Huns adapting to Roman Tactics and Weaponry.

[Guest SassinidAzatan]

The popular view of the Huns is that they unarmored savages who only fought using hit-run tactics on cavalry. Popular view shows that the Huns lacked any infantry at all and siege weaponry of the Romans.However I remember reading from Leadership Secrets of Attilla th Hun by Wess Roberts that after the defeat at Chalons, the Huns began adapting Roman weaponry and warfare to their armies. In addition to their already effective Cavalry archers, the Huns also created infantry that is as heavily armed as the Roman Legions were and used similar formations and manuevers. They also adopted Siege weaponry the Romans used. In fact I remember reading in the book during the Siege of Aquileia, the Huns portrayed superb discipline similar to the Roman Legions of earlier wars that took place centuries before! From what I read in the book,it would be the adaptation of Roman warfare that would enable the Huns to take over the important Aquileia, sack much of Italy, and eventually reach Rome.

 

What would you say of this?While Leadership Secrets of Attilla th Hun is loosely based on various historical records and events, it is primarily a self-help book and not a history book. I tried to research these claims but most of the articles only state what happened;none of them go into specifics such as what weapons the Huns used during the Siege of Aquileia, the discipline of the Huns after Chalons, etc. and the sites that do contain specific details all repeat common stereotypes of the Huns being undisciplined savage warriors who only used Horse Archers and these sites used Roman sources which are biased and negative against the Huns. What would you say?

Edited March 11, 2011 by SassinidAzatan

[caldrail]

For a short while the huns had a capital city of their own. We can say they were not completely undisciplined tribesmen, and for a large hunnish empire to have been founded required a level of organisation, niot to mention territorial conquest. However we shouldn't blind ourselves to the evident 'barbaric' nature of the huns. For all their sophistication, they were also a people who mounted deep raids into Roman lands that certainly made an impression on them.

 

To see them as organised as european civilisation is therefore wrong - they developed a feudal society that was controlled by strong leadership. Without the firm hand of Attila, the huns broke up into factions.

[Guest SassinidAzatan]

For a short while the huns had a capital city of their own. We can say they were not completely undisciplined tribesmen, and for a large hunnish empire to have been founded required a level of organisation, niot to mention territorial conquest. However we shouldn't blind ourselves to the evident 'barbaric' nature of the huns. For all their sophistication, they were also a people who mounted deep raids into Roman lands that certainly made an impression on them.

 

To see them as organised as european civilisation is therefore wrong - they developed a feudal society that was controlled by strong leadership. Without the firm hand of Attila, the huns broke up into factions.

However I was referring to the Military of the Huns-the culture/social structure of the Hun is for a different topic. People tend to have the image of the Huns being nothing but cavalry archers which is hard to believe as there was no way they could have conquered Aquilla and other Roman castles and fortresses with just horse archers alone-they must have had combined arms including infantry adn siege equipment.

 

As for the barbaric nature of the Huns, I recall reading the Huns were not necessarily as ruthless as the modern view makes them out to be. They didn't necessarily massacre or enslaved everyone in towns they "sacked" and they didn't necessarily abuse the conquered. In fact if anything, I recall reading that many Romans preferred Hunnish rule over the corrupt Roman Empire at the time and many barbarians certainly preferred Hunnish domination over the corrupt Roman domination.

 

But back to topic, I created this thread because I keep hearing of how the Huns were nothing but undisciplined horse archers. However Leadership Secrets of Attilla the Hun states that the Huns adapted Roman warfare after their devastating defeat in Chalons. WHile the books is a self help book not a history book, anybody who is descently read into warfare and military history especially the Mongols(who were very similar to the Huns) knows there is no way the Huns could have been successful as they were if they simply laid all their eggs into horse cavalry. Common sense indicates they would have eventually had adopted heavy infantry, siege engineers, and other elements of combined arms in order to have been so successful in their conquests of more advanced civilizations like the Romans.

Edited March 11, 2011 by SassinidAzatan

[Melvadius]

Having read this review I would be very careful about using Wess Roberts, Ph D's book as the ultimate authority on Attila the Hun and the possible composition of his army

[Melvadius]

I would remind folk that the fora on this site are primarily intended to discuss the extended history of the Roman Empire and related cultures.

 

Further discussion of Indochina would in all probability be more usefully directed to other more specialist sites.

[Guest SassinidAzatan]

I would remind folk that the fora on this site are primarily intended to discuss the extended history of the Roman Empire and related cultures.

 

Further discussion of Indochina would in all probability be more usefully directed to other more specialist sites.

Feel free to delete my post related to Indochina-I just got pissed and hyped up over the comment of VietMinh defending the country. Vietnam/Indochina is one war I take damn seriously and whenever people repeat cliched myths as a specialist in the war I feel I have to correct and inform others and tell them what really happened in Indochina.

 

Anyway back to the topic.

 

There are many stereotypes on the Huns and the most famous of them is that they are comprised of Horse Archers. But common sense indicates that they must have adopted infantry,siege equipment, etc. at some point in their invasion of Rome like the Mongols did in their world conquest.

[Melvadius]

All Indochina related posts on this thread are currently subject to moderation.

[Guest SassinidAzatan]

All Indochina related posts on this thread are currently subject to moderation.

So long as no one mentions any cliched myths again, I won't post anything off topic to Roman.

 

One thing Iam very curious about-Conventional Wisdom says that the Romans often lost to the Huns because they failed to adapt to Hunnish tactics and they relied too much on heavy infantry rather than developing ways to counter the Huns' warfare.

 

What would you all say of this?

[barca]

 

One thing Iam very curious about-Conventional Wisdom says that the Romans often lost to the Huns because they failed to adapt to Hunnish tactics and they relied too much on heavy infantry rather than developing ways to counter the Huns' warfare.

 

What would you all say of this?

 

 

The Romans actually did adopt Hunnish tactics eventually, although perhaps not fast enough. If you look at the battles of Belsarius in the 6th Century, he relied very heavily on horse archers. The Roman horse archer was modeled more along the lines of the Hun than the Sassanid, i.e. the strategy was to deliver powerful accurate shots compared to the Sassanids who delivered a larger quantity of shots, but with less power and accuracy. This is explained in detail in the following book by Ian Hughes:

http://www.unrv.com/book-review/belisarius.php

 

It is also clear that Belisarius' heavy infantry was somewhat lacking in discipline compared to those of earlier periods.

Edited March 20, 2011 by barca

[Kosmo]

Huns were very effective in siege warfare, for example their campaigns in the Balkans conquered almost all fortifications, around 100 fortified cities and forts in one summer campaign. It is very likely that they learned that from romans.

[cinzia8]

I would remind folk that the fora on this site are primarily intended to discuss the extended history of the Roman Empire and related cultures.

 

Further discussion of Indochina would in all probability be more usefully directed to other more specialist sites.

Feel free to delete my post related to Indochina-I just got pissed and hyped up over the comment of VietMinh defending the country. Vietnam/Indochina is one war I take damn seriously and whenever people repeat cliched myths as a specialist in the war I feel I have to correct and inform others and tell them what really happened in Indochina.

 

Anyway back to the topic.

 

There are many stereotypes on the Huns and the most famous of them is that they are comprised of Horse Archers. But common sense indicates that they must have adopted infantry,siege equipment, etc. at some point in their invasion of Rome like the Mongols did in their world conquest.

 

May I recommend THE HUNS by E.A. Thompson and ATTILA THE HUN by John Man. There are other sources as well, but these are very good. The history channel did an overview of the Huns on DVD as part of their BARBARIANS series. Attila had a certain power of personality, strength and acumen. He spent time with Aetius as boys when Aetius came to the Hun camp as a political hostage. Attila had a fair understanding of the Roman way and nature. When he moved westward into Europe, he absorbed barbarian tribes into his. The Huns were excellent horse archers, but he also maintained an infantry comprised of a diversity of barbarians. Chalon (Catalaunum) was not just a fight of horse against Roman infantry.

Edited March 22, 2011 by cinzia8

[Guest SassinidAzatan]

 

One thing Iam very curious about-Conventional Wisdom says that the Romans often lost to the Huns because they failed to adapt to Hunnish tactics and they relied too much on heavy infantry rather than developing ways to counter the Huns' warfare.

 

What would you all say of this?

 

 

The Romans actually did adopt Hunnish tactics eventually, although perhaps not fast enough. If you look at the battles of Belsarius in the 6th Century, he relied very heavily on horse archers. The Roman horse archer was modeled more along the lines of the Hun than the Sassanid, i.e. the strategy was to deliver powerful accurate shots compared to the Sassanids who delivered a larger quantity of shots, but with less power and accuracy. This is explained in detail in the following book by Ian Hughes:

http://www.unrv.com/book-review/belisarius.php

 

It is also clear that Belisarius' heavy infantry was somewhat lacking in discipline compared to those of earlier periods.

Thanks for telling me about that books I might check it out. It doesn't surprise me at all that the Romans tried to adapt to Hunnish tactics. Unfortunately general history books and comments in other forums on the web beg to differ.

[Guest SassinidAzatan]

I would remind folk that the fora on this site are primarily intended to discuss the extended history of the Roman Empire and related cultures.

 

Further discussion of Indochina would in all probability be more usefully directed to other more specialist sites.

Feel free to delete my post related to Indochina-I just got pissed and hyped up over the comment of VietMinh defending the country. Vietnam/Indochina is one war I take damn seriously and whenever people repeat cliched myths as a specialist in the war I feel I have to correct and inform others and tell them what really happened in Indochina.

 

Anyway back to the topic.

 

There are many stereotypes on the Huns and the most famous of them is that they are comprised of Horse Archers. But common sense indicates that they must have adopted infantry,siege equipment, etc. at some point in their invasion of Rome like the Mongols did in their world conquest.

 

May I recommend THE HUNS by E.A. Thompson and ATTILA THE HUN by John Man. There are other sources as well, but these are very good. The history channel did an overview of the Huns on DVD as part of their BARBARIANS series. Attila had a certain power of personality, strength and acumen. He spent time with Aetius as boys when Aetius came to the Hun camp as a political hostage. Attila had a fair understanding of the Roman way and nature. When he moved westward into Europe, he absorbed barbarian tribes into his. The Huns were excellent horse archers, but he also maintained an infantry comprised of a diversity of barbarians. Chalon (Catalaunum) was not just a fight of horse against Roman infantry.

Thanks for the book recommendations!Yes, the Huns must have adopted infantry and other Roman military doctrine as Attilla lived as a hostage under the Romans and even learned Roman ways during the period he was hostage! But popular media, general history books, and other topics and threads on the web keep stating or making it out as though the Huns consisted completely of Horse Archers!

 

What would you all say of this cliched stereotype of the Huns being undisciplined barbarians without infantry and combined arms and only being savage horse archers?Also what would you say of the cliched notions that Romans lost to the Huns because they refused to adapt to the warfare of the Huns out of arrogance?

Edited March 24, 2011 by SassinidAzatan

[cinzia8]

In my opinion, I'm not sure the Huns were so undisciplined. They followed a chain of command and believed in the invincibility of their people and leader and loved wealth. Not unlike many of the barbarians in today's world from all cultures who operate in many different arenas for purposes of money and power. LOL

 

Perhaps Roman adaptation in warfare was difficult not unlike the English experienced in the Revolutionary war. Unable to understand or recognize change; leadership; communication; ethnically diverse ranks; a corroded nationalistic view etc. all play a role in the inability of a people, army or nation to adapt.

 

I just find it hard to believe that if a Magister Militum like Aetius witnessed any favorable military strategies or practices as a boy in the Hun camp, he wouldn't incorporate them in some way into his "bag of tricks." My study, though, hasn't ventured much past Aetius and the Huns at Catalaunum.

 

Cinzia