The fall of the roman military power

[Robert Vermaat]

But the Huns mounted archers were faster than the Parthians or the Sassanids. Besides, they were able to attack their enemy and escape without any damage. Their attack is more destructive than the others (like Parthians or Sassanids).

Why?
Only in the sense that both Parthians and Sassanid Persians would have been a mix of light and heavy cavalry? Why would the Hunnic horsearchers be faster that parthian horsearchers? Different breed of horses?

Because they have the ability to attack their enemy and escape without any damage (years of training :wink: ).

Are you saying no other enemy of Rome trained/ I'm afraid making such a statement is not good enough. Have you any references for this?

The Parthians and Sassanid Persians "rarely" do this.

Again, have you any references for this proposed difference between Huns and Parthians/Sassanids in their attacks?

Huns were the most powerful enemy of Rome (in the period of Attila and Aetius), for example, Litorius, roman (magister equitum hock: ?) defeated Visigoths with some Huns. If he had used the common sense, he would have defeated completely to Theoderic. But he didn´t use it and was defeated at Tolosa.

Well, maybe you don't realise it, but the Huns were defeated before Attila and after his death (and it was not the Pope who made them turn back from Italy).
Were the Huns the most fearful enemy in the second quarter of the 5th century? I think not. The Sassanids were defeated in battle, sure, but never really destroyed before the Muslims did that in the 7th century. In fact the Eastern Romans bought peace from the Huns to get to grips with the Sassanids who they considered much more dangerous.
The Vandals were also an enemy rarely defeated (but most Roman expeditions to Africa failed) but only destroyed by Belisarius.

Really, I of course see the significance of the major threat that the Huns posed to the Romans (I mean, the huuuuge amounts of gold paid to buy them off is clear evidence that the Romans realised that, too), I'm not in favour of mythifying the actual strenght of the Huns. They had better bows, sure, a big advantage at the time. They did not have stirrups (as some authors supposed), they did not shoot sharper than any other horse-archer, they did not get away with any attack due to better training, their horsemanship was not superhuman and they did not eat babies. Or something. They were a powerful enemy but they could be defeated, as they eventually were.