03-25-2006, 12:01 AM
Publius Artorio sal.
ave!
I think you are understimating the huge difference between the Huns and other mounted archers. The Huns were pushing tribe after tribe for a Century before Attila, and quite effectively, at that.
During the II Century they arrived near the North of the Black Sea, near enough to push the Alans, who were Iranian nomads, archers as well, who in trun pushed the Sarmatians, basically mounted heavy spearmen, who gave lots of headaches to the Romans (see Trajan's Column).
Circa 360 they got ever further West in the north of the Black Sea, and pushed the Alans in a way that the Alans pushed the Sarmatians even more, and pushed the Tervingi and Greutungi Goths against the Empire, which started by Valens signing a "victory" which basically left Fritigern as chosen king of the Tervingi and without Roman interference (which was not the rule, but a huge exception in Imperial limes politics) and ultimately meant a massive crossing of inmigrants who were not dispersed, and finished with Valens's death and most of the the Eastern comitatenses army in Hadrianopolis. They pushed again and moved rapidly to the Great plains in Hungary, and conquered the Goths (who later would be the Ostrogoths), the Geta, Alamani, and many other Germanic tribes, while puching the Alans even further to the West, where part finished with the Visigoths, and the others pushed to the West the Suevi and the Vandals, and further to the North the Rugi, Turingi, Lombards, Heruli, etc...
When Rome fought against the Huns, the limitanei were always defeated, even the minor incursions, and then, after Attila killed his brother, every and all armies the Eastern Empire could muster and put to the field, in Attila's campaigns in the 440s... Again, only the huge (in political terms, if not in numbers) army mustered by Aetius against Attila in the 451 campaign managed to defeat them, and mostly because the Visigoths and Burgundians had developed their military capabilities and Aetius knew Hun tactics and methods very well (the same way the Huns learned from him and the Romans the siege techniques they used later to run over Europe). All the other Roman armies, posts and towns in the 451 and 452 campaigns surrendered or were duly defeated by them.
The Huns were nomadic archers, with bows much more powerful than Europe had ever seen ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hun_bow ), and probably superb horsemanship (was it Apollodorus who said they did everything on their horses?) which proved an unbeatable combination once the small warbands were united by a strong leader.
After Attila's death, the host of military slaved Germanic and Iranian tribes fought and eventually got their freedom, becoming the seed of the post-Romulus Augustulus fall kingdoms.
just thought we should have a better perspective.
best regards and salve
ave!
I think you are understimating the huge difference between the Huns and other mounted archers. The Huns were pushing tribe after tribe for a Century before Attila, and quite effectively, at that.
During the II Century they arrived near the North of the Black Sea, near enough to push the Alans, who were Iranian nomads, archers as well, who in trun pushed the Sarmatians, basically mounted heavy spearmen, who gave lots of headaches to the Romans (see Trajan's Column).
Circa 360 they got ever further West in the north of the Black Sea, and pushed the Alans in a way that the Alans pushed the Sarmatians even more, and pushed the Tervingi and Greutungi Goths against the Empire, which started by Valens signing a "victory" which basically left Fritigern as chosen king of the Tervingi and without Roman interference (which was not the rule, but a huge exception in Imperial limes politics) and ultimately meant a massive crossing of inmigrants who were not dispersed, and finished with Valens's death and most of the the Eastern comitatenses army in Hadrianopolis. They pushed again and moved rapidly to the Great plains in Hungary, and conquered the Goths (who later would be the Ostrogoths), the Geta, Alamani, and many other Germanic tribes, while puching the Alans even further to the West, where part finished with the Visigoths, and the others pushed to the West the Suevi and the Vandals, and further to the North the Rugi, Turingi, Lombards, Heruli, etc...
When Rome fought against the Huns, the limitanei were always defeated, even the minor incursions, and then, after Attila killed his brother, every and all armies the Eastern Empire could muster and put to the field, in Attila's campaigns in the 440s... Again, only the huge (in political terms, if not in numbers) army mustered by Aetius against Attila in the 451 campaign managed to defeat them, and mostly because the Visigoths and Burgundians had developed their military capabilities and Aetius knew Hun tactics and methods very well (the same way the Huns learned from him and the Romans the siege techniques they used later to run over Europe). All the other Roman armies, posts and towns in the 451 and 452 campaigns surrendered or were duly defeated by them.
The Huns were nomadic archers, with bows much more powerful than Europe had ever seen ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hun_bow ), and probably superb horsemanship (was it Apollodorus who said they did everything on their horses?) which proved an unbeatable combination once the small warbands were united by a strong leader.
After Attila's death, the host of military slaved Germanic and Iranian tribes fought and eventually got their freedom, becoming the seed of the post-Romulus Augustulus fall kingdoms.
just thought we should have a better perspective.
best regards and salve
Episkopos P. Lilius Frugius Simius Excalibor, :. V. S. C., Pontifex Maximus, Max Disc Eccl
David S. de Lis - my blog: <a class="postlink" href="http://praeter.blogspot.com/">http://praeter.blogspot.com/
David S. de Lis - my blog: <a class="postlink" href="http://praeter.blogspot.com/">http://praeter.blogspot.com/
