Who's a pretty boy den? A product of Hun head binding.
The story of the 'Scourge of God',
Attila the Hun is an interesting one to contemplate. Sadly, all that
we know of this doughty ruler/warrior is from his staunch enemies, the Romans.
And the Roman were none too flattering to Attila and his Hunnic
hordes.
This tale will have to be dealt
with in parts. It is really too intricate to consider in one meagre
post. Thus, this first post will have to present a little
introductory material.
When we think of the cliché barbarian 'Attila the Hun' readily comes to mind. He typifies all that is
bad that assailed/assaulted the Roman Empire in the 5th
century AD. However, Attila is not just another mindless barbarian
responsible for the dismantling of the Roman Empire. He is decidedly a
complex character, an accomplished general, diplomat, and the
ultimate power broker.
At its greatest, he carved out an empire
stretching from the Black sea to the Rhine and from the Baltic to the
Balkans. However, his Empire was ephemeral. All horse folk suffered from the
same challenges throughout history, preventing the formation of a long-lasting empire. That said their way of making war was something the
Western powers (ancient and medieval) found challenging to counter, however, nomadic horse folk were always on the cusp of a dilemma. The reaver's lifestyle was always a short-term strategy. The atavistic urge to pillage and plunder, dormant even in the most civilised, is never a long-term plan and is ultimately doomed to fail.
Although the urge to wreak havoc and take short-term rich pickings is alluring, long-term
tis not conducive for founding an enduring Empire. The lure is the desire for a settled lifestyle. Imagine soft women and exotic viands (cf the Vikings of the 9th-10th century). But this was an alien concept to nomadic
peoples, but they could be seduced. Even if the Huns couldn't exploit the land directly, they
could obtain largesse by an indirect and very lucrative route. Simply by
threatening an invasion into Roman lands they could extort gold and silver from an
increasingly fragile Empire. This policy fostered lassitude. The advantages of the sedentary lifestyle were extremely attractive to
nomads used to a harsh unyielding lifestyle. The nature of man once
faced with the effete sedentary living of a decadent Roman
patrician was too much to resist- the fate of the patrician Hun. When given the choice of living on
milk curd and horse blood the allure of lark
tongues was just too much to refuse. Decadence is the ultimate
demise of the barbarian and civilised alike.
Once their charismatic leader, Attila,
bled to death on his wedding night (476 AD), his fragile Hunnish Empire
began to disintegrate. An illiterate horde bombarded with extreme
wealth, in a very short time, is doomed unless there is an extreme
adaption. But, therein lies the problem. Once the barbarian gains a
light garnishing of civilisation they become vulnerable to those they
consider, vanquished. Thus civilised, static stability is the ultimate antidote to the
horse barbarian. As we know to our cost, the civilised livery of the
West is too hard to resist by 'lesser breeds'. Anyway, moving on.
The Roman Empire of the 5th
century AD was vastly different from the 'heyday of the Empire' of the
first and second centuries. The Empire was effectively split into
Western and Eastern regions each controlled by its own Emperor. The
Eastern Emperor ruled from the city of Constantinople (now Istanbul) while the Western Emperor ruled from the eternal city, Rome. The empire was not only divided by geography but culturally and linguistically; the West was Latin and the East, was Greek.
The legions that once bestrode the
known world like a colossus were no more. Citizen soldiers, highly
trained and motivated had been replaced by something else. The armies of Rome were
still formidable at 500 thousand strong but they lacked cultural and
racial cohesion. The army had been split into two: a mobile army
ready to shift to where the problems were and a static army
permanently based on the extensive Roman frontier. The frontiers,
from all sides, were being assailed by barbarians chipping away at the edge of the Empire. The mobile army was forever on the move to
quell one incursion to the next. The concept of the Roman citizen
army had been replaced with the barbarian mercenary. Demanding land
and gold, the barbarian soldiers of Germanica were fickle allies at
best.
The Huns came to the attention of the
unprepared Romans in 370 AD when they burst from the Hungarian plain.
Their ultimate origin is controversial and I'll deal with their
proposed homeland in my next thrilling installment. From the Roman perspective, the
Huns were nothing like the people who they had previously met and mainly
conquered. Their lives were conducted from the back of their sturdy,
resilient steppe steeds. They ate, conducted parleys, and even slept from the saddle of their mounts. Life was initially frugal and austere but they
soon acquired a taste for Roman gold. The Hun was unequaled in horse archery and
used the powerful, multilaminate composite bow. Its construction
maximised the qualities of the materials from which it was made. Its
only drawback was that it quickly came undone in wet conditions as the fish glue used to maintain the bow disintegrated. This was not really a problem on the arid grassland of the steppe. Unlike the simple English, longbow, the Hun bow was an expensive and
cherished weapon. It took a year to manufacture and complete this highly sophisticated weapon of war.
The Roman concept of war turned on the
principle of 'The Set Piece Battle'. Opposing armies would line up
facing each other and battle would be joined in a linear formation. The
Romans were masters of this type of warfare. In contrast, the Huns
fought exclusively as cavalry. At first sight, it seemed the 'army' was a rabble
without formal discipline. But this is deceptive. In fact, the Hun
archers responded to the blast of a horn. War for the Hun differed greatly from the practice of civilised Westerners. It has
been recorded by the Romans that the Hun horde consisted of 500,000 mounted
horsemen. This is ridiculous. Modern assessments suggest that the
pasture available to the Huns could not support this multitude. In
reality, the Hun 'army' was relatively small and had no more than 30,000
men. It was their method of waging war that made them an irresistible force.
The Huns would rush an enemy firing
arrows from their stout short bows. If engaged by enemy cavalry they
would feign retreat but all the time learning over the horse's back
and shooting their arrows at a deadly rate. Western cavalry weighted
down with armour could not match the agility and endurance of the
Hun. When the enemy cavalry was spent the Hun would return and
dispatch their foe with a cloud of well-placed arrows. Similarly, the
Roman infantryman would suffer the same fate. The horde would descend
like a thunderstorm picking off infantrymen at will. Eventually, the soldiers could stand no more and became
disordered in retreat. Then the real slaughter would begin. It seems
that the western warrior could find no antidote to this mode of
fighting. It would take the arrival of gun powder to finally destroy
the power of the mounted Asian archer.
So far I have set the scene for the
next thrilling installment but there has been scant mention of the prime
antagonist, himself, the 'Great Attila the Hun'. This oversight that
will be remedied in a thrice........
