Aetius Attila’s Nemesis Read online

  The Battle16

  The armies now set in motion, both attempting to seize the crest and so dominate the battlefield. Again, Jordanes’ account is open to debate: ‘The Huns with their forces seized the right side, the Romans, the Visigoths and their allies the left, and then began a struggle for the yet untaken crest.’17 All depends upon the interpretation of right and left. In the majority of modern accounts the Huns seize the hill to their right, opposing Aetius himself, while the Visigoths beat the Ostrogoths to the crest and so dominate the battlefield on their flank. Yet this analysis is almost certainly mistaken. The real course of events can be seen by arranging Jordanes’ account into a chronological course of events.

  Catalaunian Plain 2 Stage 1

  As already stated:

  The Huns with their forces seized the right side, the Romans, the Visigoths and their allies the left, and then began a struggle for the yet untaken crest.

  Jord. Get. 38 (197)

  This is followed by a description of the deployment of the Romans and their allies, following which:

  So then the struggle began for the advantage of position we have mentioned. Attila sent his men to take the summit of the mountain, but was outstripped by Thorismud and Aetius, who in their effort to gain the top of the hill reached higher ground and through this advantage of position easily routed the Huns as they came up.

  Jord. Get. 38 (201)

  What has happened is clear – Jordanes is describing the battle from the Roman lines. Attila’s forces had occupied the crest on the right of the Romans, facing the Visigoths. At least part of Attila’s plan to defeat the Romans’ wings, as hypothesized above, looked to be succeeding. In contrast, Aetius had seized the left side of the crest facing the Gepids, who were no doubt weakened by their skirmish of the night before. In a joint operation, Aetius’ troops – including the Alans – had then taken the centre of the ridge, helped by the Visigothic forces under Thorismund. Attempting to dislodge the allies from this strong position, the Huns were easily beaten back as they climbed the slope.

  The Huns now became demoralized by their failure and Attila was forced to make a speech:

  Now when Attila saw his army was thrown into confusion by this event, he thought it best to encourage them by an extemporaneous address . . .

  Jord. Get. 39 (202)

  The text of the speech need not be analyzed in detail, since it is extremely unlikely that Jordanes would have been able to write, word for word, a speech made by Attila. In fact, it is unlikely that Attila made any speech at all, since in the din and confusion of the battle his words would have been lost to all but a few.18 The wording is a rhetorical piece invented by Jordanes, but one small part of the speech is useful, as he gives clues as to the nature of the battlefield:

  They seek the heights, they seize the hills and, repenting too late, clamour for protection against battle in the open fields.

  Jord. Get. 39 (204)

  The use of the plurals ‘heights’ and ‘hills’ reinforces the concept suggested earlier that there was not just a single hill on the right hand side of the Romans’ deployment area, but rather a long crest, with some parts being higher than others, especially in the centre.

  Encouraged, the Huns and their allies renewed their assault on the crest:

  And although the situation was itself fearful, yet the presence of their king dispelled anxiety and hesitation. Hand to hand they clashed in battle, and the fight grew fierce, confused, monstrous, unrelenting – a fight whose like no ancient time has ever recorded. There such deeds were done that a brave man who missed this marvellous spectacle could not hope to see anything so wonderful all his life long.

  Jord. Get. 40 (207)

  However, the Visigoths on the extreme right of the Roman line appear to have been unable to take the ridge in front of them. At this point there was a potential disaster for the Roman allies:

  Here King Theoderic, while riding by to encourage his army, was thrown from his horse and trampled under foot by his own men, thus ending his days at a ripe old age. But others say he was slain by the spear of Andag of the host of the Ostrogoths, who were then under the sway of Attila. This was what the soothsayers had told to Attila in prophecy, though he understood it of Aetius.

  Jord. Get. 40 (209)

  By way of contrast, both Malalas and the Chronicon Paschale claim that Theoderic was killed by an arrow.19 Since this is very late evidence it is probably less likely than the accounts given by Jordanes: however, there remains the remote possibility that it is accurate.

  It is interesting to note that Jordanes, writing the history of the Goths, does not mention the Ostrogoths during the course of the battle anywhere but at this point. The reason is almost certainly that he wanted to minimize the fact that the Ostrogoths fought against the Romans alongside Attila, later reviled as the ‘Scourge of God’. However, Jordanes had access to the descendents of Andag, and so may have recorded a family tradition that may in fact have contained the true course of events. Theoderic had been killed by Andag as he led his men uphill against the Ostrogoths. Yet the news did not immediately spread.

  Unaware of his father’s death and as darkness was beginning to descend, Thorismund saw from the top of the ridge that the Huns to his front were beginning to lose heart and that they were trapped between their wings and their camp. He also located Attila’s position in the battle. Thorismund seized the opportunity and led his forces in a downhill charge at the Huns opposing them, trying to reach Attila. Unable to use their traditional hit-and-run tactics, the Huns disintegrated and began to rout, in the process exposing Attila to danger:

  Then the Visigoths, separating from the Alans, fell upon the horde of the Huns and nearly slew Attila. But he prudently took flight and straightway shut himself and his companions within the barriers of the camp, which he had fortified with wagons. A frail defence indeed; yet there they sought refuge for their lives, whom but a little while before no walls of earth could withstand.

  Jord. Get. 40 (210)

  Catalaunian Plain 3 Stage 2

  When Attila fled the field his army, including his allies, also seem to have lost heart. As the sun set what was left of the Huns and their allies attempted to retire to their camp and await the dawn. Others wandered lost in the darkness. Many of these men were killed, and no doubt large numbers of them forgot their alliance to Attila and fled the field and attempted to make their way back to their homes – especially the Franks. Yet Attila’s decision to postpone the battle now paid dividends. In the darkness, confusion quickly spread:

  But Thorismud, the son of King Theoderic, who with Aetius had seized the hill and repulsed the enemy from the higher ground, came unwittingly to the wagons of the enemy in the darkness of night, thinking he had reached his own lines. As he was fighting bravely, someone wounded him in the head and dragged him from his horse. Then he was rescued by the watchful care of his followers and withdrew from the fierce conflict. Aetius also became separated from his men in the confusion of night and wandered about in the midst of the enemy. Fearing disaster had happened, he went about in search of the Goths. At last he reached the camp of his allies and passed the remainder of the night in the protection of their shields.

  Jord. Get. 40 (211–212)

  Catalaunian Plain 4 Stage 3

  With a high level of confusion, and expecting the worst, the allies awaited the dawn, with Thorismund receiving treatment for his head wound. Much to their surprise:

  At dawn on the following day, when the Romans saw the fields were piled high with bodies and that the Huns did not venture forth, they thought the victory was theirs, but knew that Attila would not flee from the battle unless overwhelmed by a great disaster. Yet he did nothing cowardly, like one that is overcome, but with clash of arms sounded the trumpets and threatened an attack. He was like a lion pierced by hunting spears, who paces to and fro before the mouth of his den and dares not spring, but ceases not to terrify the neighbourhood by his roaring. Even so this warlike king at
bay terrified his conquerors. (213) Therefore the Goths and Romans assembled and considered what to do with the vanquished Attila. They determined to wear him out by a siege, because he had no supply of provisions and was hindered from approaching by a shower of arrows from the bowmen placed within the confines of the Roman camp. But it was said that the king remained supremely brave even in this extremity and had heaped up a funeral pyre of horse trappings, so that if the enemy should attack him, he was determined to cast himself into the flames, that none might have the joy of wounding him and that the lord of so many races might not fall into the hands of his foes.

  Jord. Get. 40 (212–213)

  Determined to capture or kill Attila, the victorious allies now deployed troops to contain the Huns, but at the same time began the task of dealing with the dead and wounded on the battlefield. Foremost in their minds was the absence of Theoderic:

  Now during these delays in the siege, the Visigoths sought their king and the king’s sons their father, wondering at his absence when success had been attained. When, after a long search, they found him where the dead lay thickest, as happens with brave men, they honoured him with songs and bore him away in the sight of the enemy.

  Jord. Get. 40 (214)

  Aetius and the Goths

  On the day following the battle the Huns remained in their camp. Once the Visigoths had recovered Theoderic’s body, the allies needed to decide what to do next:

  Thorismund was eager to take vengeance for his father’s death on the remaining Huns, being moved to this both by the pain of bereavement and the impulse of that valour for which he was noted. Yet he consulted with the Patrician Aetius (for he was an older man and of more mature wisdom) with regard to what he ought to do next. But Aetius feared that if the Huns were totally destroyed by the Goths, the Roman Empire would be overwhelmed, and urgently advised him to return to his own dominions to take up the rule which his father had left. Otherwise his brothers might seize their father’s possessions and obtain the power over the Visigoths. In this case Thorismund would have to fight fiercely and, what is worse, disastrously with his own countrymen. Thorismud accepted the advice without perceiving its double meaning, but followed it with an eye toward his own advantage. So he left the Huns and returned to Gaul. Thus while human frailty rushes into suspicion, it often loses an opportunity of doing great things.

  Jord. Get. 41 (215–217)

  This passage is echoed by Gregory of Tours, who similarly claims that Aetius told Thorismund that he should return home as otherwise he ‘would be cheated out of his father’s kingdom’. Interestingly, Gregory also notes that Aetius gave the same advice to his foster-son, the young son of the deceased Frankish king, who had also fought at the battle.20 Gregory then goes on to say that the reason for the advice was to enable Aetius to collect the booty from the battlefield before returning to Italy.21

  Modern historians have tended to question Aetius’ motives in allowing the Huns to escape. However, this overlooks the military realities of the time. The Franks had been, in effect, fighting a civil war at the battle. It was no doubt possible for the victor, Aetius’ foster-son, to delay and help in the assault on Attila’s camp. Yet the outcome was still in doubt. The Huns were clearly prepared to defend themselves to the last and in their defence there was a distinct possibility that the Frankish leader would be killed, as had already happened to Theoderic. This would lose Aetius a valuable ally.

  The same can be said of Thorismund. Thorismund had five brothers: (another) Theoderic, Euric, Frederic, Retemer and Himnerith.22 Aetius’ chief negotiator with the Goths, Avitus, would have told him that Thorismund was probably the weakest and the most inclined to work alongside the Romans rather than against them. Furthermore, Aetius and Thorismund had just fought together and defeated one of the greatest enemies of the Romans, Attila. Relying on his new-forged friendship and support, Aetius chose to advise the new king to return home and ensure that his brothers did not claim the throne in his absence. Four of them had remained in Toulouse and so were in a position to depose him quickly once news of their father’s death arrived, unless he took affirmative action.

  Aetius no doubt concluded that the defeat had seriously weakened Attila’s position. The Huns relied on fear and their reputation as invincible warriors to cow their subjects into submission. The defeat to Aetius was a major blow to Attila’s prestige. It was reasonable to expect that any subsequent invasion of Gaul by Attila would be met by a renewed alliance of the Romans, Visigoths and Franks. Furthermore, Attila’s losses meant that his own army would be weaker, especially as many of his allies had doubtless retired in the night and were now separated from the Huns, and even possibly on their way home. Aetius might also have expected that at least some of Attila’s subjects would be unwilling to support a second invasion of Gaul.

  A further factor in the equation is that Attila was the nephew of Aetius’ friends Rua and Ochtar. Although they were now dead, Aetius may have been hoping that the defeat would spur Attila into accepting a similar role as ‘friend’ of Aetius, rather than as an enemy, and so allow Rome and the Huns to resume their former partnership. To defeat heavily Attila and the Huns now could result in Attila being unwilling to allow Huns under his control to serve the Romans as foederati or bucellarii in the future. Although this would have been a distant hope, Aetius may have still harboured it. Furthermore, his own armies had suffered heavy losses, and the West’s desperation for manpower resulted in an unwillingness to take risks and heavy losses when the same result – the retreat of Attila – could be obtained by peaceful means.

  On the other hand, all of this would be lost if either Attila was able to repulse an attack on his camp or if either or both of Aetius’ allies were to die in the attempt: after all, Theoderic had already died and Thorismund had only just avoided a similar fate. Assessing his options in the cold light of day, Aetius came to the conclusion that keeping his new-found allies alive and well in Gaul would help most by ensuring continuing peace in the area, as well as deterring Attila from further attacks by the threat of a renewal of the alliance. After his deliberations, Aetius chose to disband the army and send them all home. The Visigoths under their new king returned to Toulouse, where ‘although the throng of his brothers and brave companions were still rejoicing over the victory he yet began to rule so mildly that no one strove with him for the succession to the kingdom’.23 In a like manner, the Franks and the other allies journeyed north to their own homelands.

  When the allies withdrew and dispersed, Attila was at first fearful of a trick and thought that they would attack as he left his camp. As a result, he waited in his camp for a long time.24 When he was certain that he was safe, he gathered the remnants of his forces and began the long march home. His thoughts would have been busy with plans both to negate the negative political ramifications of his loss and to have his revenge on Aetius, the only man who had ever defeated him in battle.

  Aftermath

  The Romans accepted that they had only won the battle with the help of the Goths, a fact acknowledged by the Roman chroniclers.25 The value of the Gothic alliance is also stressed by Sidonius in his poem in praise of Avitus, the man who made the alliance possible, although this may also have been an attempt by Sidonius to ingratiate himself with his new overlords, the Goths.26

  The writings of the chroniclers and Sidonius clearly emphasize that the battle was seen as important shortly after it had occurred, but it is possible that at the time the battle was seen as just yet another barbarian raid. For example, Prosper, who was hostile to Aetius, ignores the battle, but even he could not have overlooked it if it had been instantly recognized as one of the most important events of the fifth century.27

  Yet in retrospect many historians have seen this battle as one of the pivotal incidents that shaped modern Europe. It has been suggested that had Attila won a new, non-Christian empire would have come into existence between the Atlantic and the Black Sea.28 Yet early in the twentieth century doubts began to be rai
sed about this concept. The main objection must remain that Attila’s empire only existed while he was alive. Upon his death it fragmented. Even had he conquered Gaul, upon his death his sons would still have been unable to maintain the empire and it would have quickly fallen apart.29 Gaul might have been damaged and the specific history of France changed, but Christianity would have been maintained and the impact of the Huns been only fleeting.

  Gaul

  When Attila withdrew from Gaul he left behind a group of provinces that had been devastated by his invasion. The inhabitants were left in a perilous condition, but, in spite of expectations, in this difficult time the officials appear to have rallied to the support of the provincials, rather than attempting to take advantage of the situation. Ferreolus, the praefectus praetorio Galliarum, immediately petitioned the emperor for tax remissions, whilst Avitus also supplied aid to the inhabitants.30 The shock of the attack would take time to pass. At around the same time as the officials arrived from Ferreolus asking for tax remissions in Gaul, Valentinian was continuing to help those Africans who were still suffering from their extended exile.31

  Furthermore, it is possible that the invasion of Gaul, despite disrupting production and damaging property, may not have been as harmful as usually accepted. Although towns were originally the centre of productive and economic forces, these functions had gradually passed to more rural areas. Moreover, in time of war it has been suggested that the population of the towns, knowing that they were likely to be the focus of an attack, would leave and take refuge in the surrounding countryside.32 As a result, although the capture of a town was obviously a dreadful occurrence, a large proportion of the population would have survived unharmed, and the main locations for economic re-growth may have been at least relatively untouched. This may help to explain the relatively fast rebirth of towns that in theory should have been devastated and beyond recovery if the sources are followed literally.