'Legions' comprising of pressed provincial peasents, but as the West at this stage was poorer than the East, they probably weren't as well equipped as this fellow.

Edited May 20, 2007 by Northern Neil

[Mrld]

I found this on the University of Washington's website:

 

"Historian Arther Ferrill notes that even towards the end, some of the old infantry formations were still in use. Such grouping was increasingly ineffective however, without the severe close order discipline, drill and organization of olden times. At the Battle of Chalons (circa 451 AD) Attila the Hun rallied his troops by mocking the once vaunted Roman infantry, alleging that they merely huddled under a screen of protective shields in close formation. He ordered his troops to ignore them and to attack the powerful Alans and Visigoths instead. It was a sad commentary on the force that had once dominated Europe, the Mediterrean and much of the Middle East. It is true that at Chalons, the Roman infantry contributed to the victory by seizing part of the battlefield's high ground. Nevertheless its day had already passed in favor of the mass levies of the barbarian foderates."

 

Does that prove that there were still some poorly organized Romans on the field or was it foederati trained in Roman manner?

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

I wonder what the standard carriers like the Signifers, Aquilifers, and the Vexillarius looked like in the 5th century legion. Does anyone have any pictures?

 

I believe that the 'Draco' standard became the most popular standard of the Late Roman period. I also believe that during the Christian period that the cross was carried into Battle. If my memory serves me right, I believe that Constantine I might have carried a cross and some other Christian symbols into battle. Other Emperors that followed him must have done so.

 

 

 

Wasn't this the symbol that Constantine had his army paint on thier shields before the Battle of the Milvian Bridge?

 

It's called the Chi Rho symbol.

 

 

Chi and Rho are the first two letters (ΧΡ) of "Christ" in Greek ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ. (Christos). Sometimes it is called the Monogram of Christ or Chrismon or Labarum. While it was used very early by persecuted Christians in the catacombs, when Constantine I was struggling to become emperor, he used the symbol at the front of his armies and was victorious.

[ASCLEPIADES]

 

 

Indeed and Drinkwater also falls into this camp as does Heather, (though Heather believes the decline began with the loss of Africa... losing the tax base to pay and upkeep the army as we have the one comment from Valentinian III, the source escapes me at the moment, saying he can't even pay for them army he has), while Elton feels it is with the death of Majorian and the breakaway of Aegidius. I'd like to add Marcellinus as well in Dalmatia, taking away the other units in the Western Empire from central authority as well.

 

 

Salve! During the twenty-some years that Soissons was isolated in the north, what kind of relation maintained it with the empire(s)?

[Pompieus]

If anyone is interested, the Notitia Dignitatum does provide a sort of "Order Of Battle" for the Imperial Army of the fifth century. The Western Empire portion is dated to sometime in the mid 420's (423?) - more than a quarter century before the Battle of Chalons. What was left of the Gallic Field Army by 451 is anyones guess. In 423 or so, however, it consisted of:

 

1 Legion Palatina (Lanciarii Sabarienses)

16 Auxilia Palatina

7 Legiones Comitatenses (Menapii Seniores, Armigeri defensores seniores, Lanciarii Honoriani, Secundani Britones, Praesidienses, Ursarienses and Cortoriacenses (or possibly Geminiances and Honoriani felices Gallicani)- it's not real clear)

21 Legiones Pseudocomitatenses

4 Vexillationes Palatini

8 Vexillationes Comitatenses

 

This was a significant force with a "paper" strength of 6000 horse and 26500 foot (20-25000 field strength?)

Edited July 10, 2007 by Pompieus

[sonic]

I found this on the University of Washington's website:

 

"Historian Arther Ferrill notes that even towards the end, some of the old infantry formations were still in use. Such grouping was increasingly ineffective however, without the severe close order discipline, drill and organization of olden times. At the Battle of Chalons (circa 451 AD) Attila the Hun rallied his troops by mocking the once vaunted Roman infantry, alleging that they merely huddled under a screen of protective shields in close formation. He ordered his troops to ignore them and to attack the powerful Alans and Visigoths instead. It was a sad commentary on the force that had once dominated Europe, the Mediterrean and much of the Middle East. It is true that at Chalons, the Roman infantry contributed to the victory by seizing part of the battlefield's high ground. Nevertheless its day had already passed in favor of the mass levies of the barbarian foderates."

 

Does that prove that there were still some poorly organized Romans on the field or was it foederati trained in Roman manner?

 

I wish historians would stop using this quote out of context in an attempt to prove that the Roman 'legionary' had had his day.

 

The Roman infantry at Chalons would have 'huddled behind their shields', as they had no hope of catching the fast-moving Hunnic archers and forcing them to stand and fight on their (the infantry's) terms.

 

And any 'speech' given by Attila would probably have been very similar to the speech quoted, but this is the section that is never put into context. Attila was leading one of the most powerful nomadic 'tribes' ever to have emerged from the Eurasian steppes. The speech merely highlights the disgust and contempt felt by any self-respecting nomad for troops that fought on foot, whether Roman, German or Australian! It is not evidence for the decline of the Legions. (In fact, an interesting theoretical question would be how the earlier, Imperial armies of Trajan etc would have fared against the superb horsemanship and firepower of the Huns.)

 

Furthermore, since his troops could avoid contact with the infantry and could therefore choose to disregard them if they wanted, Attila demonstrates that he is not totally incompetent by ordering his men to focus upon the cavalry forces of the Goths and Alans. These troops could catch his horsemen and force them to fight when they were unready or unwilling. In other words, they could take the initiative out of Attila's hands.

 

In fact, the ability of the infantry to 'contribute to the victory by seizing part of the battlefield's high ground' highlights the weakness of the argument that the infantry were no longer of real consequence. When used correctly and properly trained, the legions of Rome could stay play an effective part in fighting the enemies of Rome.

 

Ferrill et al merely demonstrate both their desire to read their own assumptions into the evidence, rather than letting the evidence guide their assumptions, and the danger of hindsight: their recognition that cavalry would dominate the battlefields of Europe for the next c.1,000 years leads them to the conclusion that the role of the infantry had now declined.

 

Try telling that to the Franks, who after this period carved a large kingdom out of previously Roman territory using mainly infantry!

Edited July 10, 2007 by sonic

[ScandinavianRoman]

There probably would have been a lot of barbarian mercs, and some cominsates(I did not spell that right, but I meant the heavier fighters that came about due to Constantine's military reforms.

[Mrld]

So what was left of the legions was basically germans and other tribes trained in a Roman manner? Then what discouraged the Romans from joining the military?

[ScandinavianRoman]

So what was left of the legions was basically germans and other tribes trained in a Roman manner? Then what discouraged the Romans from joining the military?

Several reasons. For one, the patriotism that the legions served under had declined since Rome was an empire. Now, the Roman legions wanted money and lots of it. Each soldier cost a lot. Money was not something the Roman Empire had a lot of, due to several economic crashes which I won't go into detail here. Barbarian mercenaries were willing to fight for Rome for a smaller cost than Romans, so the Roman Empire hired lots of them. Such recruitment among barbarians that were officially Rome's enemies caused some very interesting diplomatic situations with Rome and the other barbarian nations. Anyway, by the time of Chalons, half of the entire Roman legions were barbarian mercenaries. However, these mercenaries were not as well trained or reliable as true Roman soldiers.