Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The weakness of the Huns...or not?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The weakness of the Huns...or not?

    The Huns were - and still are - regarded as a terrible force that came as an avalanche from the East and blew down everything and everybody in their wake at the end of the Roman Empire.
    Alot is written of the Hun's horsemanship, their cruelty and especially their cavalry archers...but what was their weakness?

    If confronted by them on the field of battle - was it automatically over for you?



    Kind regards,
    Stratego
    Death is nothing, but to live defeated and inglorious is to die daily.- Napoleon

    It is better to fail in originality than to succeed in imitation.- Herman Melville

    Aut viam inveniam aut faciam

    BORG

  • #2
    Originally posted by Stratego View Post
    The Huns were - and still are - regarded as a terrible force that came as an avalanche from the East and blew down everything and everybody in their wake at the end of the Roman Empire.
    Alot is written of the Hun's horsemanship, their cruelty and especially their cavalry archers...but what was their weakness?

    If confronted by them on the field of battle - was it automatically over for you?



    Kind regards,
    Stratego
    Aeitus beat them at Chalons.


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batt...launian_Plains

    And they were finished off by rebellions amongst their subject tribes.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Nedao
    Last edited by Surrey; 07 Feb 16, 14:58.
    "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

    Comment


    • #3
      Yes, but how did Aetius beat them? Just being lucky? By capturing the hill at Chalons?
      I read somewhere that although the Huns had alot of cavalry with horsearchers, the horses were small (ponies) and not able to move fast for a long duration of time. They got tired quickly...



      Kind regards,
      Stratego
      Death is nothing, but to live defeated and inglorious is to die daily.- Napoleon

      It is better to fail in originality than to succeed in imitation.- Herman Melville

      Aut viam inveniam aut faciam

      BORG

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Stratego View Post
        Yes, but how did Aetius beat them? Just being lucky? By capturing the hill at Chalons?
        I read somewhere that although the Huns had alot of cavalry with horsearchers, the horses were small (ponies) and not able to move fast for a long duration of time. They got tired quickly...



        Kind regards,
        Stratego
        For then, I think, must have occurred a most remarkable spectacle, where one might see the Goths fighting with pikes, the Gepidae raging with the sword, the Rugi breaking off the spears in their own wounds, the Suavi fighting on foot, the Huns with bows, the Alani drawing up a battle-line of heavy-armed and the Heruli of light-armed warriors
        Part 261 at http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/iordanes1.html

        Jordanes account of the 'Huns' suggests why it was powerful. Just like Alexander the Great's army it was a combined arms force. Goth spears, Rugi beserks etc etc, it appears to be a balanced army, and not simply a warband of horse archers.

        However, complicated armies need to be handled with care. One wrong placement of a unit and the whole battle line could crumble.
        How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
        Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

        Comment


        • #5
          Attila was not simply a blood thirsty barbarian. There is an account of a dinner at Attila's court written by two diplomats from Rome. It is published in the anthology Eye Witness to History. The dinner seems to have been quite a civilised affair with diplomats from a number of nations (including the Eastern Roman Empire) present. Attila seems to have introduced a number of innovations including dining seated at pre allocated tables (rather than reclining on couches) and those two great scourges of modern life the after dinner speaker and the stand up comedian (described as a man who stood up and told lots of very funny lies). He does seem to have eschewed rubberised chickens though.
          Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
          Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Stratego View Post
            Yes, but how did Aetius beat them? Just being lucky? By capturing the hill at Chalons?
            I read somewhere that although the Huns had alot of cavalry with horsearchers, the horses were small (ponies) and not able to move fast for a long duration of time. They got tired quickly...



            Kind regards,
            Stratego
            Yes... fast-moving horse-archers. They also incorporated many other troops.

            They did not want to stay in the areas conquered and depended on crossing major rivers when they were frozen over iirc.
            SPORTS FREAK/ PANZERBLITZ COMMANDER/ CC2 COMMANDER

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Stratego View Post
              The Huns were - and still are - regarded as a terrible force that came as an avalanche from the East and blew down everything and everybody in their wake at the end of the Roman Empire.
              Alot is written of the Hun's horsemanship, their cruelty and especially their cavalry archers...but what was their weakness?

              If confronted by them on the field of battle - was it automatically over for you?



              Kind regards,
              Stratego
              Nothing but a bunch of horse humping marauders, robbers, rapists and murderers who contributed nothing to civilization; sums it up neatly!!!

              The earliest systematic description of the Huns is that given by the historian Ammianus Marcellinus, writing c. 395. They were apparently primitive pastoralists who knew nothing of agriculture. They had no settled homes and no kings; each group was led by primates, as Ammianus called them. Whether or not they had a single overall leader in the 4th century is still a matter of dispute.
              http://www.britannica.com/topic/Hun-people
              Give me a fast ship and the wind at my back for I intend to sail in harms way! (John Paul Jones)

              Initiated Chief Petty Officer
              Hard core! Old School! Deal with it!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Bass_Man86 View Post
                Nothing but a bunch of horse humping marauders, robbers, rapists and murderers who contributed nothing to civilization; sums it up neatly!!!



                http://www.britannica.com/topic/Hun-people
                The problem with that opinion is that in ancient times, that could be said true of the civilised armies as well, such as Rome or Macedon.

                One thing which is true is that Attila must have had both charisma and intellect to do what he did.

                I remember a couple of tales about him myself. One was that he carried the so called Sword of Mars, a nondescript weapon, apparently carried by GJC as well. Also, that his guests had the best plating/cutlery available, while he ate off a wooden platter with base knife and spoon. I suspect if he had an abacus, those around him would have gems as beads while he had mere wood. Those that knew would realise the wood was probably worth more than gems. He understood less could mean more.

                He understood psychology and brought tribes that normally hated each other under one banner. I personally believe that his army was exceptional because of its diversity, not because it was merely a warband of horse archers.
                How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                Comment


                • #9
                  one of their weakness lies in the horses. why they retreated from Italy when they had the victory? according John Keegan in a History of warfare, Italy had not enough pastures to feed their horses, so they retreated to Dacia.

                  __________________________________________________ __
                  Don't fight a battle if you don't gain anything by winning.
                  Erwin Rommel

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                    The problem with that opinion is that in ancient times, that could be said true of the civilised armies as well, such as Rome or Macedon.

                    One thing which is true is that Attila must have had both charisma and intellect to do what he did.

                    I remember a couple of tales about him myself. One was that he carried the so called Sword of Mars, a nondescript weapon, apparently carried by GJC as well. Also, that his guests had the best plating/cutlery available, while he ate off a wooden platter with base knife and spoon. I suspect if he had an abacus, those around him would have gems as beads while he had mere wood. Those that knew would realise the wood was probably worth more than gems. He understood less could mean more.

                    He understood psychology and brought tribes that normally hated each other under one banner. I personally believe that his army was exceptional because of its diversity, not because it was merely a warband of horse archers.
                    The eye witness account of the Roman diplomats I referred to bears out the wooden platter story. He also ate very simple food
                    Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
                    Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                      The problem with that opinion is that in ancient times, that could be said true of the civilised armies as well, such as Rome or Macedon.

                      One thing which is true is that Attila must have had both charisma and intellect to do what he did.

                      I remember a couple of tales about him myself. One was that he carried the so called Sword of Mars, a nondescript weapon, apparently carried by GJC as well. Also, that his guests had the best plating/cutlery available, while he ate off a wooden platter with base knife and spoon. I suspect if he had an abacus, those around him would have gems as beads while he had mere wood. Those that knew would realise the wood was probably worth more than gems. He understood less could mean more.

                      He understood psychology and brought tribes that normally hated each other under one banner. I personally believe that his army was exceptional because of its diversity, not because it was merely a warband of horse archers.
                      Respectfully Nick, it is not my opinion that the Huns fell off the historical map, and not because they were destroyed. Attila was the glue that held them together, and once he was gone the Huns disappeared as well. As I said, the Huns contributed nothing to civilization while Western civilization is quite literally built upon the foundation laid by the Romans and the Greeks.
                      Give me a fast ship and the wind at my back for I intend to sail in harms way! (John Paul Jones)

                      Initiated Chief Petty Officer
                      Hard core! Old School! Deal with it!

                      Comment

                      Latest Topics

                      Collapse

                      Working...
                      X