Roman barbarians?

[master of the puppets]

i saw this one movie this weekend which was in my opinion an idiotic portrayal of attila the hun and the war with the romans. the thing that truly ticked me off was the battle of chalons in the end of the movie. it showed the romans in full legion regilia, helms, mail, shield, the perfect picture of a legionair. but many have reason to believe that the legionair of the time was not that perfect picture.
Cuts in military costs, lack of income, corruption, had all taken its toll on the army. most legionairs had extremely downgraded weapons and armor, some with only mail. altogether the organization that once made the legion great was in decay.
So it is my belief that the romans could not have been the rich imperial force of old but rather an almost barbarian army, with many hired auxilia and worse technologies.
I merely wish to know the opinions of the rest of you. was Chalons truly a battle of barbarians and the civilized world or a clash of barbaric armies?

[lars573]

That depends on your perspective I guess. By the time the Romans faced down the Huns the legions had degraded yes, they were no longer up to the standards of Marius, Caesar, or Augustus. But were they worthless barbarian warbands? IMO no, they weren't. They still would have worn helmets (of a different design than the Marian/early imperial gallic) but helmets no the less. They would have worn mail, maybe chain, but more probably what we would call scale mail (as it's much cheaper to manufacture). The gladius had been replaced with the spatha long sword. The tower square rounded tower shields of an Agustine legion were gone replaced by a flat oval shield (more barberous you might say). The pila were gone as well. Replaced with either darts (short javelins) or a real spear. Which could still be thrown, but offered the legionary more defense verses cavalry. Since at the time heavy cavalry was becoming more prevalent.

[Brutus]

Don't forget that most of the Roman army at Chalons was made up of 'real Barbarians', like Theodoric's Visigoths and several other Germanic tribes like the Franks who fought as allies to the Romans... It has even been disputed that the supreme Roman commander, Aetius, wasn't even present at the battle. Also, probably many of the 'Roman' soldiers would have been either German mercenaries or impoverished 'limitanei' or something, with only a small elite force armed in proper Roman ways.

[Orda Khan]

Yes I saw that film. It also showed Eastern Emperor Theodosius II celebrating the death of Attila, when in fact Marcian was now Emperor. Did you notice also that the battle of Chalons was fought primarily on foot? A pity the computer generated graphics of 'Alexander' were not used in this film, the battle scenes were not the best.
The two armies were very similar in composition but Aetius did have a small contingent of Romans. It was due to the lack of manpower that he sent Avitus to convince Theoderic to join the alliance against Attila. This is a very strange fact when one considers that Aetius had spent the past 20 years fighting the Visigoths with an army consisting almost entirely of Huns. There were also Franks on either side, the followers of two brothers contesting the leadership of their people. The Alan garrison from Orleans was added to their strength which also included some Saxons, Burgundians and Armorican Bagaudae. Attila led a force of Huns, Ostrogoths, Gepids and some Franks that had been forced into sevice after they were defeated early in Attila's campaign.
The actual number of Romans present appears to have been so small that this can hardly be considered as a Roman v Hun battle. On the sidelines, a devious Geiseric of the Vandals did nothing but watch. He had been fully in support of Attila's campaign against the Visigoth Kingdom of Toulouse, promising troops yet actually doing nothing. It served his purpose for the Huns to deal with his old foes the Visigoths but it seems he preferred to keep his strength for his future plans.
This is one battle and period of time where I would dearly love to have a time machine in order to find the answers to so many questions.
It does appear to be the case though, that the movies only know one way to depict the Romans. But there again, if they had appeared in spangenhelm and mail, with round shields I can just imagine the comments from the movie goers

.....Orda

[The Stranger]

the only defeat of attilla. didnt that movie also stated that attilla killed his brother cuz he had stolen his wife, or is that a other movie. non the less that is not true

[Gemenii XIII]

I also saw that movie. highly innacurate. Especially because the Huns were characterized as caucasians, and everyone knows that the Huns looked oriental. However, whether or not the majority of Flavius Aetius's army was Roman or Barbarian is unknown. One can only theorize. We know that Aetius was aided by Theodoric and his visigoths. I believe that in those dying times the Romans didn't have the funds to organize and equip a fully Roman army like in the days of Marius, Trajan ect. Thus, mercennaries would have to have been present in the army. What we do know is that the battle of Chalon was a "disaster" on both sides. It was one of the bloodiest battles ever fought in history. Attila lost 3/4 of his army and so did Aetius and Aetius returned to Rome with a Phyric victory. However, maybe Aetius wanted this to happen. Maybe he recruited barbarian mercennaries in order to fight other barbarians. Such a tactic was not uncommon in those times and so that would explain why the number of casualties in that battle was so high. Because if he sent his barbarian mercennaries to their deaths he would have less barbarians to worry about. Therefore a clash between two Barbarian armies shouldn't be far from the truth (in my opinion).
______________
Patria Nostra Romania

[Gemenii XIII]

the only defeat of attilla. didnt that movie also stated that attilla killed his brother cuz he had stolen his wife, or is that a other movie. non the less that is not true

That is true. Attila killed his brother Bleda but not over a woman (that part isnt true). Initially Bleda tried to kill Attila in secret but failed and Attila killed him instead in a skirmish.
One thing that bugged me about that movie was the fact that Emperor Theodoseus of the Eastern Roman Empire was still alive after Attila died this is historically incorrect.

Another thing is why are the Huns depicted as caucaisan they were oriental

Finally,wasn't Attila supposed go into Italy and sack Rome, Padua, Milan after the battle of Chalons.

There are so many other historical mistakes in that movie (not to mention the weaponry and equipment of the Roman soldiers in that era) that it bothers me to type them all.