Jump to content

Huns - references


Recommended Posts

Well, the only thing I personally think about talking about a civ emblem is in the 1924 fild "Die Nibelungen" directed by Fritz Lang. I personally have no idea if the emblems that are present in this mute film are really based on history, but all the scenes are very very treated and there is a large study on them (I can confirm having seen it). 



Edited by Jofursloft
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure the source of this but isn't bad concept but isn't too much ancient .

dont forget White Huns (Hephthalites)


East Iranian Origin
While historians had at one time suggested that the Hephthalites were Turkish descendants, later beliefs state that they were from East Iran. The Hephthalites’ spoken language is said to be an East Iranian language which was different from the Bactrian language written in the Greek alphabet. This was the official language minted on coins. The names of the Hephthalites too were Iranian. After the Hephthalites lost their supremacy, it was the turn of the Central Asian nomads who spoke Turkic languages, which could have led to the belief of their Turkish descent.

It is said that they were not connected to the European Huns and may have called themselves Huns to scare their enemies. These White Huns occupied regions that were far from the European Huns, nor were they nomads.

They were settlers. Unlike the tribes of the European Huns, the White Huns were ruled by a king, they had a constitution and observed justice in their dealings within themselves and with their neighbours.

Nobles were buried rather than cremated. The White Huns also used a Turkic language and royal titles which shows the influence of the Turkic people. They did not recognise Buddhism and often destroyed Buddhist monasteries.

Chinese chronicles though state a theory that they could be the descendants of the tribes who remained behind after people fled from the Xiongnu. The Xiongnu were tribes north of the Great Wall who attacked China frequently. They are believed by some historians to be connected to the European Huns.

After defeating the Scythians by 425 AD, the White Huns invaded Persian regions. By 485, Persia had become their subject with the defeat of the Sassanid king, Peroz-I. During the wars between 503 and 513, they had to leave Persia and were fully defeated in 557 by Khosrau-I.

Imagen relacionada


Can be nice work to improved Nomad faces.


im not sure with hair cut, may be fantasy propose but the faces are interesting.

others pages considered Altai haircuts.



i have some ideas to improve this new faction.

things to explore.

1- costumes



New gameplay mechanics. Defense-attacking, society, slavery...

they dominate their enemies becoming many peoples to slavery.



  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mongols, Juan-Juan and Huns have same roots.



but you can see others differences

mongols are more like this. more medieval armors.


The Huns were noted for their fast and mobile horsemanship and their expertise with specially constructed bows. They were rumored to be able to sleep while on horseback.
  The Mongols were also noted for their exceptional horsemanship and archery skills as well. However, the Mongols also had the additional military technology and skills they acquired from everyone they conquered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

other differences, Huns use Germanic and Iranian equipment.



there many sites about Huns specially by Hungary.



After having been separated, the northern branch of Huns started to wander westward until reaching the Volga River. In 374 AD, Huns migrating westward exterminated the country established by the Alanis, raising the curtain of the Nordic nomadic nationalities’ aggression of the European farming nationalities. It is just under the pressure of the Huns that the Goths invaded the Roman Empire and even reached the city gate of Rome. In the fifth century, the Huns, after crossing over the Danube River and the Rhine River, entered into the western Europe and established the Hunnic Empire led by Attila, which was one of the most feared enemies of the Western and Eastern Roman Empires. The branch which stayed in Asia settled down and established the city of Tongwancheng in 419 BC.

Tongwancheng was the main capital that stood on the other side of the Great Wall of China. The city was largely of wood construction and had very thick outer walls which were made white with white clay earth and powdered rice. The city is made up of three main parts: the palace, where the ancient imperial palace stood, the inner part, which housed important government buildings, and the outer part, which was where the town’s common people took up residence.

“As a nationality, the Huns disappeared, but their legacy stayed alive throughout history. Many scholar believe that today’s Hungarians are direct descendants of the ancient Huns,” Wang Shiping, a research fellow with the Shaanxi Historical Museum, told Xinhua press agency. According to the press agency, the opinion was echoed by some Hungarian researchers as well. They believe that their homeland is closely related with the descendants of the Huns.

The cultural customs of the Huns still exist in many parts of the world. For example, Hujia, a musical instrument once peculiar to the Huns, now is popular in Mongolia, Russia, and North China’s Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region and Northwest China’s Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region.






Link to comment
Share on other sites



The Strategikon states the Huns typically used maille, swords, bows, and lances, and that most Hunnic warriors were armed with both the bow and lance and used them interchangeably as needed. It also states the Huns used quilted linen, wool, or sometimes iron barding for their horses and also wore quilted coifs and kaftans.[121] This assessment is largely corroborated by archaeological finds of Hun military equipment, such as the Volnikovka and Brut Burials.

A late Roman ridge helmet of the Berkasovo-Type was found with a Hun burial at Concesti.[122] A Hunnic helmet of the Segmentehelm type was found at Chudjasky, and another of the Bandhelm type at Turaevo.[123] Fragments of lamellar helmets dating to the Hunnic period and within the Hunnic sphere have been found at Iatrus, Illichevka, and Kalkhni.[122][123] Hun lamellar armour has not been found in Europe, although two fragments of likely Hun origin have been found on the Upper Ob and in West Kazakhstan dating to the 3rd–4th centuries.[citation needed] An unpublished find at a military warehouse near Toprachioi, Romania is known but it is uncertain if it can be attributed to Hun origin. It is known that the Eurasian Avars introduced Lamellar armor to the Roman Army and Migration Era Germanics in the Middle 6th Century, but this later type does not appear before then.[122][124]

It is also widely accepted that the Huns introduced the langseax, a 60 cm cutting blade that became popular among the migration era Germanics and in the Late Roman Army, into Europe.[125] It is believed these blades originated in China and that the Sarmatians and Huns served as a transmission vector, using shorter seaxes in Central Asia that developed into the narrow langseax in Eastern Europe during the late 4th and first half of the 5th century. These earlier blades date as far back as the 1st century AD, with the first of the newer type appearing in Eastern Europe being the Wien-Simmerming example, dated to the late 4th century AD.[125] Other notable Hun examples include the Langseax from the more recent find at Volnikovka in Russia.[126]

The Huns used a type of spatha in the Iranic or Sassanid style, with a long, straight approximately 83 cm blade, usually with a diamond shaped iron guard plate.[127] Swords of this style have been found at sites such as Altlussheim, Szirmabesenyo, Volnikovka, Novo-Ivanovka, and Tsibilium 61. They typically had gold foil hilts, gold sheet scabbards, and scabbard fittings decorated in the polychrome style. The sword was carried in the "Iranian style" attached to a swordbelt, rather than on a baldric.[128]

The most famous weapon of the Huns is the Qum Darya-type composite recurve bow, often called the "Hunnish Bow". This bow was invented some time in the 3rd or 2nd centuries BC with the earliest finds near Lake Baikal, but spread across Eurasia long before the Hunnic migration. These bows were typified by being asymmetric in cross-section between 145–155 cm in length, having between 4–9 lathes on the grip and in the siyahs.[129] Although whole bows rarely survive in European climatic conditions, finds of bone Siyahs are quite common and characteristic of steppe burials. Complete specimens have been found at sites in the Tarim Basin and Gobi Desert such as Niya, Qum Darya, and Shombuuziin-Belchir. Eurasian nomads such as the Huns typically used trilobate diamond shaped iron arrowheads, attached using birch tar and a tang, with typically 75 cm shafts and fletching attached with tar and sinew whipping. Such trilobate arrowheads are believed to be more accurate and have better penetrating power or capacity to injure than flat arrowheads.


they use lamellar helmets?


It's thought the Dingling/Tingling were the original Oghur Turkish speaking people. They were absorbed by the Huns, and would help form the Tiele confederation (a.k.a. the Gaoche) when the Huns left Central Asia in the 4th Century. The Tiele Confederation was also comprised of Huns (like the Onogur and Saragur Huns), as well as the Oghur Turkic groups formerly under Hunnic control, and would be forced West in the 5th century where they would be reabsorbed into the European Huns.

As for Hanging Lamellar, IIRC yes, Samurai Armor is a form of Hanging Lamellar. It has to do with the construction: SBH has Rigid Lamellar, as was most Roman Lamellar until the 6th century.

This 8th Century example from Tibet is fairly close to what Hunnic Lamellar was like, but without the two rows running vertically over the shoulders.



In Siberia has been found the first exemplars of Lamellar Armours dating at 20th centry BC. (Late stone-age~ Early Bronze age culture), Ymyyahtahskaya Culture; the scales were made of bone as the helmet, then exemplars have been found in Corea and Machuria belonging to the first millenium B.C., but they are many finds concerning many human cultures using lamellar armour during the first millenium B.C., so, actually the Huns were just slightly in late with scales ..


This is a beautiful Korean armour belonging to 3th./6th centuries A.D., I think they were called "Dong Hwan-sik" lamellar armour, or "Body-rounded" type lamellar armour , also know by the Japanese as Domaru-shiki Geiko.


We are aiming to helmets and other basic parts. the helmet is similar to Avars.


From TW Forum.


What I find very disturbing is the similarity (actually they are almost identical, looking the same object) of the Korean lamellar suites, with the Langobard and Germanic exemplars of the migration period, in particular what I find absolutely disturbing it's being forced to think King Alwin entering in Pavia, wearing a Niederstotzingen exactly like some big Korean war-boss! hmmm9uh.gifI'm having trouble wrapping my head around it but .. sooner or later, I'll find some rest for sure!



thanks to user in TW forums.

@Flavius Aetius


.. it's midway between the European Germanic/Avar lacing system and the Japanese system with the lacing exposed, and the helmet .. OMG! It would be the dream of any Langobard reenactor!


for some reason he share kushans reference.


Concesti Helmet.



Roman cavalry helmet.


A sword from c.a. 500 AD in the Caucasus, probably Sabir Hun


helmets 5th-6th century AD.




Hunic blade.



Kispek Helmet



Baldenheims first appear in the mid-late 5th century, the earliest example is the Stuttgart Helmet which dates to 470.

They're not out of the question, just more suitable to late-game units.

Kalkhni and Kispek are both Lamellenhelms... but I'm against using helmets dated to much later (Illichevka and Kerch are both mid-6th century found in distinctly Avar graves) in a 5th century mod.






Link to comment
Share on other sites

about Spangelhelmets type.


The Spangenhelmets and Bandhelmets were the most common helmets of the time other than ridge helmets. We have plenty of finds of typical Spangenhelmets including Sinj (Dated 6th Century), Leiden Museum (4th Century), Iadar/Sisak (6th Century), and the Bandhelmets from Sveti Vid.

That is the Stuttgart find, yes. It was deposited sometime around 470-480, and I would put an absolute earliest date of usage at 440 for the Baldenheim, but more likely around 450 onwards.

Hmm... I had always thought Stuttgart to be East Gothic, yet it does seem to be Alamannic.




Ok, I've decided to model the Voivoda and the Stuttgart baldenheims, as both of these are thought to date to the 5th century. I'm not 100% sure if I'll model the Heraklea Lyncestis yet, but it's a possibility as well. Anyway, here's what the "Pontic-Danubian Realm in the Period of the Great Migration" has to offer in terms of dating the Voivoda and Heraklea helmets:


The earliest specimens come from an Illyrian urban context. One helmet was found in an imperial fortress near Voivoda in Bulgaria (Fig. 6), destroyed in the second half of the 5th century (Vagalinski 1998), the other, in the late 5th – early 6th century destruction layer in the south annex of the basilica C in Heraklea Lyncestis in Macedonia (Fig. 7) (Maneva 1987).



As an aside, do you know if the Stuttgart helmet had a "mini-noseguard" like this baldenheim, for example (or is it just a straight band around the rim, like the Heraklea helmet





The book Spangenhelme. Baldenheim und Verwandte Typen by Mahand Vogt contains a catalogue of spangenhelms and related types of helmets (as suggested by the title). The writer dedicates a section of this catalogue to these banded helmets and comes up with the following specimens:
1) St. Vid/Narona III
2) St. Vid/Narona IV
3) A helmet of unknown origen in an unknown collection (the source stated here is: Hermann Historica München. 1 Katalog zur 43. Alte Waffen. Antiken. Jagdliches. Varia. 16. Oktober 2002, Losnummer 1200. It was sold for 11.000 Euro).
4) Bretzenheim (Germany)
5) Voivoda (Bulgaria)

None of these artefacts were found with a neck or cheek guard.


Maenchen-Helfen is a vast improvement and his work is very dated now and was never completed. There are still newer authors although little has been done on their actual military equipment. That's a reenactor thing and due to the lack of Hunnic reenactors (or at least ones that strive for historical accuracy) I don't think we will see an improvement any time soon.

6th Century Armenian Authors, as well as some Roman sources, all describe the Huns using metal armor and weapons. I will provide you the quotes ASAP they are buried in an Avar Reenactment group on facebook.





"He came to be surrounded by 12 of the enemy, who carried spears. And they all struck him at once with their spears. But his thorax withstood the other blows, which therefore did not hurt him much; but one of the Goths succeeded in hitting him from behind, at a place where his body was uncovered, above the right armpit, right close to the shoulder, and smote the youth, though not with a mortal blow." (Procopius 7.2.22)



Here Procopius is probably describing the Tibetan style lamellar I posted earlier, where without the vertical rows of lames going over the shoulders it leaves a gap in front of the armpit and shoulder, where Bochas was stabbed. The vertical rows are an 8th century solution to that problem.

However he could be describing scale as well. Maille would have had sleeves and muscle cuirasses cover and fit tightly around that part of the shoulder/arm, so it couldn't have been either of those two.


Edited by Lion.Kanzen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

now Iranians equipment like Alans. or plate armor from Persians.



following the discuss.


He uses "Ferro" though, not Thorax, indicating iron. It should also be noted that he is paralleling an earlier Roman work describing the Roman heavy cavalry of the 350's, although the name of the poet escapes me.

Movses Kalankatuatsi says about the Huns campaigning in the Lazic war says the Huns consisted of... "armored archers and armed horsemen, covered with chain mail and helmets..." (p. 184)

He also says "The Hun armed his high and wide torso in braided armor, covered his huge head with nails fixed to helmet, and his three-inch forehead covered with brass board." (p. 82)

So here basically is a Hun with a Baldenheim or maybe a Niederstotzingen-style helmet, and "braided armor" could well be lamellar ["braided" together with leather throngs] or more likely maille [steel wire rings "braided" together]. The "nails" affixed to his helmet, which is probably a mistranslation into English, probably indicates the rivets of a Baldenheim or bandhelme.

Movses Khorenatsi and Vardan the Great both describe the Huns wearing thick felt armor that was impenetrable to arrows. The Strategikon corroborates this with its recommendations for quilted felt hoods/coifs and quilted felt horse armor "as the Avars wear".



Romans used them, and this gets into the Spangenhelmet debate a bit too, because what appear to be Spangenhelms or Lamellenhelms are depicted on the Arch of Galerius (298 AD). A 5th Century Hunnic one is known from Kalkhni in Dagestan and fragments of a sister helmet have been found in the destruction layers of Iatrus (447 AD). By the mid-6th Century AD, the Romans were producing Lamellar Helmets and Armor en-masse in their arms factories, such as those found at Rome and Stara Zagora. It's very likely they were coming into widespread use in the mid-5th to early-6th centuries. Romans used them, and this gets into the Spangenhelmet debate a bit too, because what appear to be Spangenhelms or Lamellenhelms are depicted on the Arch of Galerius (298 AD). A 5th Century Hunnic one is known from Kalkhni in Dagestan and fragments of a sister helmet have been found in the destruction layers of Iatrus (447 AD). By the mid-6th Century AD, the Romans were producing Lamellar Helmets and Armor en-masse in their arms factories, such as those found at Rome and Stara Zagora. It's very likely they were coming into widespread use in the mid-5th to early-6th centuries.


The Huns themselves were horse archers, not "materially expensive" like the Alans who were literally covered in steel armor.

The 3rd century grave finds of Alan cavalrymen (and women) usually contain fragments of maille or cupric-alloy scale.





Check right armor



Armor among the Huns was diverse and often depended on how rich the owner was. Many poor Huns were just lightly equipped with a leather cuirass. Others wore armor made from bone, horn, or horse hooves. More well equipped Huns wore metal lamellae or Roman chain mail. Huns serving under the Romans were almost always well equipped. As the Huns in Europe started to develop an economy based on warfare, armor became more important.

Some Huns served in the Roman army. Although the Huns were excellent fighters, the Romans generally believed that their “lack of discipline made them more a terror to the provinces they were supposed to defend than to the enemy.” Sidonius wrote “Again and again they broke loose with raid and fire and sword and savagery and pillage destroyed all things nearby.” Maenchen-Helfen notes that “In Gaul, the Romans had to keep garrisons in the cities to protect them from their own auxiliaries” (The World of the Huns pg. 258).

There was one known Hunnic unit in the Roman army that served the Romans very well and that was the Unnigardae. They were known for their ferocity and high status as the best troops. Helfen writes “The Unnigardae were a small corps of horsemen, excellent in lightning attacks and dashing raids, at their best as scouts and vanguards...It was true that they sometimes got out of hand, ‘like young hounds,’ but their leader ‘would take them by the throat and call them in, even before they sated themselves with their charge and their wild-beast slaughter” (The World of the Huns pg. 255)





The Huns used light cavalry, all of whom carried composite bows, and some also carried spears and swords. This cavalry almost always operated as mounted archers. They would not ride directly into an opposing force as in a charge, but would ride around them, firing as they passed. The contemporary writer, Claudian, describes the tactic: “Their double nature fitted not better the twi-formed Centaurs to the horses that were parts of them. Disorderly, but of incredible swiftness, they often return to the fight when little expected”. These soldiers were especially skillful, capable of shooting their bows with great accuracy from either side of their horses at full gallop. They could also fire across the rear of their horses to protect themselves and their companions as they withdrew from an attack or in case of retreat. Their bows were not overly powerful, certainly not compared with the bows carried by Byzantine foot soldiers or by later, mounted archers


The Huns only used infantry as auxiliaries. Despite contemporary and modern popular opinion that the mounted archers of the Huns wore no armor, it is currently believed they did indeed wear it during battlefield confrontations. However, the Huns favored scale or lamellar armor and not the mail that was becoming more prevalent throughout the fourth and fifth centuries. This preference is remarked on by several late Roman writers who seem surprised by it, perhaps giving an indication that scale armor was not considered to be as protective as mail at the time, or perhaps they believed the Huns should have been able to afford the more expensive mail coats. A simpler answer could be that mail was more fashionable among Romans than scale, but the opposite was true with the Huns. One late Roman author, writing in the fifth century, also describes a Hun who wore no sleeves on his scale armor, provoking some surprise. This might indicate a general trend, especially among these mounted archers who may have thought the weight and bulkiness of such armor impeded their ability to fire their bows accurately. No doubt both scale armor with or without sleeves was used by Huns; again, there was no standardization.




In the 4th and 5th centuries, the Huns expanded and conquered both the Sarmatians and the Germanic Tribes living between the Black Sea and the borders of the Roman Empire. From bases in modern-day Hungary, the Huns ruled the entire former Sarmatian territory.

Sometime during the mid-to-late fourth century, the Huns pushed westward. While on the move, they encountered the Alans. The Huns quickly engaged and slaughtered them.  The Huns made an alliance with the survivors. With the Alans riding alongside the Huns, they headed towards the lucrative lands of Goths, particularly that of Greuthungs, led by King Ermanaric, sometime in the 370’s. The attack was so swift and relentless that the Goths could not halt their progress. Ermanaric could do little to thwart the Hun advance, and in despair, he committed suicide. With Ermanaric dead, another took his place by the name of Vithimiris. Vithimiris continued the fight, even hiring Hun mercenaries. However, it was all in vain. Vithimiris could not defeat the Huns and eventually lost his life in 376.




Schuppenpanzer Scale Armor (Early Sarmatian; Filippovka I Kurgan 4; 5th/4th century BC)

This scale armor comes from a 2006 investigated grave of an early Sarmatian princess. The fund was heavily corroded, but by the position of the individual scales the shape could be reconstructed. In addition it consists of two large shoulder plates, which have not been built by us yet.
During the reconstruction of the armor we have, as far as possible, recourse to detectable materials: leather as an underlay, goatskin for the hem and different scales in the found quantities with corresponding holes.

Helm Helmet (Stanica Tbilisskaya, Kurgan 6, 2nd half of the 2nd century BC)

This so-called “skeleton helmet” is a hitherto unique find and represents one of the few helmet finds ever in the Sarmatian milieu. Its construction method is interesting. It consists of different shaped bronze strips which are respectively held together by iron rivets. Loop pairs on the sides of the end hoop and a chain on the neck indicate now decayed helmet utilties, whose exact form one can only speculate. We opted for the application of cheek pieces of leather and textile, and added a byrnie of leather plates. Similarly, we filled the gaps between the metal strips with a thick layer of felt and leather since the helmet would otherwise have had little protective effect.





the Huns were a tribe that amalgamated with many other nomadic tribes, like the Alans and non-nomadic tribes, such as the Germanic Suevi, Gepids, and Goths, through conquest. However, this is not always the case. Many nomadic tribes probably joined the Hunnic warbands after noticing their ability to profit from pillaging, and decided they want in on the cut. This is not to say that the Huns did not have a powerful chieftain, just that the chieftain’s power was limited.

The Huns and their tribal allies worked semi-independently under their own chieftains but were loyal to a primary Hun chief. Of course, this would change when Attila took power much later. But even as king, Attila’s power was excessive in the moment and uncertain in the long term. Attila, unlike previous powerful chieftains, strong-armed the lesser chieftains by forcing them to swear loyalty to him or be removed. By doing this, he effectively transformed the Huns from a body in search of plunder or seeking payment to serve as mercenaries, into a single body bent on expanding a sphere of influence through conquest, threats, and extortion. While Attila’s short-term strategy focused on the moment, his long-term strategy for the Hunnic nation was nonexistent. The reason for this is that the Huns were not in the business to create, they were in the business of war. Therefore, one must focus on the Hunnic military machine to gain a better understanding as to why they were so decisive on the battlefield.



Edited by Lion.Kanzen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nomadic Pazyryk horseman in a felt painting from a burial around 300 BC.

Nomadic Pazyryk horseman in a felt painting from a burial around 300 BC.  (Public Domain)


However, some of the Hunnic armor worn may have been Roman. Other Huns, not associated with Aetius, may have donned gilt Persian armor. Understand that the vast majority of Huns were not emblazoned in armor from head to toe, most wore meager amounts while the few nobles and wealthy Huns could afford the luxury of armor.


One such luxury was the helmet. Huns serving under the Romans were provided helmets. The majority of Huns not serving Rome donned felt or soft leather caps. Reason for this is that many of the so-called Hunnic graves are absent of such an item. Hunnic noblemen and the wealthy could afford a helmet, which could be passed down from generation to generation. The type of helmet the Huns would have worn under the Romans is called a spangenhelm. The spangenhelm is a conical helmet consisting of four to six sections, reinforced by bands over the joins. Most had large cheek pieces, neck guard and a nose piece. The origin of the helmets is said to be of Sassanid origin, which was later adopted by the Romans during the late third early fourth century.

The Huns also used a shield. Unfortunately, like most items pertaining to the Huns, it remains elusive. The Hunnic shield would have been small, as a large shield would have been cumbersome to utilize on horseback. The type of small shield used would have been as the ones used by other steppe nomads, and since no shield has been discovered, it is suggested that the shield was made of wicker covered in leather.

As for swords, it is disputed whether the vast majority of Huns carried them. The Hunnic swords likely varied, as some were like that of the Sarmatians and Goths, which was long, straight, and designed for slashing. However, in the 10th century, Latin Germanic epic poem founded on German popular tradition called Waltharius, the hero Walther “arms himself in the Hunnish fashion… with a double-edge long sword belted to his left hip … and a single-edged half-sword at his right.” While the poem is fictional, it provides and indicates that some Huns wore a long sword, spatha, and a single-edged half-sword, semispatha, like that of the Sassanid noblemen who are regularly depicted wearing the same type of swords in this fashion.

Another side arm the Huns used was the lasso. The lasso was widely used by many steppe nomads like the Scythians and Sarmatians to name a few. Ammianus speaks of the Hun lasso and states “while the enemy are guarding against wounds from the sabre-thrusts, they throw strips of cloth plaited into nooses over their opponents and so entangle them that they fetter their limbs and take from them the power of riding or walking.”

As for heavy horsemen, the Huns had few and mostly relied on those they conquered and incorporated into their own military apparatus. The tribes that aided heavy cavalry to the Huns were the Sarmatians, Alans, and Goths. With heavy cavalry, accompanying the Hunnic horse archers, the Huns had a well-defined military capable of delivering mobility and shock to the enemy on the field of battle.

The Huns used a variety of arrowheads. One type was a large leaf-shaped and the other a large three-bladed iron arrowhead. The Huns are also said to have used “sharp bone” according to Ammianus. They are said to have fixed bone balls behind the tips called “whistlers”, which produce a terrifying sound for psychological effect. When placing the arrowhead on the shaft, the Huns and other eastern steppe peoples did not socket it into place like the Scythians and Sarmatians did. Instead, the Hunnic arrowheads had a tang, which was sunk into the arrow shaft. The possible reason for this is that it was easier to produce arrowheads with tangs than socketed. Later on western steppe tribes adopted the eastern tang style.

The type of arrow shafts possibly used was cane, reed, birch, cornel, rose-willow, hornbeam, and ash. Reed may have been the preferred material to use for it would travel further and easier to produce. The feathers used in fletching would generally have been from either ducks or geese. The number of feathers attached to the shaft was between two and four. The feathers provided aerodynamic stabilization for the flight of the arrow.

But their world was not long term, as the Hunnic economy was based on war and extortion with no lasting goal. In the end, the Hunnic war machine that set foot in Europe, before mighty Roman and the fractured Barbarians, would soon disappear, but the carcass of the machine remained to be absorbed by those affected, to be restudied and implemented to make their (Romans and Barbarians) armies much more effective on the battlefield.



Although the majority of the Hunnic army was infantry, this was primarily comprised of Germanics. However, the ancient topography says the majority of the actual "Hunnic" army must have been infantry as well.

Slave infantry. another controversial discuss.



Yep, anything that counted amongst steppe tribes was on horse back. The "infantry" consisted of Women, children, old men, servants defending their camp or wagon lagger. They could and did round up peasants to "fight", that is they drove the peasants at the enemy as expendables to soften them up for the cavalry. For good infantry they required allies with an infantry tradition.


So... by the time Attila was campaigning formally against the Romans, the Hun army would have been heavily infantry, and heavily Germanic, Just look at the speed with which they were able to rip through the fortified towns and cities of Thrace, Pannonia, Moesia and Gaul. Only a well organize, mobile but still infantry heavy force is capable of this. It takes lots of men to perform a proper siege and the country in those regions cannot support large numbers of horses.

So to answer the OP:
1. Yes, they had infantry, in fact they were mostly infantry
2. Yes, they were effective infantry. Germans and sharp, heavy metal objects go together quite well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
34 minutes ago, Loki1950 said:

The Goth where a Germanic tribe while the Scythians where Steppe Nomads separated by a couple thousand kilometres ;)

Enjoy the Choice :)


Right, but the Goths seemed to inhabit the steppe initially. Hence my musing. And they were quite nomadic. 

Edited by wowgetoffyourcellphone
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Right, but the Goths seemed to inhabit the steppe initially. Hence my musing. And they were quite nomadic. 



Before settling into the Roman Empire from the 4th century onwards, the Goths had migrated from Sweden to East Germany, Poland, then established themselves for a while around modern Moldova and Ukraine.

From the 8th to the 5th century BCE, it is actually the Cimmerians who inhabited the north of the Black Sea, from the North Caucasus to the Dnieper. The similarity of name and culture with the Cimbri, a tribe from Jutland in Denmark, has led some to believe that the Cimbri are descended from the Cimmerians. The timing fits to some extent. The Cimmerians were expelled from the Pontic Steppe around 500 BCE, while the Cimbri enter the historical records of the Romans in the 2nd century BCE.

But the Scythians still occupied the Pontic Steppe when the Goths moved there in the 3rd-4th century CE. So it could be that the Goths descend from the Cimmerians that moved to Scandinavia, or that the Goths absorbed a considerable number of local Scythians before moving into the Roman Empire.

Sorry The site don't  let me sing up. now I can.


They are first referenced by Herodotus as Scythians, but it should be noted that Herodotus was inclined to sweeping definitions of people whom he considered "barbarians" and perhaps designated the Goths as "Scythians" simply because they lived in the regions surrounding the Black Sea, traditionally Scythian territory.

Modern scholarship has rejected the identification of the Goths with the ancient Scythians. The primary source on Gothic history is Jordanes' work Getica (6th century CE), which presents a half-mythic version of the story of these people, and so his account is accepted carefully by some scholars and rejected completely by others. Jordanes' work was a distillation and summary of a much longer work, now lost, by Cassiodorus, a Roman official who served in the court of the Gothic king Theodoric the Great (c.454-526 CE), and it is generally accepted that Cassiodorus invented much of his history to legitimize the reign of Theodoric by giving the Goths an illustrious past. Where the Goths originally came from is unknown.

In Roman history they first appear in Pliny the Elder's account (c. 75 CE) of the explorer Pytheas' travels in northern Europe and his interaction with the people he called the Gutones, a Germanic tribe identified as the Goths (an identification further supported by the account of Ptolemy, a writer who lived shortly after Pliny). The Goths are given fairly extensive treatment in Tacitus' Germania (98 CE), where they are described in detail, and they are further dealt with by later writers such as Ammianus Marcellinus (c. 390), who wrote a continuation of Tacitus' histories.

They were later defined by Cassiodorus and categorized as "Visigoths" (western Goths) and "Ostrogoths" (eastern Goths), but they did not originally refer to themselves by these designations. The claim that the Visigoths were originally ruled by a family named Balthi (or Balts) and the Ostrogoths by the illustrious Amal family seems to have some truth to it but is thought to have been embellished upon by Cassiodorus or, perhaps, Jordanes



Heather contends, however, that "there is still more than enough good-quality evidence to establish that Germanic migration from the north was a major factor in the strategic revolution of the third century" (114). He also maintains that this migration would have taken place centuries before the Goths came to play their pivotal role in the fall of Rome and development of northern Europe. Whether one accepts the Scandinavian origin of the Goths depends on how much faith one has in Jordanes' account and the interpretation of archaeological evidence.

Kulikowski argues that the claim for the Goths originating north of the Black Sea is a "text-hindered fantasy", meaning that archaeological evidence has been interpreted to fit Jordanes' account instead of being evaluated on its own merits (Heather, 113). This debate is on-going and, presently, no new evidence has come to light to fully substantiate one side or the other


While it is probable that modern-day Gdansk is the ancient Gothiscandzan, it cannot be proven conclusively, even though the discovery in 1873 CE of over 3,000 Gothic tombs in Eastern Pomerania, Poland (dating between the 1st and 4th centuries CE) argues in favor of the claim. This find, the so-called Wielbark Culture (named for the Polish village where the tombs were discovered), is also subject to the same controversy addressed above, in that those historians who argue in favor of Jordanes' account claim vindication while, those who do not, argue that the site has simply been interpreted in light of the acceptance of Jordanes' work.

Scythian looks have similar art or same taste:

scythian-eagle-2.jpgResultado de imagen para Goths scythian




I post that before. 


Art of the Getae,indegenous tribe of the lower Danube which in fact resemble the name of the "Goths" which were to be found in same place,their names multiple time confused among historians,Jordanes one of them who wrote the history of Goths and wrote about Getae in distant past.
Herodotus mention them as most warlike of all Thracians.

Beaker with birds and animals, Thraco-Getian, 4th century BC



  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


This description fits with later accounts of the Goths, but historians suggest caution in accepting that the later Goths were the same people as those Tacitus wrote of. Like the Alemanni tribe, the tribal identity of the Goths is thought to have undergone a transformation between the 1st century CE when Tacitus wrote and the 3rd and 4th centuries CE when many of the other accounts are given. Heather writes:


All the Germanic groups at the heart of the successor states to the Roman Empire in this era - Goths, Franks, Vandals, and so on - can be shown to be new political units, created on the march, many of them recruiting from a wide range of manpower sources, some of which were not even Germanic speaking. The political units formed by the Germani in the first millennium were thus not closed groups with continuous histories, but entities that could be created and destroyed, and which, in between, increased and decreased in size according to historical circumstance. (20)


Those Goths who would later be allied with or against the Huns, who fought for and against Rome, might not be the same people Tacitus describes but, unlike the Alemanni, there seems to be a greater probability that they were, as the later descriptions seem to match the earlier ones fairly closely. In religion, for example, the Goths described by Tacitus practiced the same kind of tribal, Nordic paganism that was later defended by Gothic kings such as Athanaric in the 4th century CE. The veneration of ancestors, an appreciation for nature and recognition of sacred natural sites, and tribal totems were as much a part of 1st century Gothic religion as it was for the later Goths until the coming of Christianity.


  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Jornandes in his Getica (Gothic history) states that the Goths originated from Scandza, that place described by Ptolemy as shaped like a Juniper leaf with bulging sides that taper down to a point. Jornandes added more detail:

 “It lies in front of the river Vistula which rises in the Sarmatian Mountains and flows through it triple mouth into the northern ocean in sight of Scandza separating Germany and Scythia. Here also there are said to be many small islands scattered about. If wolves cross over to these islands when the sea is frozen by reason of the great cold, they are said to lose their sight. Thus the land is not only inhospitable to men but cruel even to wild beasts.”
The map above identifies the Gothic point of origin as Gotland, an island east of Sweden. It also marks the Gothic migration sequence to Sweden, eastern Poland, and then Scythia.

I share this opinion. this my point of view, they reach Black Sea.

 Resultado de imagen para Goths scythian


Historians have identified Gothiscandza as northern Poland. Note the similarity between the words Gothiscandza and Gdansk, the port city of modern Poland.

When was this migration? Extant data suggest that the Goths crossed the Baltic Sea circa 300 B.C. inhabited the Polish territory during the 1st century A.D, and then Scythia during the 2nd century A.D.
The Goths maintained their sub-tribe names from their time in Sweden: the Ostrogoths being the eastern tribe and the Visigoths the western. After the migration, he Ostrogoths occupied the area north of the Black Sea while the Visigoths occupied the area of the Balkans (Dacia).
With respect to Roman history, we first hear of the Goths when Maximinus became emperor. He was a Thracian with Gothic ancestry – father a Goth named Micca and mother a member of the Alani tribe named Ababa. We next hear of them when they ambush and defeat Decius in 251 A.D. at Abrittus, but we will save the wars between the Romans and Goths for a later post.
Tacitus wrote a treatise on the German people titled Germania which, despite its biases, provides useful information about the Germans including the Goths. Selected quotes below:
The people of Germany appear to me indigenous, and free from intermixture with foreigners, either as settlers or casual visitants. For the emigrants of former ages performed their expeditions not by land, but by water; and that immense, and, if I may so call it, hostile ocean, is rarely navigated by ships from our world. Then, besides the danger of a boisterous and unknown sea, who would relinquish Asia, Africa, or Italy, for Germany, a land rude in its surface, rigorous in its climate, cheerless to every beholder and cultivator, except a native?
I concur in opinion with those who deem the Germans never to have intermarried with other nations; but to be a race, pure, unmixed, and stamped with a distinct character. Hence a family likeness pervades the whole, though their numbers are so great: eyes stern and blue; ruddy hair; large bodies, powerful in sudden exertions, but impatient of toil and labor, least of all capable of sustaining thirst and heat. Cold and hunger they are accustomed by their climate and soil to endure.


The land, though varied to a considerable extent in its aspect, is yet universally shagged with forests, or deformed by marshes: moister on the side of Gaul, more bleak on the side of Norieum and Pannonia. It is productive of grain, but unkindly to fruit-trees. It abounds in flocks and herds, but in general of a small breed.


Even iron is not plentiful among them; as may be inferred from the nature of their weapons. Swords or broad lances are seldom used; but they generally carry a spear, called in their language framea, which has an iron blade, short and narrow, but so sharp and manageable, that, as occasion requires, they employ it either in close or distant fighting.


This spear and a shield are all the armor of the cavalry. The foot have, besides, missile weapons, several to each man, which they hurl to an immense distance. They are either naked, or lightly covered with a small mantle; and have no pride in equipage: their shields only are ornamented with the choicest colors. Few are provided with a coat of mail and scarcely here and there one with a casque or helmet. Their horses are neither remarkable for beauty nor swiftness, nor are they taught the various evolutions practiced with us. The cavalry either bear down straight forwards, or wheel once to the right, in so compact a body that none is left behind the rest. Their principal strength, on the whole, consists in their infantry: hence in an engagement these are intermixed with the cavalry; so well accordant with the nature of equestrian combats is the agility of those foot soldiers, whom they select from the whole body of their youth, and place in the front of the line.


In the election of kings they have regard to birth; in that of generals, to valor. Their kings have not an absolute or unlimited power; and their generals command less through the force of authority, than of example. If they are daring, adventurous, and conspicuous in action, they procure obedience from the admiration they inspire.


The Germans transact no business, public or private, without being armed: but it is not customary for any person to assume arms till the state has approved his ability to use them.


In the field of battle, it is disgraceful for the chief to be surpassed in valor; it is disgraceful for the companions not to equal their chief; but it is reproach and infamy during a whole succeeding life to retreat from the field surviving him.


During the intervals of war, they pass their time less in hunting than in a sluggish repose, divided between sleep and the table. All the bravest of the warriors, committing the care of the house, the family affairs, and the lands, to the women, old men, and weaker part of the domestics, stupefy themselves in inaction.


Their drink is a liquor prepared from barley or wheat brought by fermentation to a certain resemblance of wine.


It is well known that none of the German nations inhabit cities; or even admit of contiguous settlements. They dwell scattered and separate, as a spring, a meadow, or a grove may chance to invite them.


Remember that Germania was written in 98 A.D. during the Gothic migration so he had no sense of the Goths as a major adversary of Rome. To him they were a single member of the tribes who occupied northeastern Germany during his time. They would not reach Scythia until two centuries later.
In the next post we move on to the growing conflict between the Goths and Rome starting in the mid-third century A.D.
Footnote: Jornandes is the primary source of information about the Goths. He was a Goth himself who served as a Roman bureaucrat during the sixth century A.D. Jornandes began to write late in life and chose a history of Rome as his first subject. That task was interrupted when a friend asked him to write a summary of the six volume history of the Goths written by Cassiodorus (lost). Writing in Constantinople, he completed the text in 551 A.D.



Resultado de imagen para Goths scythian

Edited by Lion.Kanzen
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...