The Huns..Scourge of God or Gift from God?

Much has been made of the Hun movement into Europe. There were basically two thrusts, one in 370's and another early 400's. They have gone down in history as the reason for the eventual collapse of the Roman Empire and the start of the so called 'Dark Ages'. They are seen by most as a ruthless conquering horde but was this really the case?

There can be no doubt that they did indeed instigate a migration of peoples into areas of the Roman Empire, however, their defeat and subjugation of the Goths arguably slowed down the decline in Roman authority.
There had been a steady southern flow of migrating Germanic tribes from the Baltic area and they would innevitably have come into conflict with the Romans, perhaps sooner rather than later. A timely arrival of a new and terrifying force from the East added a new dimension and one which the Romans took great advantage of.

If we study the Huns in a little more depth we find that far from being a mighty force on the move, they were in fact less numerous, small bands of nomadic herdsmen, carving out an existence on the harsh steppes. The steppe does seem to have the abilty to produce very tough warriors and in this respect the Huns were no different. Their society was such that predation of sedentary nations was a necessity if they were to be anything other than mere herdsmen. They had nothing to trade.

The Goths and Gepids became subjects who provided for their new masters and the Huns carried out their raids upon the Romans. A vast amount of tribute was paid to passify them but when we consider that gold was required in order to purchase, who was getting the best deal? The Romans made great use of Hun mercenary troops to crush any attacks on their borders and the Huns could not afford to defeat the Romans because without them, they would lose the means to their own existence.

There is evidence also that some Hun tribes were happier with their 'Romanised' lifestyle and chose not to join the confederacy that Attila created. The whole period of time is fascinating and it sometimes sounds like a huge board game that has been upturned and the pieces put back in no apparent order. Gothic and Vandal generals in Roman armies, Huns in Roman armies Goths,Gepids and even Romans in Hun armies. Ally today enemy tomorrow, it all sounds so confusing but for a time, at least, the Huns certainly seemed to do as much for the plight of the Roman Empire as they did for that of their own

........Orda

Indeed Huns provided many benefits for the Romans when they first arrived. You are right on many points Orda, but keep in mind that Attila was not even born until 406 and did not take command until 433. It was he that gave the Romans some of their worst headaches.

I guess you could say this gift from God went sour.

...they were in fact less numerous...
That's true. They were less numerous numerically (the reduduncy is delicious~D). But don't forget they were a nation of warriors. Every man had to and learned to fight at an early age. That would lessen the inferiority of their numbers because they were so trained and so focused to warfare.

The Roman Empire didn't fall because of the Hunnic invasion per se. Remember the Huns never touched Rome itself. The only raided the northern towns of Italy.
The Western Roman Empire fell because of it's own bad leadership and reliance on northern barbarian tribes through ransom. That's not how the old Roman Empire acted, not that often anyways.

The Huns were also not that great at conventional combat. They liked to raid and destroy cities and that's how they made their "dough". ~D
They came out of nowhere, without calling ahead first :furious3: , and killed off the town militias with easy within the cities.
In a normal battle though they were proved a little weak, as the story of the Catalonian Fields attests. They were almost destroyed and they had Theodoric with them as well(who was tragically killed).

Choked by a nose bleed. What kind of way to die is that?!?!? ~:confused:

The huns ? just Huns

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

In a normal battle though they were proved a little weak, as the story of the Catalonian Fields attests. They were almost destroyed and they had Theodoric with them as well(who was tragically killed)

---

No I am afraid you are slightly confused here. Theoderic was not fighting alongside Attila, he was fighting with Aetius, his enemy for years. Aetius had sent Avitus to persuade Theoderic to leave his kingdom and confront the Huns alongside his own coalition army. They confronted the Huns at Orleans having force marched to the city upon learning that the Alans had decided to capitulate.
The Catalaunian battle was, in itself, another example of strange allegiance. Aetius planned to fight his lifelong friend whilst allied with the man he had spent his life fighting.

In normal battle the Huns had beaten Roman and Germanic armies, convincingly. They were by no means weak.

For many years the Romans had looked to Hun mercenaries to suppress the Visigoths, Bagaudae and Burgundians. The Ripuarian Franks and also some Saxons had also joined Aetius in his bid to stop Attila.

The fact still remains that even as late as Rua, the Huns were a major factor in the preservation of the Roman Empire. As late as 437, Aetius had convinced the Huns to crush the Burgundians. A further factor in the Catalaunian conflict was the devious behaviour of Geiseric of the Vandals who urged Attila to attack the Visigoth Kingdom, promising support. The Vandals were not true to their word and there was no Vandal intervention.

Both Constantinople ( previously ) and Rome in 452, were there for the taking but what purpose was there in removing the source of wealth that their own existence relied upon?

xemitg pointed out the headache created by Attila but his reign of terror was short lived in an albeit brief spell in history. I still think the Huns offered 'Rome' far more than they took

...........Orda

its true that the romans did rely on th ransoms and conquest from the north but the problem for the romans was the shift in military straragime. roman axilias were people from dominated and allied regions, but when those areas became enemies the axilia went back to fight for there home but they brought back all the knoledge they recieved in rome. order, organization, steel, formations, and so barbarians started to use roman tactics and technology. there are accounts of certain vandals using a simple testudo.

the romans have been losing money, no tribute, squandering, and goverment corruption. the army suffered, where once was solid steel strips there was leather, where there was chainmail there is now shingled iron armor, where once was the stately roman helm is a simple,less effective, helm. the roman army had less recruits and for all intensive purposes was a horde, no longer the legions of old. the army was the skeleton of rome, builders, guards, soldiers. and as that stopped the roman world came undone.

the romans could no longer effectivly stand against the huns who would in another time be crushed. so they tried to gain help from the huns but attila saw the value of beating a decrepid old man.

so the fall of rome was due to the barberization of the men which left them open to all sorts of attacks.so the battle of Chalons was a clash of two barbarian forces, rather than orderly romans they were like barbarians.

a little off track but whatever.

1. How many Huns there were ?
2. What became of them after 453 ?
3. Where are their descendands ?

=caesar44
1. How many Huns there were ?
Not sure, I haven't read about hem in a long time. I think 200,000 wouldn't be far from the fact.

2. What became of them after 453 ?
They disbanded when Atilla died. Same things that hapened to the mongols

3. Where are their descendands ?
Hungary ~;)

Careful about Hungary. It's a mixing of numerous peoples, including many nomads, including the Huns. Hungary was sort of the place where most the weaker tribes ended up after being displaced by stronger tribes. The Huns, Avars, Magyars were all pushed west by stronger tribes, which is how they evauntaully ended up in Hungary.

And about disbanding, it wasn't so much as disbanding as splitting up. One group followed on leader, another another. They didn't just go home to farm, which they didn't have. And many went to serve the Eastern Roman Empire, which influenced the Byzantines cavalry.

And the Huns, at least at Attilla's time, I think adopted too much settled styles, which was their failing I believe. Too much infantry, not enough nomadic horsemen.

This is problematic

200,000 , that is some 50,000 untrained soldiers who managed to smash the romans ???????????? (I know , not to finished them)

Um, Huns weren't untrained. They were sharpenned by the steppe, and were far better warriors than Romans. They were also disciplened, as you have to be to execute complicated horse archery manuevers.
And 200,000 seems way to big, especially since they were based in Hungary, which has a smaller steppe than say Mongolia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Um, Huns weren't untrained. They were sharpenned by the steppe, and were far better warriors than Romans. They were also disciplened, as you have to be to execute complicated horse archery manuevers.
And 200,000 seems way to big, especially since they were based in Hungary, which has a smaller steppe than say Mongolia.

---

"were far better warriors than Romans..." , hei , we are talking about the romans who ruled the world some 600 years ? I let it that you referred to 450' ce romans ha ?

I'm talking about Romans of all ages. Romans were trained. Steppe warriors were made. If they survived the steppe, they had to be excellent archers and riders. You can't train someone up to the level of superiority that comes from harsh enviornments.
Let me put it this way: the steppe style of warfare existed for over a millenium, and through out the ages beat armies of all different types. Roman style of warfare died out within a few hundred years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

3. Where are their descendands ?
Hungary ~;)

---

That's a western misconception... they saw the Magyars, who arrived on the scene about four to five centuries after the Huns arrived, as Huns. Sure, the Huns maybe wintered in Hungary, but no more. There's a reason why the Hungarians call themselves Magyars and speak a Finno-Ugrian language.



~Wiz

=Steppe Merc
Careful about Hungary. It's a mixing of numerous peoples, including many nomads, including the Huns.
At the height of their power the Huns absorbed a number of different racial strains in their armies as well. They assimilated the characteristics of the populations of their environment, so that in Europe they gradually lost their distinct Asian character. The Huns from the beggining of their invasion were mixed, but still powerful because of their strong traditions in horsemanship.


And about disbanding, it wasn't so much as disbanding as splitting up. One group followed on leader, another another. They didn't just go home to farm, which they didn't have. And many went to serve the Eastern Roman Empire, which influenced the Byzantines cavalry.
They did disband, there were no more hunnic hordes as such. Some went with the Romans and some joined germanic tribes to keep attacking Western Empire. This is different from the mongols in that the mongols formed khanates for each of the sections of the Empire and survived for some time. This is not true for the Huns. Even the ones in the Hungarian plain were overtaken by other more superior invaders from the east.

Never understood the enthusiasm about the steppe warriors
The romans were smashing everything for centuries , and you are saying that they were not , even , a good warriors ? the latins army formations surpassed any "barbaric" army , the determination , the discipline , the strength etc'
ever heard about a "barbaric" empire that stood more then few years until the golden horde ?
Nations strength should not be measured by the physical ability of its warriors but by the overall abilities of them

True, but speak not highly of the late Romans. They let Germanic and Turkic peoples do their dirty work. The Romans brought their own undoing upon themselves -- the Germanic peoples simply profited.



~Wiz

You seem to be confusing political strength with military strength, Caesar. Certainly, Atilla's horde was held together under his personality, and so lacked the internal strength to avoid splintering on his death, with no enshrined law of succession, and little in the way of administration or national/racial unity, it stood no chance.

The strength of steppe nomads came from the fact that virtually every male was a warrior, trained in the use of a bow and of tending to his horse. It wasn't that the Romans were bad warriors (even in the Empire's death throes, they still won victories), but that often couldn't bring the more mobile Huns to battle, and they were able to ravage the countryside.

Funnily enough, the title of this thread reminded me of another piece of history where maybe the Huns were a gift from God, and the founder of ecclesiastical supremacy in the middle-ages. After his defeat at Châlons, Atilla ravaged Lombardy in 452 and settled on the Mincio. Supposedly, an embassy lead by Pope Leo awed him into submission, and he did not march on the rest of Italy. In reality, it is unlikely the pagan Hun would care for the church, and he withdrew because of a famine the previous year in Italy, reducing its worth. However, his death shortly afterwards was seen by many as proof of papal authority, and as a miracle of God smiting His enemies, leading to the role of Pope as spiritual authorty and protector in the medieval period. It may be that this meeting was a cornerstone of the authority of the Church for the next 1000 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

True, but speak not highly of the late Romans. They let Germanic and Turkic peoples do their dirty work. The Romans brought their own undoing upon themselves -- the Germanic peoples simply profited.



~Wiz

---

Agreed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KingOfTheIsles

You seem to be confusing political strength with military strength, Caesar. Certainly, Atilla's horde was held together under his personality, and so lacked the internal strength to avoid splintering on his death, with no enshrined law of succession, and little in the way of administration or national/racial unity, it stood no chance.

The strength of steppe nomads came from the fact that virtually every male was a warrior, trained in the use of a bow and of tending to his horse. It wasn't that the Romans were bad warriors (even in the Empire's death throes, they still won victories), but that often couldn't bring the more mobile Huns to battle, and they were able to ravage the countryside.

Funnily enough, the title of this thread reminded me of another piece of history where maybe the Huns were a gift from God, and the founder of ecclesiastical supremacy in the middle-ages. After his defeat at Châlons, Atilla ravaged Lombardy in 452 and settled on the Mincio. Supposedly, an embassy lead by Pope Leo awed him into submission, and he did not march on the rest of Italy. In reality, it is unlikely the pagan Hun would care for the church, and he withdrew because of a famine the previous year in Italy, reducing its worth. However, his death shortly afterwards was seen by many as proof of papal authority, and as a miracle of God smiting His enemies, leading to the role of Pope as spiritual authorty and protector in the medieval period. It may be that this meeting was a cornerstone of the authority of the Church for the next 1000 years.

---

Again , the romans/latins were fighting for centuries against "barbaric" nations - the Volscians , the Aequians , the Sabines , the Samnites , the Celtics , the Germanians , the Britons , the Belgae , the Celtibreians , the Tracks , the Sarmatians and on and on , they took them by sheer strength although outnumbered

About Pope Leo - Agreed , he was lucky

Sarmatians were the only nomads that the Romans ever defeated, as Atilla's Huns probably weren't true nomads at that point. And they were never conquered. Sassanids and Parthians are close to nomads, but they cared to much for the land that the Romans were taking. They also never were conquered by Romans, despite the Romans best attempts.
Civilized armies couldn't fight against steppe warriors on their own ground, because they wouldn't be able to find them. And this was Atilla's undoing: he fought the Romans, trying to use western tactics.
And it was hardly sheer strength. The best thing that Romans were good at were politics: playing one side of a civil war off of another. Their conquests took hundreds of years, and most was done with words rather than strength of arms.

You know , "Caesar" and "Steppe" ..... there is no chance for us to agree on this subject ~:cheers:

Heh, good point. :bow:

........But consider this...
There is mention here of Hun armies and Roman armies. Who exactly made up these armies?
The Roman armies were far from Roman and likewise, Attila's army was far from Hunnic. The Romans made extensive use of Hun mercenaries. For many years they carried out the work that Rome was not capable of, their ability was very convenient to an Empire full of plotting and intrigue.

As to the demise and susequent fortune of the Huns, there are many theories and they would require another thread to cover them all.

.....Orda

Were there any truly nomadic Huns at the time of Attila? I've read that most of his armies were Germanics, and his army was heavily infantry based.

There was still a Hunnic cavalry core but mainly due to circumstances ( that you have touched upon already..ie lack of grazing ) Attila's campaigns and army were almost more Germanic than Hun

......Orda

Besides that, take into account that the Ostrogoths were heavily influenced by steppe peoples and the Huns, in the sense that they used far more cavalry than their cousins the Visigoths, or the Franks or Burgundians etc etc. The same goes for the Gepids and Lombards.



~Wiz

All I know is that when Attila cam to Europe, he realized there weren't many open plains to support his great cavalry, so they were really forced to fight dismounted. The all-out battle against the romans wasn't fought with Hunnic tactics, but with western. That's because they had many Germanic infantry.
Very few armies could at that time withstand the hit and run tactic. Especially when the enemy has composite bows.

Let's remember here that although there were others, the Huns were one of the main reasons for the Migrations - they pushed other tribes before them, who pushed other tribes before them, who... until the point where the displaced tribes started spilling over the increasingly porous Roman border, an activity greatly helped by the fact the Empire was suffering crisis galore at the time (adminstrational trouble, economic difficulties, demographic and hence tax- and military-base collapse thanks to a slew of new, virulent plagues appearing on the scene, struggles for the throne...). Plus I've heard there was a general "low point" in stability and living quality in realms all over the world, apparently due to climate conjecturals causing a temporary harshening of the weather and hence famine and instability (which would also have been part of the reason the Germans, Huns and others were so keen on moving to new pastures).

And after the first wave of migrating barbarians who fought or negotiated themselves over the border and settled on Roman territory, usually in some sort of agreement with the local Imperial representatives, there soon came another and then another and... None of which contributed to the overall health of the already deeply troubled Empire. It might have survived its other problems, but the Migrations on top of them were a bit much. They managed to buy some time by setting the barbarians against each other (if nothing else the newly arrived tribes weren't too keen on moving on when the next ones came over), but...