Lion.Kanzen Posted September 7, 2022 Report Share Posted September 7, 2022 (edited) the quality is bad, later I will look for a higher resolution version. Edited September 7, 2022 by Lion.Kanzen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion.Kanzen Posted September 26, 2022 Report Share Posted September 26, 2022 (edited) https://amazingbibletimeline.com/blog/attila-the-hun/ History between 434 and 453 AD. Attila was born in Pannonia (modern Transdanubia in Hungary). Pannonia, at that time, was ceded by the Roman Emperor to the Huns. It was the seat of the short-lived Hunnic Empire ruled by Attila. In his book Getica (The Origin or Deeds of the Goths), the Gothic bureaucrat and historian Jordanes stated that Attila was the son of a man named Mundiuch (Mundzuk) by an unnamed woman. He had an older brother named Bleda (Buda), and he was the nephew of the Hunnic brother-rulers named Rugila (or Ruga) and Octar. Jordanes described him as a short man with a broad chest, large head, small eyes, and a thin beard; indeed, it was clear that the Gothic historian was in awe of Attila and he described the warlord as “a man born into the world to shake the nations, the scourge of all lands, who in some way terrified all mankind by the dreadful rumors noised abroad concerning him. He was haughty in his walk, rolling his eyes hither and thither, so that the power of his proud spirit appeared in the movement of his body. He was indeed a lover of war, yet restrained in action, mighty in counsel, gracious to suppliants and lenient to those who were once received into his protection.” https://www.ancient-origins.net/history-famous-people/scourge-god-did-attila-hun-really-deserve-nickname-004573 As young men, Attila and Bleda were probably taught archery, horse-riding, and the art of war to prepare them for their future role as leaders of the Huns. Additionally, it has been said that Attila and his brother were also taught Latin and Gothic so that they could do business with the Romans and the Goths. http://medieval.ucdavis.edu/20A/Jordanes.html [...]showing the evidences of his origin. And though his temper was such that he always had great self-confidence, yet his assurance was increased by finding the sword of Mars, always esteemed sacred among the kings of the Scythians. The historian Priscus says it was discovered under the following circumstances: "When a certain shepherd beheld one heifer of his flock limping and could find no cause for this wound, he anxiously followed the trail of blood and at length came to a sword it had unwittingly trampled while nibbling the grass. He dug it up and took it straight to Attila. He rejoiced at this gift and, being ambitious, thought he had been appointed ruler of the whole world, and that through the sword of Mars supremacy in all wars was assured to him." Edited September 26, 2022 by Lion.Kanzen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate Aurelian Posted October 20, 2022 Report Share Posted October 20, 2022 (edited) https://people.ucalgary.ca/~vandersp/Courses/texts/prisfr8.html This has some interesting descriptions of Atilla's capital, could be useful for Wonder Quote Having waited for some time until Attila advanced in front of us, we proceeded, and having crossed some rivers we arrived at a large village, where Attila's house was said to be more splendid than his residences in other places. It was made of polished boards, and surrounded with a wooden enclosure, designed, not for protection, but for appearance. The house of Onegesius was second to the king's in splendour, and was also encircled with a wooden enclosure, but it was not adorned with towers like that of the king. Not far from the enclosure was a large bath which Onegesius--who was the second in power among the Scythians-- built, having transported the stones from Pannonia; for the barbarians in this district had no stones or trees, but used imported material. The builder of the bath was a captive from Sirmium, who expected to win his freedom as payment for making the bath. But he was disappointed, and greater trouble befell him than mere captivity among the Scythians, for Onegesius appointed him bathman, and he used to minister to him and his family when they bathed. Quote The next day I entered the enclosure of Attila's palace, bearing gifts to his wife, whose name was Kreka. She had three sons, of whom the eldest governed the Acatiri and the other nations who dwell in Pontic Scythia. Within the enclosure were numerous buildings, some of carved boards beautifully fitted together, others of straight, fastened on round wooden blocks which rose to a moderate height from the ground. Attila's wife lived here, and, having been admitted by the barbarians at the door, I found her reclining on a soft couch. The floor of the room was covered with woollen mats for walking on. A number of servants stood round her, and maids sitting on the floor in front of her embroidered with colours linen cloths intended to be placed over the Scythian dress for ornament. Also some descriptions of boats being used to cross rivers within the Huns' territory (They might need a navy for balance reasons) Quote At the river we were received by barbarian ferrymen, who rowed us across the river in boats made by themselves out of single trees hewn and hollowed. These preparations had not been made for our sake, but to convey across a company of Huns; for Attila pretended that he wished to hunt in Roman territory, but his intent was really hostile, because all the deserters had not been given up to him. Having crossed the Danube, and proceeded with the barbarians about seventy stadia, we were compelled to wait in a certain plain, that Edecon and his party might go on in front and inform Attila of our arrival. Quote We proceeded along a level road in a plain and met with navigable rivers--of which the greatest, next to the Danube, are the Drecon, Tigas, and Tiphesas--which we crossed in the Monoxyles, boats made of one piece, used by the dwellers on the banks: the smaller rivers we traversed on rafts which the barbarians carry about with them on carts, for the purpose of crossing morasses. In the villages we were supplied with food--millet instead of corn, and mead, as the natives call it, instead of wine. Edited October 20, 2022 by Ultimate Aurelian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion.Kanzen Posted October 20, 2022 Report Share Posted October 20, 2022 8 minutes ago, Ultimate Aurelian said: https://people.ucalgary.ca/~vandersp/Courses/texts/prisfr8.html This has some interesting descriptions of Atilla's capital, could be useful for Wonder Archived. https://archive.md/j2N1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion.Kanzen Posted January 28 Report Share Posted January 28 Alan Infantry This Lombard but share same armor and equipment with Huns. The armor is like that of the Chinese, Lamellar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion.Kanzen Posted January 28 Report Share Posted January 28 (edited) Related with Goths , Vandals https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_and_Vandal_warfare Late Roman representational evidence, including propaganda monuments, gravestones, tombs, and the Exodus fresco, often shows Late Roman soldiers with one or two spears; one tombstone shows a soldier with five shorter javelins.[48][49] Archaeological evidence, from Roman burials and Scandinavian bog-deposits, shows similar spearheads, though the shafts are rarely preserved.[50][51] Aside from the traditional mail and scale armour of Roman armies, it also known from archaeological finds that the Goths and Vandals commonly used lamellar armour. Constructed of overlapping metal plates laced together, lamellar was more rigid than mail or scale armour and offered considerably greater protection against blunt force trauma from weapons such as maces or axes, commonly used by heavy cavalry of the time. Late Roman representational evidence sometimes still shows Roman swords.[52][53] Archaeological evidence shows that the gladius has disappeared; various short semispathae supplement the older pugiones[54][55] while medium-long spathae replace the medium-short gladii.[52][56] These have the same straight double-edged blades as older Roman swords.[57][58] Representational evidence and recovered laths, as well as arrowheads and bracers, show Roman use of composite bows.[59][60] Representational evidence, recovered bosses, and some complete shields from Dara, show that most Roman infantry and some Roman cavalry carried shields.[61][62] Although the representational evidence, including gravestones and tombs, usually shows soldiers without armor, the archaeological evidence includes remains of scale armor, mail armor, and helmets. Philippe Richardot in his book La Fin De L’armée Romaine (284-476) wrote that the Alans fighting for Aetius at Chalons would have looked a lot different to the Alans that fought with Saphrax and Alatheus at Adrianople as they would have been armed & equipped with Roman equipment but they probably would have still used the classic steppe tactics though with feigned retreats and massed disciplined charges a feature of their style of warfare. They probably faced Alans fighting for Attila as some Alan tribes submitted to the Huns and there were a lot of Alan/Sarmatian connections with Greuthungi Goths & the Amali rulers, who fought with Attila at Chalons. Apparently Attila was angry with the leader of the Alans, Sangiban as he thought there was an agreement where Sangiban was supposed to surrender Orleans to Attila thereby allowing the Hunnic army to cross the Loire river and raid Visigoth territory so there was still contact between Alans to a degree, on both sides of the fence in 451AD. The Roxolani were famous for the use of the contus and the long heavy sword but the Iazyges, as noted by Cassius Dio used a shorter lance and carried shields, probably because they had more contact with their neighbours the Quadi in regards to weaponry and fighting tactics as the Quadi would have by contact with the Iazyges with cavalry playing an important role in their forces. So in a nutshell there are lots of reasons why the Alans changed over time, just a couple of generations I think. The Romans did not allow large groups of Alans or Sarmatians to settle in Roman territory only small groups with favoured leaders in an attempt to play one group against another. Of course the wealthier leadership of the Alans would have fared better than the poorer ones with larger landholdings and tenant farmers to do the work & they could afford quality horses & maintain their equestrian skills with hunts and falconry. 8-) https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/showthread.php?tid=18685 About Huns, Alans, Sarmatians and Xiongnu. Edited January 28 by Lion.Kanzen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion.Kanzen Posted January 28 Report Share Posted January 28 16 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said: Related with Goths , Vandals https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_and_Vandal_warfare Late Roman representational evidence, including propaganda monuments, gravestones, tombs, and the Exodus fresco, often shows Late Roman soldiers with one or two spears; one tombstone shows a soldier with five shorter javelins.[48][49] Archaeological evidence, from Roman burials and Scandinavian bog-deposits, shows similar spearheads, though the shafts are rarely preserved.[50][51] Aside from the traditional mail and scale armour of Roman armies, it also known from archaeological finds that the Goths and Vandals commonly used lamellar armour. Constructed of overlapping metal plates laced together, lamellar was more rigid than mail or scale armour and offered considerably greater protection against blunt force trauma from weapons such as maces or axes, commonly used by heavy cavalry of the time. Late Roman representational evidence sometimes still shows Roman swords.[52][53] Archaeological evidence shows that the gladius has disappeared; various short semispathae supplement the older pugiones[54][55] while medium-long spathae replace the medium-short gladii.[52][56] These have the same straight double-edged blades as older Roman swords.[57][58] Representational evidence and recovered laths, as well as arrowheads and bracers, show Roman use of composite bows.[59][60] Representational evidence, recovered bosses, and some complete shields from Dara, show that most Roman infantry and some Roman cavalry carried shields.[61][62] Although the representational evidence, including gravestones and tombs, usually shows soldiers without armor, the archaeological evidence includes remains of scale armor, mail armor, and helmets. Philippe Richardot in his book La Fin De L’armée Romaine (284-476) wrote that the Alans fighting for Aetius at Chalons would have looked a lot different to the Alans that fought with Saphrax and Alatheus at Adrianople as they would have been armed & equipped with Roman equipment but they probably would have still used the classic steppe tactics though with feigned retreats and massed disciplined charges a feature of their style of warfare. They probably faced Alans fighting for Attila as some Alan tribes submitted to the Huns and there were a lot of Alan/Sarmatian connections with Greuthungi Goths & the Amali rulers, who fought with Attila at Chalons. Apparently Attila was angry with the leader of the Alans, Sangiban as he thought there was an agreement where Sangiban was supposed to surrender Orleans to Attila thereby allowing the Hunnic army to cross the Loire river and raid Visigoth territory so there was still contact between Alans to a degree, on both sides of the fence in 451AD. The Roxolani were famous for the use of the contus and the long heavy sword but the Iazyges, as noted by Cassius Dio used a shorter lance and carried shields, probably because they had more contact with their neighbours the Quadi in regards to weaponry and fighting tactics as the Quadi would have by contact with the Iazyges with cavalry playing an important role in their forces. So in a nutshell there are lots of reasons why the Alans changed over time, just a couple of generations I think. The Romans did not allow large groups of Alans or Sarmatians to settle in Roman territory only small groups with favoured leaders in an attempt to play one group against another. Of course the wealthier leadership of the Alans would have fared better than the poorer ones with larger landholdings and tenant farmers to do the work & they could afford quality horses & maintain their equestrian skills with hunts and falconry. 8-) https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/showthread.php?tid=18685 About Huns, Alans, Sarmatians and Xiongnu. 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. https://www.google.com/amp/s/about-history.com/the-weapons-armor-and-tactics-of-the-fearsome-huns-which-dominated-europe-and-asia/%3famp?espv=1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion.Kanzen Posted January 30 Report Share Posted January 30 (edited) Huns before Attila. (Spanish source). https://historiayromaantigua.blogspot.com/2023/10/los-hunos-antes-de-atila-el-pueblo-que.html?m=0&fbclid=IwAR0o4hjH9Us2M-bZ2BTYelgzqGKep5b7_PG-QPEyG9D_GGzSOZV_xyCcElE The people that surpasses all the limits of cruelty" (Histories, XXXI.2.1). With this phrase, Amianus Marcellinus, a seasoned officer of the fourth century, refers to the people that burst into the Roman limes after subduing or putting to flight the tribes that previously inhabited the immense territory between the Don River(Russia) and the Danube. [...] The Romans had been fighting barbarians of different kinds (Germanic, Celts, Sarmatians, etc.) for centuries and were not prepared for the novelty of contact with the Huns, the first Turco-Mongolian people with whom the Romans had to deal. Something similar happened to the Goths, the Slavs or the Iranians, who reflected in their folklore the impact that the contact with the Huns had on them (for example, The Song of the Nibelungs). Their short period of domination was enough to fix the civilization-Hun antithesis in the European collective consciousness. So much so that the term Hun has historically been considered an insult related to extreme savagery. For example, it was used by the conflicting powers in the First and Second World Wars to disqualify each other. The Hun people were the product of the fusion of several nomadic groups from Central Asia. They stood out as excellent archers and for their skill in warfare and ability on horseback. Under the leadership of great warlords such as Charaton, Ruga (Rugila) or Attila, they forged a vast empire that extended from the shores of the Caspian Sea to those of the North Sea. THE ORIGIN AND BEHAVIOR ON THE BATTLEFIELD. Who were these nomads and where did they come from? On the exact origin of the Huns there is controversy. There are numerous authors who defend that the origin of the Huns must be sought in the conglomerate of steppe peoples called Hsiung-Un, the Xiung-Nu mentioned in Chinese sources. These people became the worst of enemies for the Chinese rulers of the Qin and Han dynasties for almost 200 years. They founded an empire that eventually split into two large groups: the southern one that continued to harass the Chinese until the 4th century and the northern ones that were subdivided between those who took Mongolia as their base and those who migrated to the West, towards the steppes of the Aral Sea and Lake Baljash. This second group that migrated to the west is the one that, when it crosses the Volga riverbed and subdues or displaces the Alans, Sarmatians, Greutung Goths and Tervingians, will provoke an earthquake without precedent in European history. In favor of this theory there are several factors such as the coincidences found between the Huns' cauldrons and the cauldrons belonging to the Hsiung-Un culture, the historical and phonetic concordance found in the Roman, Chinese, Persian and Indian sources that refer to these nomads, and that recent genetic studies have shown (in the later case of the Avars) that it is perfectly possible and much faster than we might think the displacement of an entire people from Mongolia to the banks of the Danube. There are other factors such as the fact that, unlike other barbarian peoples of their time, the Huns demonstrated a perfect mastery of polyorgetics (siegecraft). They used all kinds of machinery, catapults, battering rams, hellepoles. According to some recent studies, they even used some types of catapults that even the Romans did not know. That knowledge could come from the centuries of struggle that their ancestors the Hsiung-Un maintained against the civilized empires of China, Persia or India. The lack of archaeological concordance in the burials and above all the fact that no elongated skulls have been found in the tombs attributed to the Hsiung-Un people, while in the Huna culture and in some of the peoples of the Hsiung-Un people, the Hsiung-Un people were the only ones to have found elongated skulls in their tombs. In any case, this discussion must always be made thinking that we are talking about their elites, even of their real clans, since the nomadic peoples of the steppes have a very variable composition that changes constantly with the addition of the elements contributed by the people that they subdue as they pass through. In any case, for the Romans the Huns were something totally new and the discourse they constructed from the beginning was based on otherness, on the discourse of civilization against savagery and vileness. Amianus Marcellinus and experienced officer experienced in several campaigns against Alamans, Saracens and Chionites called them "two-footed beasts" (History, XXXI.2.2) says that they are "the people that surpasses all the limits of cruelty" (Histories, XXXI.2.1). The Romans were frightened by their flat noses, typical of a people of Turkic-Mongolian origin, their bowed legs from living on horses, their large heads and in many cases their elongated skulls. The beard of the men was scarce, due to the fact that they disfigured their faces with ritual scars practiced since childhood. Their clothing was strange, based on linen, marmot skins that were never changed until they rotted on them. In their long journeys they could drink the blood of their horses, they ate raw or half-cooked meat by putting it under their saddle while riding. They did everything on horseback (negotiating, sleeping, eating, etc). Related https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugila https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charaton Edited January 31 by Lion.Kanzen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion.Kanzen Posted January 30 Report Share Posted January 30 56 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said: Huns before Attila. (Spanish source). https://historiayromaantigua.blogspot.com/2023/10/los-hunos-antes-de-atila-el-pueblo-que.html?m=0&fbclid=IwAR0o4hjH9Us2M-bZ2BTYelgzqGKep5b7_PG-QPEyG9D_GGzSOZV_xyCcElE The people that surpasses all the limits of cruelty" (Histories, XXXI.2.1). With this phrase, Amianus Marcellinus, a seasoned officer of the fourth century, refers to the people that burst into the Roman limes after subduing or putting to flight the tribes that previously inhabited the immense territory between the Don River(Russia) and the Danube. [...] The Romans had been fighting barbarians of different kinds (Germanic, Celts, Sarmatians, etc.) for centuries and were not prepared for the novelty of contact with the Huns, the first Turco-Mongolian people with whom the Romans had to deal. Something similar happened to the Goths, the Slavs or the Iranians, who reflected in their folklore the impact that the contact with the Huns had on them (for example, The Song of the Nibelungs). Their short period of domination was enough to fix the civilization-Hun antithesis in the European collective consciousness. So much so that the term Hun has historically been considered an insult related to extreme savagery. For example, it was used by the conflicting powers in the First and Second World Wars to disqualify each other. The Hun people were the product of the fusion of several nomadic groups from Central Asia. They stood out as excellent archers and for their skill in warfare and ability on horseback. Under the leadership of great warlords such as Charaton, Ruga (Rugila) or Attila, they forged a vast empire that extended from the shores of the Caspian Sea to those of the North Sea. THE ORIGIN AND BEHAVIOR ON THE BATTLEFIELD. Who were these nomads and where did they come from? On the exact origin of the Huns there is controversy. There are numerous authors who defend that the origin of the Huns must be sought in the conglomerate of steppe peoples called Hsiung-Un, the Xiung-Nu mentioned in Chinese sources. These people became the worst of enemies for the Chinese rulers of the Qin and Han dynasties for almost 200 years. They founded an empire that eventually split into two large groups: the southern one that continued to harass the Chinese until the 4th century and the northern ones that were subdivided between those who took Mongolia as their base and those who migrated to the West, towards the steppes of the Aral Sea and Lake Baljash. This second group that migrated to the west is the one that, when it crosses the Volga riverbed and subdues or displaces the Alans, Sarmatians, Greutung Goths and Tervingians, will provoke an earthquake without precedent in European history. In favor of this theory there are several factors such as the coincidences found between the Huns' cauldrons and the cauldrons belonging to the Hsiung-Un culture, the historical and phonetic concordance found in the Roman, Chinese, Persian and Indian sources that refer to these nomads, and that recent genetic studies have shown (in the later case of the Avars) that it is perfectly possible and much faster than we might think the displacement of an entire people from Mongolia to the banks of the Danube. There are other factors such as the fact that, unlike other barbarian peoples of their time, the Huns demonstrated a perfect mastery of polyorgetics (siegecraft). They used all kinds of machinery, catapults, battering rams, hellepoles. According to some recent studies, they even used some types of catapults that even the Romans did not know. That knowledge could come from the centuries of struggle that their ancestors the Hsiung-Un maintained against the civilized empires of China, Persia or India. The lack of archaeological concordance in the burials and above all the fact that no elongated skulls have been found in the tombs attributed to the Hsiung-Un people, while in the Huna culture and in some of the peoples of the Hsiung-Un people, the Hsiung-Un people were the only ones to have found elongated skulls in their tombs. In any case, this discussion must always be made thinking that we are talking about their elites, even of their real clans, since the nomadic peoples of the steppes have a very variable composition that changes constantly with the addition of the elements contributed by the people that they subdue as they pass through. In any case, for the Romans the Huns were something totally new and the discourse they constructed from the beginning was based on otherness, on the discourse of civilization against savagery and vileness. Amianus Marcellinus and experienced officer experienced in several campaigns against Alamans, Saracens and Chionites called them "two-footed beasts" (History, XXXI.2.2) says that they are "the people that surpasses all the limits of cruelty" (Histories, XXXI.2.1). The Romans were frightened by their flat noses, typical of a people of Turkic-Mongolian origin, their bowed legs from living on horses, their large heads and in many cases their elongated skulls. The beard of the men was scarce, due to the fact that they disfigured their faces with ritual scars practiced since childhood. Their clothing was strange, based on linen, marmot skins that were never changed until they rotted on them. In their long journeys they could drink the blood of their horses, they ate raw or half-cooked meat by putting it under their saddle while riding. They did everything on horseback (negotiating, sleeping, eating, etc). Related https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugila https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charaton @Genava55 Ritual Scars? Any idea , like Amerindians? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion.Kanzen Posted January 30 Report Share Posted January 30 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said: @Genava55 The Huns in combat. In campaign they were fearsome. They attacked in dense and disorderly formations and it is estimated that each rider had several horses for refreshment, which allowed them, if necessary, to move at a much higher speed than other armies of the time. In addition, the horses -if necessary- acted as a mobile dispatcher, providing them with meat, blood, milk from the mares, etc. They wore pants and gaiters, curved hooves and shapeless moccasins made of badly tanned leather. They used lassoes to capture and knock their enemies off the horse, swords for melee, spears, etc. To their extraordinary mobility and ferocity in combat they added their secret weapon: the Hun bow. It was an asymmetrical compound bow that could reach a length of 1.60 meters. It was much longer at the top, which made it more practical to use while riding. The helmets and armor were not very different from those of their enemies and as they increased in power and wealth the cavalry went from being a light cavalry, protected with felt caftans and leather to be a cavalry composed of riders protected by loricas of chainmail or scales. The horses were also protected with felt breastplates, frontera( horse protection) , etc. reinforced with metal plates. In battle they formed a great mass, organized in three lines of attack that they tried to be as compact as possible. A considerable part of the warriors were left as reserves. The refreshment horses and provisions were left at a certain distance from the battle, sometimes protected behind a lager or circle of wagons protected by a strong contingent. To this fearsome army must be added their facility for the siege and conquest of strongly walled cities. In Priscus or San Aniano we are told how they habitually used helepolis, assault towers with wheels, portable bridges to cross rivers, ladders to assault walls, etc. As for the units, according to the Strategicon (612 apox.), the Huns adopted a formation known as cuneus. It was a type of formation already mentioned by Amianus Marcellinus, 200 years earlier. It had a tribal nature and its number of members was variable (from several tens to several hundreds of horsemen) under the command of a chief called cur. Besides this detail on that formation, we only know that they were organized tribal and that from 411 to 444 after the appearance of more powerful kings (Shan yu) the grouping of the different hordes in two large bodies of at least 10,000 warriors each, under the authority of two monarchs takes place: one located in the Pannonian Plain and another in the Lower Danube, subordinate to the previous one. It is estimated that at that time the Huns could count about 30,000 horsemen, to which should be added numerous contingents of light and heavy infantry that increased as the process of expansion of their territory and the number of vassal peoples progressed. Given the logistical limitations of Antiquity and despite having a much larger number of warriors, they could not mobilize more than 60,000 men in total for a single campaign. Edited January 31 by Lion.Kanzen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion.Kanzen Posted January 31 Report Share Posted January 31 Gameplay: From all I read: Siege Huns are OP Siege Rams Helepolis Scorpio engine Han Catapults (That trebuchet like) Unique tech: Hun Bow a tech that are very slow to reach +(I'm not sure a good range number) more range for all range bow units. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion.Kanzen Posted January 31 Report Share Posted January 31 28 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said: Gameplay: From all I read: Siege Huns are OP Siege Rams Helepolis Scorpio engine Han Catapults (That trebuchet like) Unique tech: Hun Bow a tech that are very slow to reach +(I'm not sure a good range number) more range for all range bow units. They may therefore have been familiar with poliorcetics and advanced technology from China and central Eurasia over several centuries. By all accounts, in the age of Attila they had certainly been in contact with the Persians and Central Asian polities skilled in siege warfare for over a century. This would infer that they not only used captured and deserted Roman engineers to build their siege engines, but had their own native siege engineers. As the skill necessary to make their fine composite bows was arguably even greater than that necessary to make a siege tower, this is by no means impossible to imagine. https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/11015/why-were-the-huns-so-successful-at-siege-warfare-but-the-goths-were-not There are mixed opinions with siege techniques. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion.Kanzen Posted January 31 Report Share Posted January 31 4 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said: They may therefore have been familiar with poliorcetics and advanced technology from China and central Eurasia over several centuries. By all accounts, in the age of Attila they had certainly been in contact with the Persians and Central Asian polities skilled in siege warfare for over a century. This would infer that they not only used captured and deserted Roman engineers to build their siege engines, but had their own native siege engineers. As the skill necessary to make their fine composite bows was arguably even greater than that necessary to make a siege tower, this is by no means impossible to imagine. https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/11015/why-were-the-huns-so-successful-at-siege-warfare-but-the-goths-were-not There are mixed opinions with siege techniques. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poliorcetica English word https://www.worldhistory.org/Huns/ The Huns had learned a great deal about siege warfare from their time serving in the Roman army and expertly put this knowledge to use, literally wiping whole cities, such as Naissus, off the map. Their offensive was all the more successful because it was completely unexpected. Theodosius II had been so confident that the Huns would keep the treaty that he refused to listen to any council that suggested otherwise. Lanning comments on this, writing: Attila and his brother valued agreements little and peace even less. Immediately upon assuming the throne, they resumed the Hun offensive against Rome and anyone else who stood in their way. Over the next ten years, the Huns invaded territory which today encompasses Hungary, Greece, Spain, and Italy. Attila sent captured riches back to his homeland and drafted soldiers into his own army while often burning the overrun towns and killing their civilian occupants. Warfare proved lucrative for the Huns but wealth apparently was not their only objective. Attila and his army seemed genuinely to enjoy warfare, the rigors and rewards of military life were more appealing to them than farming or attending livestock. (61) Theodosius II, realizing he was defeated but unwilling to admit total defeat, asked for terms; the sum Rome now had to pay to keep the Huns from further destruction was more than tripled. In 445 CE Bleda vanishes from the historical record and Kelly cites Priscus of Panium on this: "Bleda, king of the Huns, was assassinated as a result of the plots of his brother Attila" (129). Other sources seem to indicate that Bleda was killed on campaign but, as Priscus is considered the most reliable source, it is generally accepted that Attila had him murdered. Attila now became the sole ruler of the Huns and commander of the most powerful fighting force in Europe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion.Kanzen Posted January 31 Report Share Posted January 31 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genava55 Posted April 4 Report Share Posted April 4 https://www.artstation.com/artwork/w0zqDY Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowOfHassen Posted April 4 Report Share Posted April 4 If you want a good but solid intro into some Hun history and culture, try the series from Classical Stuff You Should Know: https://www.classicalstuff.net/ They have a series about Gengis Kahn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.