Attila the Hun: A Barbarian King and the Fall of Rome

[Ursus]

http://www.unrv.com/book-review/attila-the-hun.php

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

Nice review DC !

 

I checked out Lajos Kassai on Youtube and your right, that's pretty impressive stuff. It must have been a pretty intimidating sight for the Romans to see a horde of horseback archers bearing down on them, especially with that kind of shooting accuracy. No wonder the Huns were such formidable foes.

[Nephele]

I can

[DecimusCaesar]

I checked out Lajos Kassai on Youtube and your right, that's pretty impressive stuff. It must have been a pretty intimidating sight for the Romans to see a horde of horseback archers bearing down on them, especially with that kind of shooting accuracy. No wonder the Huns were such formidable foes.

 

 

 

It is very impressive but Kassai does have the benefit of stirrups. According to John Man, the Huns might have made use of wooden stirrups as they'd been invented in India around 200 BC. Iron stirrups were not used until the Chinese invented them in the sixth century AD.

 

For many decades historians believed that the Goths used stirrups at Adrianople in AD 378, but that has been proven to be false.

[The Augusta]

Nice review, Decimus, and the book is fresh in my mind as I read it only a few weeks ago, following on from the novels by Napier. I agree that it was a very good intro to the topic, but I did get a bit fed up of the references to Kassai. The onyl other fault I found was that at the end of it all, I really did not have a feel for the real Attila. Man did not seem to explore the guy's personality in any real depth. However, on the other hand, as we have so little written evidence from the Huns themselves, I suppose any attempt to explore the personality would be pure speculation - which is not Man's objective.

 

I found it very easy to read and it will stay on my shelves. And it has certainly kindled my interest in this complex man and his people.

[DecimusCaesar]

Nice review, Decimus, and the book is fresh in my mind as I read it only a few weeks ago, following on from the novels by Napier. I agree that it was a very good intro to the topic, but I did get a bit fed up of the references to Kassai. The onyl other fault I found was that at the end of it all, I really did not have a feel for the real Attila. Man did not seem to explore the guy's personality in any real depth. However, on the other hand, as we have so little written evidence from the Huns themselves, I suppose any attempt to explore the personality would be pure speculation - which is not Man's objective.

 

I found it very easy to read and it will stay on my shelves. And it has certainly kindled my interest in this complex man and his people.

 

It's true that we lack information on the character of Attila. I thought Man did a good job of it, considering the main source we have for his appearence, personality etc comes from the writings of Priscus. Most of Attila's later life is covered by Jordanes in his history, although he just quotes Priscus and offers very little insight into the Hun Chief's later life. Michael A. Babcock's 'The Night Attila Died' offers a lot of new insights on Attila, and I definately recommend that. Hopefully I'll write a review of it one day.