10-13-2007, 08:25 PM
Its a different case. While the Goths were very skilled warriors and had learned an incredible amount of tactics, etc. from the Romans to supplement the skills they already had, siegecraft was difficult for the system of warfare that the had. Regular battles were no problem and complex tactics could be applied, but in long sieges some of the weaknesses of the Germanic system of warfare came into play. It isn't so blatant and as exploitable as some of the similar flaws in some Celtic groups, but long sieges were not beneficial to Germanic armies. For the most part they were very good at getting together in groups, but they needed a constant, common goal and with the pride and natures of the people it is not good to be stagnant for too long. Problems arise quick, people get impatient for battle and conflicts can erupt between your own troops and groups of them. Not to mention many other factors that would take too long to really get into in this post. Suffice to say, that while most Germanic peoples were capable of siegecraft it was risky and could even result in loss of power for the leader. As a leader, with the peoples natures and dispositions it is much better to let the enemy stay in the fortresses and go raid the countryside. It worked well for the Danes later. They would isolate groups, raid, spread fear and most of their enemies were not unified enough to band together despite the danger and they could engage their enemies at will. The problem with this system is that in the long run generations go by and it only lasts if the occupying nation does not revolt in strength. Once settled your army/settlers will develop flaws that did not exist as the raiding warband conquering force.
The Huns were a little more like the later day Mongols. They showed a remarkable simple honesty to warfare. Often they levied the option of surrender without harm, but once the battle began all mercy was off. It is warfare after all and perhaps a lot of European races were a little too used to convenient diplomacy and negotiating and setting terms later on. Not really a Hun mentality. From their point of view, they offered cooperation and the ability to become an ally. It was spit on and you became their enemy. There is no negotiating with the enemy, for the enemy there is only death and destruction. For a race that people often look down on as barbaric they were very intelligent and adaptable in the ways of warfare with a lot of the same pride as the Germanics but a lot more flexibility and malleability in their manner of thinking. The goal was victory and if siegecraft was required to do so they would do it and if new skills are needed they would learn them. It was hardly the mass of bloodmad barbarians that swarm over the enemy like ants that we imagine. It was an often outnumbered force of hard men led by people using excellent military strategies both elegant in simplicy and capable of integrating complex strategies and skills that even made the Romans seem stiff and inflexible in comparison. The weakness of the Huns was lack of numbers to hold a conquered territory and in short the very natures of the people does not lend itself well to times of peace. While they were very capable at applying the same types of intelligence to other non-military matters, the softer form of life did not appeal to them.
The Huns were a little more like the later day Mongols. They showed a remarkable simple honesty to warfare. Often they levied the option of surrender without harm, but once the battle began all mercy was off. It is warfare after all and perhaps a lot of European races were a little too used to convenient diplomacy and negotiating and setting terms later on. Not really a Hun mentality. From their point of view, they offered cooperation and the ability to become an ally. It was spit on and you became their enemy. There is no negotiating with the enemy, for the enemy there is only death and destruction. For a race that people often look down on as barbaric they were very intelligent and adaptable in the ways of warfare with a lot of the same pride as the Germanics but a lot more flexibility and malleability in their manner of thinking. The goal was victory and if siegecraft was required to do so they would do it and if new skills are needed they would learn them. It was hardly the mass of bloodmad barbarians that swarm over the enemy like ants that we imagine. It was an often outnumbered force of hard men led by people using excellent military strategies both elegant in simplicy and capable of integrating complex strategies and skills that even made the Romans seem stiff and inflexible in comparison. The weakness of the Huns was lack of numbers to hold a conquered territory and in short the very natures of the people does not lend itself well to times of peace. While they were very capable at applying the same types of intelligence to other non-military matters, the softer form of life did not appeal to them.
Derek D. Estabrook
