+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: Attila (2001 movie) historical accuracy (/showthread.php?tid=24169)
Attila (2001 movie) historical accuracy - Michael Kerr - 08-19-2014
Nathan Ross wrote:
Quote:Here are some other barbarians - Huns? Goths? They look pretty generic shaggy barbarians though. Not sure what that pagoda/greenhouse in the background is all about.
[attachment=10528]bathhouse2.jpg[/attachment]
I think the building you are referring to was supposed to be the Royal Pavillion/residence for Attila's wives. The building on the left of screen was the crude attempt by his workers at a Roman bath house and in this particular scene Attila was complaining to Orestes (the man alongside him who looked more like a warrior and in the movie was like his 2nd in command, he future father of the last Roman emperor, who I thought was a secretary or scribe) about the non-arrival of the marble tiles he wanted, which the Romans whether Eastern or Western, had promised but not delivered yet. In regards to the Hunnic encampments I thought they did a pretty reasonable job although they mixed up the tents a bit. In one encampment there were yurts, teepees and crude buildings making it look like what it was, a hastily improvised TV set but even going by Priscus the Huns could erect some pretty big buidings although of wood. But I agree with you that they fell short on the Roman side of things re costuming and everything had a 1st-2nd Century AD look about it :-)
Also did a grab of a defender on the walls of Orleans below who I assume is supposed to be an Alan warrior as they held the city during Attila's siege with a horned helmet so cheap costuming in that case. :-)
[attachment=10527]Alandefender.jpg[/attachment]
Powers Boothe was a quite believable Aetius but the rest of the casting left a bit to be desired. The scriptwriters also took a lot of liberties explaining the tense relationship between Aetius and Theodoric. In the movie they were both at one time married to the same woman, and a daughter was involved. The Heroes and Villains Attila (Rory McCann was a much more believable Attila than Gerard Butler. I like Butler as an actor but in 2001 he was probably a bit young and miscast in this particular movie. Both programs seemed to implicate Attila in the killing either in a leadership fight in the 2001 movie and straight out murder in the 2008 show, of Bleda yet there is no evidence that Attila murdered his brother and sources only mention that he succeeded him as Bleda being the eldest was the senior leader or king in a shared dual monarchy. Rumours yes but no proof. :???:
Regards
Michael Kerr
Attila (2001 movie) historical accuracy - Flavivs Aetivs - 08-19-2014
Orestes was a Secretary but was an important figure in Attila's court. Aetius sent him, and Orestes was probably one of Aetius' spies.
Attila (2001 movie) historical accuracy - AMELIANVS - 08-19-2014
Problem is that even Attila himself is shown solely fighting on foot.I would expect that they will show at least some part of his army fighting from horse andHunnic elite would certainly fight like that(or not?)at least at so important battle like Chalons.
Attila (2001 movie) historical accuracy - Michael Kerr - 08-19-2014
Although as you pointed out, the Hunnic elite would want to ride to battle on their horses I think that the mid 5th century Hunnic army based west of the Carpathians was different to the mid 4th century steppe cavalry army based north of the Black Sea as described by Ammianus.
By the time of Attila there is not much written evidence that the horseman dominated Attila’s army. We read how during the Peace of Margus negotiations with the Romans, Bleda and Attila negotiated with the Romans on horseback but there could be a twofold reason for this that traditionally Hunnic kings did so upholding years of steppe traditions. It also served to help humiliate the Roman negotiators who arrived by wagon for the negotiations. Priscus mentions how Attila organised horses for his party but also recounts how a while later one of Attila’s lieutenants demanded the return of the horses and this does not bring to mind massive herds of horses for Attila’s cavalry.
In regard to the scene in one of Nathan's earlier posts from the 2008 movie/documentary where Attila is leading the Scirii reinforcements on foot to assist a pinned down Edeco. I think the battle took place in a hot July by which time the grass would be yellow and dry. Normally with a steppe cavalry army if things are going badly you just ride off and regroup out of reach of the enemy army but Attila’s army encircled themselves in a camp which is not characteristic of a cavalry army. Besides the fact they wished to protect the spoils & loot in the encampment maybe after a long hard campaigning season combined with the failure to capture Orleans the Hunnic army resorted to eating their horses or it was natural attrition of mounts without access to replacements. Aetius probably counted on this to catch & fight Attila when his army was not at their peak which could explain the strange incident where Attila built a mound of empty saddles for himself and his wives to burn upon to avoid capture, plenty of saddles but no horses so while not saying cavalry did not play an important role in Attila’s army, for a number of reasons Attila was probably short of quality cavalry at Chalons.
Regards
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
Attila (2001 movie) historical accuracy - Flavivs Aetivs - 08-19-2014
I think Attila had a larger than average number of Cavalry, but the reason he probably had so many saddles at Chalons was because frankly horses are bigger targets than the rider is and can't be armored as easily, and get killed more easily.
The Strategikon mentions that the best time to fight the Huns is in March when their horses are weak from the shortage of food from the winter. Notably enough, Attila would have had to set out in early march to have arrived on the Rhine and sack Metz in April.
Attila (2001 movie) historical accuracy - Michael Kerr - 08-20-2014
I don't think that the fear of losing horses due to lack of armour would be a major factor in Attila's mind & is no proof that Attila had a large cavalry force. Maybe if that was the case then he needed horses to haul wagons but not fear of losing them in battle. When Huns are mentioned we think of steppe Huns circling their enemies letting loose an arrow storm until no one is left alive.
To be honest you would be hard pressed to find many Roman sources from 5th century who actually describe seeing Hunnic horsemen, maybe some allude to it like Claudian who in praising Stilicho enhances his enemies & sometime Allies but most of them are copying Ammianus's descriptions & he himself probably never saw a Hun. The piicture Ammianus gave was of the steppe Huns from over 100 years before Chalons.
Attila would have had a cavalry force of some sort but the all cavalry force of the steppe would have been impossible for them to maintain in the west with grazing herds competing with their livestock for food in valleys & smaller plains. Although rich these lands were not like the endless grassy steppes. The Romans with their stall fed horses would have had a big advantage in Gaul but were themselves hard pressed for cavalry.
Even the Allies of the Romans like the Alans more than likely didn't have all cavalry armies in 5th century. Constansius of Lyon mentions a large Alan cavalry force filling the road & stopped by Germanus but this could also been an actual migration of Alans & families with wagons with draught animals & livestock but to describe it as a road full of cavalry only enhances Germanus reputation.
So maybe the picture of the rampaging Hunnic horseman trampling his way through Western Europe in 5th century was a bit of an allusion & beat up & Attila's army in Gaul was a mainly infantry force or Peter Heather would have advised the producers of the 2008 show to include more cavalry.
Regards
Michael Kerr
Attila (2001 movie) historical accuracy - Flavivs Aetivs - 08-20-2014
Sidonius Apollinaris makes a brief description of Hun Foederati in his pangeyric on Avitus. Merobaudes alludes to and describes Aetius' Huns as well. There's also a description of the Huns campaigning with Theodosius somewhere...
Attila (2001 movie) historical accuracy - Michael Kerr - 08-20-2014
Hi Evan, again Sidonius is like Claudian giving a description taken straight out of Ammianus from 100 years before & not an eye witness account. Nowhere in the Panegryci latini does it mention that the Hunnic troops employed by Theodosius are cavalry or horsemen. It does say he had cavalry but it is assumed and not stated that they were Huns. They may well be but it is not mentioned and besides that this battle was fought in 388AD and I am talking about mid 5th century Huns. You have me at a loss about Merobaudes but I note he is not a soldier or eyewitness but a poet. I am merely saying that except for probably an odd case or 2 there is not much written evidence that Huns were cavalry in 5th century Western Europe. The Huns from the East above the Black Sea were still mainly horse archers as I think the Byzantines used them often and Huns are mentioned in Procopius so I am mainly talking about Huns fighting for the Western Empire, had they become more sedentary and less reliant on horses after many years of contact with Rome or were they just a small but elite cavalry component of Attila's army. Maybe Aetius's Hunnic bodyguard were horsemen but they would have to be to keep up with him as he seems to have been a very busy man. But we are getting away from the original topic of historical accuracy of Attila the movie to some extent.
Regards
Michael Kerr
Attila (2001 movie) historical accuracy - Vindex - 08-20-2014
Quote: The Romans with their stall fed horses would have had a big advantage in Gaul but were themselves hard pressed for cavalry.
Hi Michael
Could I possibly ask you to explain this comment a little more, please? Is it a primary of secondary source, or an assumption from other evidence? A PM would be helpful so I don't tack the topic off the subject.
Thank you in advance.
Attila (2001 movie) historical accuracy - Michael Kerr - 08-20-2014
The source for that information was from Vegetius 'Digesta Artis Mulomedicinae' he pointed out that the horses of the Huns and Alans were bred on the steppe and were a totally different horse to the stall-fed horses of the Romans and that Romans who grazed their horses all year round brought ill health to their horses and financial loss to themselves. We often forget that Vegetius while famous for his military treatise was a bit of a veterinary doctor and knew his horses and wrote a book on animal medicine.
Regards
Michael Kerr
Attila (2001 movie) historical accuracy - Vindex - 08-20-2014
Thanks Michael; I hadn't fogotten about Vegetius' veterinary expertise, but I think I have a different translation :???:
Which translation are you using - or is it your own?
Attila (2001 movie) historical accuracy - Flavivs Aetivs - 08-20-2014
Quote:Hi Evan, again Sidonius is like Claudian giving a description taken straight out of Ammianus from 100 years before & not an eye witness account. Nowhere in the Panegryci latini does it mention that the Hunnic troops employed by Theodosius are cavalry or horsemen. It does say he had cavalry but it is assumed and not stated that they were Huns. They may well be but it is not mentioned and besides that this battle was fought in 388AD and I am talking about mid 5th century Huns. You have me at a loss about Merobaudes but I note he is not a soldier or eyewitness but a poet. I am merely saying that except for probably an odd case or 2 there is not much written evidence that Huns were cavalry in 5th century Western Europe. The Huns from the East above the Black Sea were still mainly horse archers as I think the Byzantines used them often and Huns are mentioned in Procopius so I am mainly talking about Huns fighting for the Western Empire, had they become more sedentary and less reliant on horses after many years of contact with Rome or were they just a small but elite cavalry component of Attila's army. Maybe Aetius's Hunnic bodyguard were horsemen but they would have to be to keep up with him as he seems to have been a very busy man. But we are getting away from the original topic of historical accuracy of Attila the movie to some extent.
Regards
Michael Kerr
Merobaudes commanded in several wars: Against the Aremoricans in 435-437 and in Spain in 443 most notably. As for Sidonius Apollinaris, he does not borrow from Ammianus. He exaggerates things of course, but read the section on Avitus fighting Hun Foederati (this happened, a group of Aetius' Hun foederati went out of control in 437 and Avitus had to put them down after they destroyed a Roman force.)
Attila (2001 movie) historical accuracy - Razzoriel - 08-24-2014
I know this seems like a bit off-topic, but is there some information about Vegetius' works on veterinary research? Such as horse species across Europe, how they would be fed and maintained? I've read that for instance in Britannia and the eastern steppes the horses were smaller, while Roman horses were slimmer and larger. This could mean that breeding a larger number of horses in the British Isles was easier, since it's easier to maintain smaller horses.
I don't have the sources with me, mostly veterinarian records on ancient horse breeds. But it seemed like Roman horses were more vulnerable to disease and weather changes exactly because they were mostly kept inside stables, while the common Steppe horse went through harsh natural selection through the times and was more resillient to these things.
Attila (2001 movie) historical accuracy - Michael Kerr - 08-24-2014
Vegetius is one of the few Roman sources that talks of the Hunnic horse in late 4th century.He seems to be the only Roman writer that writes that the Huns were famous for their horsemanship, and he praises the horses of the Huns and other northern peoples for their hardiness and freedom from disease, though left out on pasture through the winter frosts, and never stabled. A lot of other Roman writers talk about the Huns excellence at archery but not their horsemanship. But Vegetius did notice their horsemanship.
He mentions in his 'Digesta Artis Veterinariae sive Mulomedicinae libri quatuor' a list of 16 horse breeds known in his time, whether this list is complete we don’t know but these were the breeds that he knew of around late 4th century which would not be long after the battle of Adrianople and Vegetius seemed to know a lot about Hunnic horses by then which makes me think that the Romans were well aware of the Huns military capabilities a long time before the famous battle and the writings of Ammianus and reports off panicked Goths. The breeds he mentioned are as he stipulated highly valued breeds suitable for battle, racing or travelling and not your plodders. He defines the different breeds by their country of origin. He knew his horses did old Vegetius even though he was more famous for his military treatise, and mentioned that improvement in Roman breeds was influenced by Celtic and Iberian stock and not Persian or Nisean stock.
. He praises the Hunnic horses (Hunnisci) as his supreme war horse followed by the Thuringian (Thoringi) and the Burgundian (Burgundione) but he describes the Hunnic horse as particulary fit for battles because of their endurance in adverse conditions and under hard work. They are said to have a large ram-nosed head, protruding eyes, narrow nostrils, powerful jaws, a strong stiff neck, a long hanging mane, a sway back, a tuffy tail (cauda silvosa) and strong limbs.
The sixteen breeds he mentions were Hunnisci, Thoringi, Burgundiones, Frigisci, Epirotae, Samarisci, Dalmatae, Cappadoces, Hispani,Siculi, Persae (possibly Nisean) Armeni, Numidae, Barbari, Saphareni (Palestinian) and African horses of Spanish origin called Hispani sanguinis. Information from 'An early history of Horsemanship' by Augusto Azzardi. With the Thoringi and Burgundione breeds renowned as famous war horses in late 4th century maybe at the battle of Chalons, Attila's cavalry was not solely Hunnic and Gothic but contained elements of Burgundian and Thuringian cavalry as well if there was a large cavalry component in his army. I wouldn't necessarily assume that Hunnic, Alan or Sarmatian horses were smaller than Roman horses, especially horses for armoured lancers but like Vegetius noted they were probably tougher in harsher conditions while the Romans tended to stable their horses.
Regards
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
Attila (2001 movie) historical accuracy - Flavivs Aetivs - 08-24-2014
Vegetius' Toringian horse would make it the earliest record of their confederation/people, which doesn't occur again until Sidonius Apollinaris at Chalons.
I need to find this passage, it will be vital on my analysis of the Battle of Chalons.