Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Hun, Alan, Avar, and other Steppe Nomad Movements
#31
Quote:Do you have any evidence to support that statement. Mounted nomads were not recorded in Chinese records until the 4th century BC but they were not a united group and recorded them under the generic name Hu. With the founding of the Ch’in dynasty, these various groups were differentiated under three small groups on China’s northern border. They were the Yueh-Chih in the west, the Xiongnu in the Ordos region and the Tung-hu in the east. But these groups were not organised. The Xiongnu only became organised and developed the system after the Ch’in emperor attacked them to drive them north of the Yellow River. The Xiongnu were considered the weakest of the three groups and it was only after this aggression that they formed a federation and eventually overwhelmed their neighbours absorbing the Tung-hu and driving the Yueh-chih west before becoming more than a nuisance for the Han Chinese. I have not read anywhere that they borrowed the system of anyone else except maybe the Chinese and their imperial system would not be suitable for a mainly pastoral enterprise, .but as they used Chinese bureaucrats maybe the system developed over time. :-)

Judging by the evidence you present from Chinese history I must agree then that the Xiognu developed that system, but it still isn't evidence for a Hunnic-Xiongnu relation as many Altaic groups would have been using that system.


Quote:But by 387AD even Maenchen-Helfen admits on page 46 of his book that Eastern Hungary was Hun land. While on Charaton and Donatas, we only have a few lines from a fragment of Olympiodorus but I find it interesting that rather than saying all Huns were good archers, he states that the Kings of the Huns were good archers which to me indicates that the Huns had a system of installing relatives or close family members of the leadership over assorted conquered tribes.

The Huns could not have reached Hungary by 387 (other than federated troops in Rome or small military parties) because in 395 they attacked through the Caspian Gates. Heather brings this point up, saying the Huns could not have organized and launched a sustained campaign over the year 395 if they had to march all the way around the Black Sea.

The Hunnic power must have still been centered on the Don or East of the Maetois, even though some groups may have reached as far as the Dniester.

I do agree about Huns being in charge of some of their lesser groups, as Hunnic naming in the 6th century seems to suggest that.


Quote:I think you are mistaken with this author (Full name Hyun Jim Kim) who is Korean born Australian and I can assure you he is quite an accomplished scholar, etymologist, researcher and author and his work is recent. Among his mentors and people who have encouraged him to write this book are Doctor Timothy Rood of Oxford, Professor Peter Golden, Professor La Vaissiere, Professor Dan Potts & Professor David Christian, all experts in Inner and Central Asian & Turkish history and I can go on so I can only suggest that you are thinking of someone else.

I have the wrong person.
Reply
#32
Hi Evan, the trouble with discussing topics & subjects online by typing and not face to face is sometimes things seem to come out harsher than what the sender intended. I hope my responses did not come over too strong as they were not meant to. To be honest I quite enjoy this topic and the debate as I am here to learn and hopefully contribute so if I sounded a bit harsh or critical that was not my intent. Confusedmile:
Regards
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
Reply
#33
It didn't come across as harsh. I am enjoying the discussion as well.
Reply
#34
Magister Militum Flavius Aetius wrote:
Quote:The Huns could not have reached Hungary by 387 (other than federated troops in Rome or small military parties) because in 395 they attacked through the Caspian Gates. Heather brings this point up, saying the Huns could not have organized and launched a sustained campaign over the year 395 if they had to march all the way through around the black Sea.

The Hunnic power must have still been centered on the Don or East of the Maetois, even though some groups may have reached as far as the Dniester.
I respectfully think Heather is mistaken in his conclusion about the capability and reach of Hunnic armies and even Priscus in Fr.11.2 Blockley ps 277-279 contradicts him when he wrote while on his mission to see Attila for the Eastern Empire that one of the Western Roman ambassadors, who were also waiting for an audience with Attila, who was called Romulus told him that Attila in order to increase his empire further was considering an attack on the Persians as they knew what routes to use in order to attack the Medes, which they came upon them a long time ago when famine was sweeping their land and they were not far from Scythia Proper, probably the “Caspian Gates” you spoke of. But I have always been confused about the “Caspian Gates”. There is the Darial (Dariel) Gorge or “The Gate of the Alans” through the Caucasus which was probably the pass the Alans used when they invaded Cappadocia in Arrian’s time, then the Derbent (Darband or 'closed gates') pass which ran on the South-western side of Caspian Sea probably built by Sassanids in late 5th or early 6th centuries, or there is the Great wall of Gorgan located at a geographical narrowing between the South-East corner of Caspian Sea and Pishkamar mountains (apparently built by the Parthians and the 2nd longest wall after Great Wall of China being approximately 195kms long with about 30 fortresses.)
However Priscus mentions the invasion, of 395AD you speak of where he was told that after having crossed a lake, which Romulus thought was the Maeotis, after 15 days they passed over some mountains and entered Media. After plundering and overrunning the land they were checked and defeated by the Persians and had to retreat back over the mountains with with little plunder as the Persians retrieved most of it (I am assuming mainly livestock), but as a precaution took a different route on their retreat, probably past the Baku oilfields of present day Azerbaijan on coast of Caspian Sea as they mentioned that they passed the flame that issues from the rock beneath the sea. Romulus added that if Attila wished to go there he would not have much toil nor is it a long journey to extract booty from the Persians. (Realistically Attila probably used a show of power to impress the diplomats and probably had no intention of ever attacking Persians but he had the Western Roman ambassadors convinced that he could.)
But getting back to that invasion you mentioned. Priscus mentions two Royal Kings again who led this invasion or organised raid. Basich and Kursisch who Priscus describes as of Scythian royaltly (If they were Hunnic kings then this is another case of Dualism amongst the Hunnic leadership) who attacked Persian and Roman territories between Antioch and Ctesiphon before being chased off the Persians. As mentioned I think this was more a large raid in force, than an invasion as Romulus mentioned a famine. I am not saying that these kings are major kings or that it was organized from the west as a massive military operation but maybe they were Alcitziri kings or royalty because unlike the Alans and Greuthungi and possibly other groups who seemed to have moved west with the main body of Huns, most of the Alcitziri tribes seemed to remain around the vicinity of the Maeotis or Scythia on the Pontic Sea. So maybe these two were minor kings dealing with severe drought and famine, possibly looking to restock depleted herds of cattle and sheep lost in these extreme conditions by usual steppe methods, that is a massive raid. So all I am saying is that the Huns probably had the military reach to attack both sides of the Black Sea but not the will as it obviously would have stretched their resources. You also get the impression that Priscus doesn't think highly of the Sassanids but I think Uldin was in charge in the west from about 390AD to 412AD so this raid would have occurred while he was leading the Western Huns although you could be right and he was based if not on the Dniester at least around the lower Danube. Although both R.C. Blockley in his 'Fragmentary Classicising Historians of the Later Roman Empire' book and C.D Gordon in his book 'The Age of Attila' think the raid might have occurred later in early to mid 420s but I think Maenchen-Helfen says 395AD. But this Priscus story does back up your claim that climate change or El Nino may have been one of the reasons that contributed to Hun movements. Cool
EDIT: John Man in his book Attila the Hun mentions that Basich and Kursich were the heirs of Balamber one of the first Hunnic kings who attacked the Goths and Alans so maybe Uldin wasn't the big shot the Romans thought he was.
Regards
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
Reply
#35
Yes but the El Nino cycle doesn't indicate a drought in the 390's; but the effect on Central Asia isn't the same as that of Black Sea.

Basik and Kursik (their Hunnic Names) actually, in Lir-Turk, mean "little." Many Hunnic leaders' names end in "ik" which makes me wonder if that, considering Hunnic name endings were usually titles, if instead of "ik" being a pet name it indicated a lesser rank of "king" higher than cur but lower than the prestigious "King of the Huns."

In 395-600 the Akatir indeed remained just West of the Maetois, with their Western Border being the Dniester, and were the only group of Huns beyond the Dniester known to have been incorporated into Attila's kingdom.

If Priscus' account of the invasion can be taken more literally, it would indicate the Akatir launched the raids: possibly two lesser "kings" in the Akatir system of prestige ranking sent by the "Alik" or King of the Akatir.

At the time of the raid, logic indicates that the groups following the Akatir must have been the Utigur and Onogur Huns, and considering the Onogur Huns would remain in the area of the East Black Sea in Cotais/Colchis then they must have had control of the Caspian Gates (there were several but Armenian sources indicate the Huns controlled the Derbent Pass until the 7th century, although it changed hands to the Sabir Huns after the 460's).

A Famine could trigger a raid, but Heather is still right that in 395 Hunnic power was centered North of the Black Sea and on the River Don, even though Ultzin seems to have reached Wallachia in 400.

However, I disagree that there were two "larger" Hunnic groupings of East and West Huns; Ultzin was only under control of (presumably) the Ultinzur Huns, he did not have control of the Alpilcur, Bittugur, Bardor, or Tongur Huns. It was Charaton who would unite them in the Wallachian Plain and Carpathian Basin and lead some into the Pannonian Basin.
Reply
#36
Hi Evan, so are you saying Ultinzur Huns were the vanguard of the main Hunnic force? You are right about El Nino but I was merely talking about steppe climate conditions in general with a history of constant wheat crop failures during the Soviet regime happening and maybe even now as Ukraine is Russian breadbasket, climate on the Western steppe was and is never stable. All pastoral societies whether Ukraine or Central Asia( in Central Asia's case you can blame the Himalayas which keep most of the rainfall south) suffered stock loss and drought on a more regular basis than sedentary societies. Roger Cribb an Australian (Yes another Aussie) archaeologist who specializes in Nomadic archaeology wrote a book 'Nomads in Archaeology' in which unlike sedentary societies, pastoral nomads were subject to quite regular droughts especially on the steppe due to climate, overgrazing and lack of rainfall & often herds would often be decimated due to disease and lack of water and famine and more often than not wars would take place between tribes or groups over land and water and herd replenishment by stealing a weaker neighbour's herds, this is why marriages were so important between tribes and groups as a means to diffuse situations and hopefully work out solutions as well as defence of valuable land or water. Whole tribes would move to better land if necessary so steppe society was very fluid. So Alcitziri and other tribes probably lived near river deltas like Don, Dniester and Danube as a matter of necessity to fight drought and water shortages. In regard to the two kings, Priscus did say that these two kings were Scythian Royalty and if you missed my edit in previous post John Man in his book 'Attila the Hun' says the two Hunnic kings were heirs of Hunnic king Balamber. In regards to Eastern and Western Hun kings I think you are missing my point which is that there is a definite history of Huns and dualism in regards to their leadership, even before Rua & Octa and Bleda and Attila. I am interested where you get your sources on Charaton as he is only mentioned in Olympiodorus's fragments along with Donatus. Is there another source that I have missed or are you just going on OM-H's theories. All I can make out from the few lines is that the Romans assassinated Donatus, who was a minor king and had to pay Charaton, obviously the major king in gifts and gold as a form of blood money to appease him. That is all we know of him. I am just curious that is all. Also in regards to Derbent pass Priscus mentions that the Sassanids wanted the Romans to contribute to the cost of guarding the pass as they were keeping the Huns at bay, which the Romans refused so I think at least around the time of Priscus and Attila that the Huns did not hold this strategic pass. :?
Regards
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
Reply
#37
Quote:'Attila the Hun' says the two Hunnic kings were heirs of Hunnic king Balamber.

Jordanes can't be trusted: Balamber was not a real hunnic king. The reason for this is that most of that section of his Gothic history is muddled and he invents a lot of names (Although some are real). Furthermore a Hun at that point in time would not have borne a Gothic name, based on Maenchen-Helfen's analysis of Hunnic naming conventions.

Quote:Hi Evan, so are you saying Ultinzur Huns were the vanguard of the main Hunnic force?

Possibly; it seems to have changed over time. The Alpilcurs, who were at the forefront in 370, may have been absorbed, disbanded, or gone on to serve the Romans or Goths, as they disappear around 395. Agathias mentions the Ultinzurs being one of the "Great, but now extinct" Hunnic tribes. This is why I equate it with Ultzin (whose name may have been a title for king of the Ultinzurs?) and therefore Charaton as well (as Aetius was in both their courts suggesting a continuity of Hunnic power).

Quote:I am interested where you get your sources on Charaton as he is only mentioned in Olympiodorus's fragments along with Donatus.

All we know about Charaton basically comes from Olympiodorus. I get much of my information from OMH and PH, but also Ian Hughes mentions in Aetius: Attila's Nemesis that the reason Charaton must have succeded Uldin is that Aetius continued to remain in the Hunnic court, and had there been no appointed successor Aetius would have been sent back to Ravenna as was custom amongst Barbarian treaties.

Later information about Charaton can be extrapolated: the Huns were in discord in 427, with the incompetent Felix able to push them out of Pannonia Valeria. In 430 Octar and Rua are Dual Kings (Rua in Wallachia, Octar in Pannonia presumably). But in 425 there seemed to only be one Hunnic court and rather unified, as otherwise they could not have committed the forces to assist Ioannes via Aetius, who was a friend of Charaton and later Octar as well. Therefore, Charaton must have reigned from 412-426.

Donatus seems to have been possibly an interem ruler - it is thought that between 410 and 412 there was discord amongst some of the Hunnic tribes, and Charaton may have subdued enough to be considered "King of the Huns" by Olympiodorus. Donatus could have been one of those subdued rulers (although I should note the name is not Hunnic.)

Quote:Also in regards to Derbent pass Priscus mentions that the Sassanids wanted the Romans to contribute to the cost of guarding the pass as they were keeping the Huns at bay, which the Romans refused so I think at least around the time of Priscus and Attila that the Huns did not hold this strategic pass. :?

Entirely possible. Armenian sources are the primary scholarship for Huns and the Caucasus, so I'd have to consult them which I do not have.
Reply
#38
That's a fair answer as I just wanted to know whether these were theories (educated theories at that) but all we really have is Olympiodorus's fragment mentioning Charaton and Donatus. In regard to Uldin he seems to have made a mess of things with his allies as Orosius mentions that there was tension and fighting between the Alans and the Huns and Radagaisus seems to have fallen out with Uldin as well as Vandals, so Uldin comes across as arrogant but that is only my theory. :-)
Regards
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
Reply
#39
It's really hard to determine the policies or personalities of many characters of this Era.

Aetius is one of the few, thanks to Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus account which survives through Gregory of Tours. The way he was treated by Bonifacius, various bishops, and the Huns indicate he was highly respected and an honest character. He also seemed to be highly intelligent and very wise about who he took advice from.

Something about him certainly upset certain scholars of the time: Prosper Tiro hated Aetius, although I have no idea why. Maybe Aetius didn't support the church; that certainly would have ticked a lot of people off at the time, and Constantius of Lyon seems to bear some resentment towards Aetius (and indicates that Germanus of Auxerre may have as well.) Constantius also mentions that the "insolence of the Aremoricans" threw Aetius into a fit of rage, which could indicate he had some sort of personality disorder (he was clearly quite an egotist).

Attila also gets a brief description, thanks to Jordanes' quote of Priscus. I would make Attila out to be somewhat sociopathic, but certainly not insane. He was also wise in his council, and could make brilliant use of Hun tactics, as well as being skilled at sieges. He also seems to have been humble, judging by Priscus' account of him, or at least liked to present himself as so. However, he seems to have been only mediocre at a number of affairs, and certainly needed Aetius to send him secretaries and hostages to organize and administer to his so called "Empire."

Other characters of the era are very hard to judge: we know almost nothing of Rua and Octar, and there are only a handful of accounts of Valentinian III which seem to take his murder of Aetius as an excuse for defamatory accounts of him.

Uldin is a little bit better attested, but there's not enough to know what others thought of him; we know the Eastern Romans bribed a lot of his tribes, so the Vandals and Alans more likely turned on him through the Romans, rather than through his own arrogance. Poor leadership amongst the Huns did often cause revolts, especially after Attila's death.
Reply
#40
"Finds in Kunya Uaz in Khwarezm (Below the Aral Sea) and on the upper Ob indicate that in former times Huns tilled the soil. The radically mixed population of Kunya Uaz, Europoids with a Mongoloid Admixture people who had practiced Cranial Deformation, cannot be separated from the Huns."

"But the people on the upper Ob (likewise Europoids with a Mongoloid admixture, likewise practicing cranial deformation, and at that of the same circular type found at Kunya Uaz) met hunters and fishers when they moved there in the second or third century, And yet, as Nerazik noticed, their sickles resembled closely those of the Kunya Uaz people."

On the World of the Huns, 177-178

These passage focus on agriculture of Steppe Nomads, but it is certain that these people were Altaic "Proto-Huns."
Reply
#41
Hi Evan, not meaning to labour the point as I know you feel that there is no connection between Xiong-nu and Huns but when you speak of the upper Ob the tribe that occupied that area was the Chien-kun (Ko-Kun) who were proto-Kirgiz people known as 'field people' so probably semi sedentary, who roamed the foothills between the upper Yenisei and upper Ob. They had to acknowledge the Xiong-nu chief Chih-Chih as their nominal overlord before he was killed by combined Kang-chu and Han army in 36BC. Interestingly this is the battle where Homer Dubs believed that Roman survivors of Carrhae ended up fighting as mercenaries for Chih-Chih. Apparently the Chinese general Chen-Tang had authorised a silk painting to show the Emperor at a feast on New Years Day in 35BC. This silk painting had eight scenes showing Chen-Tang’s troops storming the city. The first scene showed the gate of the fort defended as Chen-Tang wrote in his field journal, by more than a hundred foot soldiers, lined up on either side of the gate in a fish-scale formation. Probably linked shields in Testudio fashion which the Chinese had never seen according to Professor Dubs but they could also have been Bactrian Greeks. Also the third scene showed an earthern wall with a double palisade of wood which was a standard feature of Roman fortification and was not used by Xiong-nu or Han, but I think that Dubs theory has been discredited. I think that the Kang-chu who were Indo-Iranian dominated the delta south of the Aral Sea. I am reading a book at the moment called Mounted Archers by Laszlo Torday and he is presenting good evidence that the Kang-chu were the original Alans as they dominated the Yen-ts’ai (Yancai) Alanliao going by the Hou Hanshu 88 where the Yancai were never mentioned again as an independent tribe. The Chinese believed the Yen-ts'ai were the Alans although some might disagree. The Kang-chu were traditional enemies of the Wusun. I would be interested to know Alanus's thoughts on this theory. 8-)
Regards
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
Reply
#42
AFAIK the Yancai and Alanliao were both Alans.

Yes, I am aware the Rover Ob is part of Eastern Mongolia. However: Manechen-Helfen suggests the Altaic Proto-Huns spread there, but they didn't originate there. He seems to suggest they originated in the Amu Darya River Delta of Khwarezm, as semi-sedentary Nomads who along with sheep herding also grew millet (Like the Alans and Sarmatians before and around them.)

I won't deny they had some contact with the Xiongnu: their location and history makes it seem inevitable, but I will say I don't think they WERE Xiongnu.
Reply
#43
Hi Evan, we seem to be reaching some common ground as I realize that the original leading tribe/clan/s of the Northern Xiong-nu were probably wiped out with the defeat/capture/execution of Chih-Chih & his son in 35BC. I only wished to show that a lot of the customs & leadership Organization of the Xiong-nu would have rubbed off on other tribes exposed to their rule & probably over time would have become part of this system. OMH refers to Frederick Telland's book Rome and China which states that the Northern Xiong-nu were reduced by successive bad seasons & disease to 3000 men, after capture of Chih-Chih's stronghold, the Chinese executed 1518 persons, carried off 145 & distributed more than 1000 remaining prisoners as slaves to local Kang-chu & Wusun lords who assisted them in their war.
In regard to Amu Darya (Oxus) delta it is my understanding that this strategic & bountiful corridor lodged between 2 deserts was originally occupied by the Dahae or Dahae-Saka (Dahae, Daae or Daai) who probably played a crucial role in the rise of Parthia. The Han referred to them as Ta-i. In 166BC there was a roller coaster of movements when the Yueh-shih were pushed westwards by the Xiong-nu and in turn they defeated the Wusun & pushed the Saka accompanied by the Asioi, as Strabo & Trogus knew them but the Chinese knew them as Kang-chu west & south, out of Ili Valley towards Aral Sea and Pakistan. So maybe the proto-Huns you refer to lived in the delta area before Saka/Asioi arrived or were themselves swept up in this massive movement. Saka probably split as some moved south preceding Yueh-chih (Tochars), but there was a definite domino effect. In those days there was probably more wetlands between Aral & Caspian Seas. Confusedmile:
Regards
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
Reply
#44
Well the Proto-Huns were merely the peoples there, just like so many Germanic groups were passed over and assimilated and dissimilated over several centuries. We probably don't hear of them because none of them rose to noteworthy positions, or there was no distinction made.

However, whether or not it was controlled by Sarmatians, we know for certain that the various wetlands from the Aral sea to the upper Ob were dominated by Altaic peoples, even if not controlled by Altai.

I see the Huns as a predominately Altaic people, most of whom came from the area around the Aral and East Caspian, but had elements stretching as far as the Volga Bulgars (who were the direct successors of the Huns), and to the East on the Ob. This suggests certainly Finno-Ugrian influence, certainly some Sauromatian, but the vast majority was Altaic/Lir-Turkic.
Reply
#45
Most nomadic routes were located north of the area between Caspian and Aral Seas, as I mentioned previously the area between the two seas was a lot wetter and marshier than it is now. I shall post a map from the book The Palgrave Concise Historical Atlas of Central Asia to show main route. I agree with you that the area between the Aral Sea and the upper Ob was probably dominated by Western Altaic groups like the Wu-chieh who were probably ancestors to the Orghuz Turks, the Ko-k'un who were probably Kirghiz people & the strongest group the Ting-ling, ancestors of the Uighurs, but that was north of the Jaxartes (Syr Darya) river. Ptolemy in 150ad places Alanoi/Alanorsi on the southern boundary of this fringe area from T'ien Shan mountains to the lower Caspian Sea so this suggests the European/Black Huns may have clashed with the Alans & possibly forced some Alanic groups west but I don't think they ever occupied the Oxus delta system south of Aral Sea but possibly had interaction with them trading sheep, furs & cattle for salt & grain & assorted luxury goods and weapons, maybe even farming tools. To be honest all OMH has to connect the two areas are evidence of cranial deformation in graves and the use of similar types of sickles, Eastern Alans also practiced cranial deformation and tools and weapons can pass on to different cultures through trade and war. The area between the two rivers (Khwarezm) was mainly Indo-Iranic/Sogdian AFAIK but I am no expert. There must have been a long period of stability & peace between groups maybe 150 or more years before something happened, famine or drought causing decimation of herds either due to severe climate change or overuse of land, overgrazing, war, overpopulation or further invasions from the east caused friction between peoples. I understand that the Aral Sea was a lot bigger and marshier than today and it is still shrinking & become more accessible for raids from north as well as from Kidarite raids from east forcing Alans/K'ang-chu westwards. I honestly don't know. The Kidarites or Red Huns were the exception at this time as they managed to invade and dominate Sogdiana until they in turn were defeated & driven into India by Hephthalites, and disrupt trade routes so they were a bigger threat to Sassanid Persia than other nomadic groups. This changed later on though from sixth century onwards.
Just one question on your previous post where you stated that the proto-Huns were people who were just there, passed over & assimilated. What do you mean? If they were just there how did they come to dominate their neighbours? I for one don't wear the age old theory that with the Huns, that their savagery, their horsemanship & use of the Hunnic bow and lassos caused them to become super warriors giving them a superior technological edge as well as striking fear into the hearts of their opponents, while these things may have given them an advantage against Germanic & sedentary foes like farmers & Romans, they would not have these advantages over Alans, who lets face it didn't mind collecting heads and scalps of their enemies to display on their horse gear so they themselves were no shrinking violets or wimps, so reputed Hunnic savagery would not make them flinch at the sight of Huns or explain how they were overwhelmed & to a lesser extent Eastern Goth armies who were pretty sarmaticized by 4th century & themselves would have learnt a thing or two about savagery, these groups would have access to the same weapons, including bows armour & technology & equal horse riding skills & probably better horses than the Huns, more than likely they were a better equipped force with lancers as well as archers. The only difference must have been how the Huns organised their armies & leadership as well as a workable system of assimilation of conquered tribes & the use of diplomacy for a divide & conquer policy & reward systems for loyalty of former enemy leaders. The Huns were more sophisticated in their dealings with other tribes & nations than they are given credit for & maybe being able to organise & maintain permanent standing armies while incorporating their former enemies forces into their own armies helped. I am just curious as to your reasoning for saying that.Confusedmile: :?

[attachment=9402]nomadicmovements.jpg[/attachment]
Regards
Michael Kerr


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
Less than 1 minute ago" />   
Michael Kerr
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Ancient trousers from steppe nomad Dave G 24 3,221 06-14-2014, 08:14 AM
Last Post: Alanus
  Avar gorget mentioned in the Maurikios Strategikon Targitios 1 1,677 10-09-2011, 09:12 PM
Last Post: Joze Noriker

Forum Jump: