Alan Military Tactics

[Michael Kerr]

Hi, like I stated previously I don't know much about the late empire armies & battles especially the battle of Chalons, but if I may put on my amateur (in my particular case I must stress amateur) armchair general's hat for a minute. If I was Aetius I would attempt to nullify the Huns most effective troops their swarming horse archers. A.D.H. Bivar wrote a paper called "Cavalry Equipment and tactics on the Euphrates Frontier"(Dumbarton Oaks Papers Vol. 26 1972 pp 271-291) Two things come to mind regarding the Huns & how this battle may have evolved. Was this battle a case of the 2 armies bumping into each other at Chalons or did Aetius or Attila choose the battlefield?

.1 Did the Huns win battles previously because of superior weapons or better riding skills? Bivar wrote

The question now arises whether the devastating victories of the Huns may
be ascribed simply to their superior horsemanship, the result of a childhood
spent in the saddle, or, rather, to their bows, which represented a major
technical advance. The archery manuals make it clear that the two factors
cannot really be separated. To use any bow effectively on horseback is no
small feat and needs a lifetime of training. The stronger the bow, the more
consummate must be the horseman. The compound bow of Mongolia, which
differs in certain details from later Persian and Turkish bows, may indeed
have been the most powerful weapon devised for such use. Its development
may already have reached perfection by the fourth century A.D. Yet, the use
of such weapons was always limited by the supply and training of suitable
horsemen. Their moments of prominence in Near Eastern history were always
those of population movement from Central Asia: the centuries of the Huns,
the Seljuqs, and the Mongols. Against the assets of the nomad-horsemanship,
hardiness, and a practiced aim-urban societies would naturally pit the
industrial resources which made possible the output of mail, and even more
elaborate armor.

2 What was the Huns weakness? Bivar wrote about horse archers

Another basic point appears repeatedly in all the manuals of warfare. The
horse-archer, for all his agility , was at a disadvantage engaging an enemy,
especially a lancer, who was approaching from his right. There was thus an
effort continually to outflank the enemy on the right wing, and to initiate
attacks on the right flank. Extra detachments were to be posted on the left
wing in a defensive role, to neutralize this type of movement

.
Maybe Aetius knowing the Huns well, made the dispositions of his army with that in mind?
From the little I know about Attila I assume that he wouldn't have been too happy with the Alans, as he had Alans in his army as well I read, so maybe there might have been a feigned retreat by the Alans in the centre of Aetius's army to lure Hunnic horse archers, who were probably pounding the Alans with arrows, into an unfavourable position away from their favoured right? Don't know but there is not much info about the actual battle.
Amateur general's hat is now off & we can return to subject of the Alan tactics.

Regards
Michael Kerr