10-18-2013, 10:48 AM
It is an interesting proposal. Many historians have previously suggested that Attila divided his army into two or three parts, one possibly heading north to subdue the franks and bring them under his sway.
I proposed that the skirmish between the Gepids and Franks is what bogged down Attila's army enough to force him to fight on the ridge. I also argued that if he retreated to the north rather than the east it would give time for his army to meet up with any forces that may have been split off.
Also, you have to remember that the allied forces didn't need to scavenge for supplies, as Tonatius Ferreolus had prepared for the hunnic invasion, presumably beginning in 449 when the first signs of Hunnic attack were appearant.
The Roman side had the advantage of a supply train, so even if they had lost the battle, time was on their side, as Attila would be forced to retreat by the onset of Fall and then winter, if he didn't run out of supplies first.
I proposed that the skirmish between the Gepids and Franks is what bogged down Attila's army enough to force him to fight on the ridge. I also argued that if he retreated to the north rather than the east it would give time for his army to meet up with any forces that may have been split off.
Also, you have to remember that the allied forces didn't need to scavenge for supplies, as Tonatius Ferreolus had prepared for the hunnic invasion, presumably beginning in 449 when the first signs of Hunnic attack were appearant.
The Roman side had the advantage of a supply train, so even if they had lost the battle, time was on their side, as Attila would be forced to retreat by the onset of Fall and then winter, if he didn't run out of supplies first.
Evan Schultheis | MODERATOR
Rhomaios Living History Society
Support usĀ on Patreon
Rhomaios Living History Society
Support usĀ on Patreon