Attila\'s invasion of Gaul

[Theudericus tonsuratus]

I am wondering what Attila's army would have looked like at the time of the invasion of Gaul in 451 and how it would have moved. By this I mean the big picture, not at the level of individuals.

To some extent, this depends on how big it was and that is not known. Ancient estimates range up to 500,000 but modern historians think the figures are vastly exaggerated.

Suppose it was 50,000 strong.

How far would the army have moved each day?
What was its frontage?
How far would the rear have been from the front.
Would it have travelled as one, or did it divide?
Would there have been screening and reconnaissance formations?
If so, how large were they, and how far away would they have been from the main body?
How would the army have crossed the Rhine? Historians seem to think it might have crossed at Coblenz, then moved down the Moselle. Did the whole army go across the bridge in single file? Would boats have been used? How long would the crossing have taken?

There are no direct sources to answer these questions specifically for the Huns. However, it may be possible to answer them using general principles known from elsewhere. Even Napoleonic experience might shed some light on physical limitations.

I have similar questions about the army of Aetius that opposed Attila. What units did it consist of, and how did it move?

Has anyone looked into this? Can anyone suggest a suitable literature? Does anyone have any answers?

I have several books on ancient warfare, the late Roman army, Attila etc. but they all pretty much skirt around these practical issues.

Thanks for any input.

[Jona Lendering]

Suppose it was 50,000 strong. How far would the army have moved each day?

Depends on whether it was all-cavalry. If infantry was included, 20 km is a nice estimate. If not, 60-100 km perhaps? Alexander the Great could reach speeds three times higher (60 km infantry, 200 km cavalry) but that's atypical.

Would there have been screening and reconnaissance formations?
If so, how large were they, and how far away would they have been from the main body?

I have always understood that a large army (say >30,000) occupies a zone of about 100 km wide to obtain its food.

Did the whole army go across the bridge in single file? Would boats have been used? How long would the crossing have taken?

I think they used boats and rafts, and took a lot of time. As far as I know, the bridges (e.g., Cologne) remained in Roman hands.

I hope this helps.

[Theudericus tonsuratus]

Thank you very much. This is useful.

If infantry was included, 20 km is a nice estimate.

Although the Huns were cavalry, I imagine their allies included infantry. Some of the Franks are supposed to have been on the Huns' side, for example, and Franks were mainly infantry at this time, I think.

I have always understood that a large army (say >30,000) occupies a zone of about 100 km wide to obtain its food.

That makes sense, but 100 km wide by how deep? Should we imagine the Huns going across the Rhine along a 100 km section of the bank? Obviously the army would have to come together for specific operations. How big would it be then? I understand that the capacity of the Colosseum was 50,000 or more, so you can get that number of people in quite a small space. Naturally, when you add horses, wagons and space for tactical manoeuvring, it must spread out. How far?

I think they used boats and rafts, and took a lot of time.

How much time? Are you thinking a day? A week?

As far as I know, the bridges (e.g., Cologne) remained in Roman hands.

Interesting. Do you have a source for that?

I imagine the Huns encountered little resistance along the limes. They may have taken a few prisoners but I expect most of the troops manning the Rhine forts probably ran away.

If the bridges remained in Roman hands, it would surely be because the Huns decided to bypass them. The few Roman troops could not have defended against the massive Hun host.

[SMC]

Hi Theudericus,

Unfortunately, if I recall correctly, the sources for the Hunnic campaign in the west and northern Italy don't really go into any detail on numbers or march routes so its difficult to figure out any of the answers you want with any degre of certainty.
Paul the Deacon really only lists cities taken in Italy without any real detail, so you are reliant on Jordanes and Gregory of Tours for the most part. Procopius only mentions the campaign annecdotally and Marcellinus Comes is not detailed enough on this one. Priscus is generally a source of much of our information on the Huns but mostly on the Danube rather than in the west.
On a general note, Engels book on the logistics of Alexander the Great's army is a must read for any pre-industrial campaigns as much of what he discusses must surely have applied for centuries. Jona is right about other subject peoples in the Hun confederacy who would have been infantry. A good comparison may be with later Avar campaigns against the eastern empire as they were steppe nomads with a similar group of subject peoples.

Engels, D. W., Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army, (Berkeley, 1980)


As for the Huns and their campaigns, I suspect you've probably checked some of these out already, but in case you haven't. They probably won't shed too much light directly on your questions.

Gračanin, H., ‘The Huns and South Pannonia’, Byzantinoslavica, 64 (2006), 29-76.

Heather, P., ‘The Huns and the End of the Roman Empire in Western Europe’, English Historical Review, 110 (1995), 4-41.

Burgess, R.W., ‘A New Reading for Hydatius Chronicle 177 and the Defeat of the Huns in Italy’, Phoenix, 42 (1988), 357-363.

Scharf, R., ‘Der Iuthungenfeldzug des Aetius’, Tyche, 9 (1994), 131-145.

Maenchen-Helfen, J.O., The World of the Huns: Studies in Their History and Culture (Berkeley, 1973).

Althein, F., Geschichte der Hunnen, 5 vols (Berlin, 1960).

[Robert Vermaat]

Suppose it was 50,000 strong. How far would the army have moved each day?

Depends on whether it was all-cavalry. If infantry was included, 20 km is a nice estimate. If not, 60-100 km perhaps? Alexander the Great could reach speeds three times higher (60 km infantry, 200 km cavalry) but that's atypical.

That's indeeed strange, how did he manage that? Remounts? Cavalry has a high tactical battlefield mobility, but on the march infantry is faster after the 3rd day.

[wulfgar60]

It would probably be a mistake to assume Attila's army was simply a continuation of what had emerged from the steppes.
This would be true of their tactical methods. But Attila and the leaders that immediately preceded him, had a large realm to rule. And were most likely embarking on an idea of Empire. They would have been impressed by the strategic organization of the Roman army and would have attempted to mimic it.
One could imagine a Legion type organization. With a senior brigade which would have included the best troops using their typical tactical methods. And an auxiliary brigade of second rate reserves.
The majority of Attila's army was most likely infantry. But traditional cavalry would have been a heavy component and certainly the main arm. Troops of Hunnic descent would have been supplemented greatly by subject peoples. Most of the infantry would have been poor looking stuff with the basic wicker shield and spear. Many would have been bow armed.
They may have ragged looking and lightly armed. But this would have served the key Hunnic strategy of mobility.
I assume traditional Huns would have maintained much of the steppe cavalry tactics.
Attila's capital was in Transylvania and said to hold 50,000 people The Hunnic core territories included most of Romania and Hungary. Out into the steppes. And most of modern day Poland. Considerable if poor manpower could have been drawn from these regions.
I'd conclude that Attila's total army would have been about 15 to 20 legions strong. With each legion and it's associated auxiliaries numbering up to 6,000.
I'd say he would taken 6 to 8 Legions on his Gallic campaign. With up an equal number of allies fighting under their own banners.
So the total numbers would have been anything between 36,000 and 50,000.
Not all of these would have been present at Chalons. He would have had to secure rear areas with occupation troops.
The ring fortress a few miles north of Chalons is a mile across. And would have been the central base of operations.
But I reiterate, the Hunnic army of Attila's day would have been something more than the crude Nomads of the steppes. They certainly copied Roman tactical innovations like siege towers and artillery.
Attila's Empire would have attempted mimicry of Roman organization at a superficial level if not in depth.
Aetiuses coalition would have been a minimum of 30,000 strong.
Why didn't he move further on Attila after victory? I'd say Attila still had considerable in tact if poor quality forces at his command. Many may have simply remained within the fortification. Attila seemed to be testing his opponents for any weakness while planning on retreat into the fortress if things didn't turn in his favor. And the coalition was more than decimated.
Most likely the forces that met outside the fortress were equal in numbers. But the Hunnic army was not suited to fighting a stand up battle on equal terms against and enemy more adept.
To say it was not a decisive battle is an interesting view. The Coalition victory merely preserved the status quo. But if Attila had won, his light army would have exterminated his retreating opponents. Leaving Gaul without any quality forces or leadership to defend it.
Why all the Campaigns? I'd say Attila's Empire and millatary forces were costing him. And he needed a constant inflow of tribute to maintain it. I doubt the Huns were great economists.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Wulfgar,

Thanks for the post. Please add your real (first) name to your signature, btw. It's a forum rule.

They would have been impressed by the strategic organization of the Roman army and would have attempted to mimic it.

Where do you base that on?

One could imagine a Legion type organization. With a senior brigade which would have included the best troops using their typical tactical methods. And an auxiliary brigade of second rate reserves.

Again, how do you come to such a conclusion? Does any source mention this?

The majority of Attila's army was most likely infantry. But traditional cavalry would have been a heavy component and certainly the main arm. Troops of Hunnic descent would have been supplemented greatly by subject peoples. Most of the infantry would have been poor looking stuff with the basic wicker shield and spear. Many would have been bow armed.

If that's indeed the case, why the poor armament? From what we know of Germanic infantry they had decent spear-armed infantry with good shields. So why poor-looking stuff?

I'd conclude that Attila's total army would have been about 15 to 20 legions strong. With each legion and it's associated auxiliaries numbering up to 6,000.
I'd say he would taken 6 to 8 Legions on his Gallic campaign. With up an equal number of allies fighting under their own banners.
So the total numbers would have been anything between 36,000 and 50,000.

Are you making this up or does any source mention these numbers? 'Legions"??? :roll:

Not all of these would have been present at Chalons. He would have had to secure rear areas with occupation troops.
The ring fortress a few miles north of Chalons is a mile across. And would have been the central base of operations.
But I reiterate, the Hunnic army of Attila's day would have been something more than the crude Nomads of the steppes. They certainly copied Roman tactical innovations like siege towers and artillery.
Attila's Empire would have attempted mimicry of Roman organization at a superficial level if not in depth.

Empire? If it had been anything like an empire it would not have collapsed that soon upon Atilla's death. This 'empire' was more like a power base with quite an area of subjects attached to it. So far I've seen little or nothing 'Roman' in the Hun 'empire'.

Aetiuses coalition would have been a minimum of 30,000 strong.
Why didn't he move further on Attila after victory? I'd say Attila still had considerable in tact if poor quality forces at his command. Many may have simply remained within the fortification. Attila seemed to be testing his opponents for any weakness while planning on retreat into the fortress if things didn't turn in his favor. And the coalition was more than decimated.

Which 'fortress' are you referring to? That ring thing of a mile across? Any archeological remains?
Even if this thing existed, it would have been easy for the Romans to simply starve the occupying forces into submission.

[wulfgar60]

Hi Robert, I'm making a series of assumptions.

Assumption one, All barbarians on Romes borders would have been rather impressed by the Romans. And in various ways would have attempted to copy Roman ways. Not least of being the military sphere.

Don't knock assumptions or Sherlock's deduction. Detectives get answers this way, even if occasionally they follow the wrong lead.

I place my inspiration to Superior Aussie Beer.

If that's indeed the case, why the poor armament? From what we know of Germanic infantry they had decent spear-armed infantry with good shields. So why poor-looking stuff?

I think it best to differentiate between Attila's Army proper and that of his German allies who fought in their native fashion under their own banners.

We know Altian Steppe Nomads often made use of slave foot soldiers, who they treated as expendables.

I'm betting they were a poor version of the Thracian peltast. Lightly armed to aid movement. The Hun army worked on the principle of speed. The Huns were not fussy about who they picked up for the job. Any two legged Peasant would do.

One could imagine they used these expendables as the Center. Proper Hun cavalry assaulting the flanks. If things went badly, the Huns would make flight with their horses. Leaving the expendables to be meat for the bear. We must think of Sassanid levy in this regard.

Are you making this up or does any source mention these numbers? 'Legions"???

I base it on a Norse Saga that recalls Attila.
The Saga of King Heidrek the Wise.

Mentions Attila's Army that assaulted Wendland.

As consisting of 6 or 8 Brigades (fylki). Each of these having five thousands (regiments). And each of the "thousands" consisting of 13 "hundreds"(Company). And each "hundred" consisting of 4 smaller units of 40 (platoons).

Empire? If it had been anything like an empire it would not have collapsed that soon upon Atilla's death. This 'empire' was more like a power base with quite an area of subjects attached to it. So far I've seen little or nothing 'Roman' in the Hun 'empire'.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Huns_empire.png

Which 'fortress' are you referring to? That ring thing of a mile across? Any archeological remains?
Even if this thing existed, it would have been easy for the Romans to simply starve the occupying forces into submission.

[/quote]Link to Google maps
The point marked "A", the ring appears to be a mile across.

[quote]A BROAD expanse of plains, the Campi Catalaunici of the ancients, spreads far and wide around the city of Châlons, in the north east of France. The long rows of poplars, through which the River Marne winds its way, and a few thinly scattered villages, are almost the only objects that vary the monotonous aspect of the greater part of this region. But about five miles from Châlons, near the little hamlets of Chape and Cuperly, the ground is indented and heaped up in ranges of grassy mounds and trenches, which attest the work of man' s hands in ages past, and which, to the practised eye, demonstrate that this quiet spot has once been the fortified position of a huge military host.
"Local tradition gives to these ancient earth-works the name of Attila' s Camp. Nor is there any reason to question the correctness of the title, or to doubt that behind these very ramparts it was that 1,400 years ago the most powerful heathen king that ever ruled in Europe mustered the remnants of his vast army, which had striven on these plains against the Christian soldiery of Toulouse and Rome. Here it was that Attila prepared to resist to the death his victors in the field ; and here he heaped up the treasures of his camp in one vast pile, which was to be his funeral pyre should his camp be stormed. It was here that the Gothic and Italian forces watched, but dared not assail their enemy in his despair"

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Robert, I'm making a series of assumptions.

I noticed that!!

Assumption one, All barbarians on Romes borders would have been rather impressed by the Romans. And in various ways would have attempted to copy Roman ways. Not least of being the military sphere.

But they did not. Copy Rome, I mean. Germanic armies did not copy the Roman legions.

Don't knock assumptions or Sherlock's deduction. Detectives get answers this way, even if occasionally they follow the wrong lead.
I place my inspiration to Superior Aussie Beer.

Sherlock Holmes was a tee-totaller!! :twisted:

We know Altian Steppe Nomads often made use of slave foot soldiers, who they treated as expendables.
I'm betting they were a poor version of the Thracian peltast. Lightly armed to aid movement. The Hun army worked on the principle of speed. The Huns were not fussy about who they picked up for the job. Any two legged Peasant would do.

Again I'd say, don't knock the Germanic soldier. The Germanic forces in Aetius' army had not a light fight when pitched against fellow-Goths and Franks on the opposite side. Not something one would expect from "poor versions of a peltast".
I think it's best proven by their victories after Attila's death, when most Germanic subjects had no problem in overthrowing their Hun masters.

I base it on a Norse Saga that recalls Attila.
The Saga of King Heidrek the Wise.

Mentions Attila's Army that assaulted Wendland.

As consisting of 6 or 8 Brigades (fylki). Each of these having five thousands (regiments). And each of the "thousands" consisting of 13 "hundreds"(Company). And each "hundred" consisting of 4 smaller units of 40 (platoons).

Well, this does at least sound NOTHING like a Roman -copied army of several legions. I mean, the internal organisation is totally different. How old is that saga, anyway?

Which 'fortress' are you referring to? That ring thing of a mile across? Any archeological remains?
Even if this thing existed, it would have been easy for the Romans to simply starve the occupying forces into submission.

Link to Google maps
The point marked "A", the ring appears to be a mile across.[/quote]

Aha, a nice one! Of course, it would have been nice if there had not been a river nearby. Sorry to be a spoil-sport, but.....
As it can be seen from similar geological soil marks to the East, this is clearly not an ancient fort, but part of an old streambed showing up as a crop-mark. Too bad, it would have been a good thing to find Arttila's camp!

[wulfgar60]

But they did not. Copy Rome, I mean. Germanic armies did not copy the Roman legions.

What I mean is in strategic organization. I'm not referring to tactical methods. It appears through out their history the Romans were often copying the tactical methods of other peoples.

I believe by the time of Attila the traditional legionarie had vanished. The cutting edge of Roman infantry had become the spearmen of the Auxilia palatina. The traditional gladius had been replaced by spatha.

Sherlock Holmes was a tee-totaller!!

Sherlock Holmes was an opium fiend!

Again I'd say, don't knock the Germanic soldier. The Germanic forces in Aetius' army had not a light fight when pitched against fellow-Goths and Franks on the opposite side. Not something one would expect from "poor versions of a peltast".
I think it's best proven by their victories after Attila's death, when most Germanic subjects had no problem in overthrowing their Hun masters.

Did I say Germans? I believe the Huns used vast number of foot soldiers from peasant tribesman from the eastern part of there domain. Slavs and similar, noted in the period for the lightness of their arms. If we talk about Germans providing regiments directly under the command of a Hunnic overlord. Then they mostly likely used the traditional heavier arms and techniques. We do know the Germans were producing excellent quality swords in this period.
But the greater number of Germans fought under the banner of their own kings that were vassals to Attila.

Well, this does at least sound NOTHING like a Roman -copied army of several legions. I mean, the internal organization is totally different. How old is that saga, anyway?

Yes but in this late period the regimental legione had replaced the independent cohort. Units of 2 to 3 cohorts were now behaving as independent regiments. The old style Legion of 10 cohorts had been utterly transformed. The legionarie himself was using a thrusting spear in place of the pilum. A large oval shield and a long sword.

What I mean is the Hun army had surpassed the disorganized mob that descended from the steppes. And now had permanent organization. Attila and those just prior to him had built an organized military machine.

The Saga is from the Heroic period that predates the Classical Viking period. It clearly refers to the Huns. Archeology reveals a Germanic culture post dating the Goths in Pommerania. Which disappeared at the time of Attila. The regions of middle and lower Poland seem to be already in the process of being populated by Slavs.

However the Artistic style of the implements of this Dębczyn culture are in common with Scandinavia rather than Continental German.

Aha, a nice one! Of course, it would have been nice if there had not been a river nearby. Sorry to be a spoil-sport, but.....
As it can be seen from similar geological soil marks to the East, this is clearly not an ancient fort, but part of an old streambed showing up as a crop-mark. Too bad, it would have been a good thing to find Arttila's camp!

I only supposed the feature is the known earth works in the region, which are traditionally called "Attila's Camp".

This stream formed a perfect circle one mile across?

[Robert Vermaat]

What I mean is in strategic organization. I'm not referring to tactical methods. It appears through out their history the Romans were often copying the tactical methods of other peoples.

Ehm, I’m cinfused. You maintained earlier that the barbarians copied the Romans and now it’s the other way around. Also, Can you show us in what way a) the Huns copied the Romans or b) in what way the Romans copied tactics of the barbarians?
Romans did copy elements of neighbouring cultures: arms and armour are well known examples of that. But things like unit organisation remained Roman as far as I know.
I have yet to see any evidence of the Huns copying Roman strategy. Did the Huns have defence-in-depth? Did they have a recruiting system? What DID they copy from the Romans?

Did I say Germans? I believe the Huns used vast number of foot soldiers from peasant tribesman from the eastern part of there domain. Slavs and similar, noted in the period for the lightness of their arms.

How do you know that? What source tells us this? Because sources do in fact tell us about all the German allies (indeed, as you say, mostly fighting under their own kings), but nothing about how the Hunnic forces were put together. So where did you find the info about those Slavic subjects? Or is that one of your assumptions?

In short, I have some grave doubts about that Hunnic army of yours.

Yes but in this late period the regimental legione had replaced the independent cohort. Units of 2 to 3 cohorts were now behaving as independent regiments. The old style Legion of 10 cohorts had been utterly transformed.

I’m not sure what this has to do with the Huns, but I must remind you that old-style units remained to be present on quite a large scale in the Late Roman army. What you describe are the new-style units, which were created from Diocletian or Constantine onwards. They existed next to the old-style units.
Why are you assuming that the Huns copied that new style? Again, where do you base that on? Because that saga does not sound one bit like anything that we know about the old OR the new style Late Roman army….

What I mean is the Hun army had surpassed the disorganized mob that descended from the steppes. And now had permanent organization. Attila and those just prior to him had built an organized military machine.

Based on what????? Those mobs of badly-armed Slavic subjects?
All assumptions, Wulfgar, nothing solid.

I only supposed the feature is the known earth works in the region, which are traditionally called "Attila's Camp".
This stream formed a perfect circle one mile across?

Link to Google maps
Those earthworks are probably the circular formation next to the river, a few hundred metres to the North. What you describe as a ‘perfect circle of a mile across’, does not show a circle, only part of it. It’s easily recognisable as a dead river arm, and if you scroll around, you’ll find more of these soil marks. Unsurprisingly, because this area is indeed a flood plain where the river obviously changed course a gazillion times over the millennia. I know, because I’m living in an exactly similar area (Houten near Utrecht, Lower Rhine). Such an old streambed is often higher than the surrounding area due to sand and clay deposits, left behind after the river alters its course. Sometimes such a band of higher ground can indeed resemble the remains of an ancient wall, especially if the old river arm had a nice curve such as this one.

But it’s clearly not a circle, only about half a circle. I have the strong suspicion that the named earthwork is the one on the river just to the north.

Of course, there are many earthworks named after Attila or the Huns. The north of The Netherland is (or was) littered with ancient megalithic remains called Hunebedden (‘Hunnic beds’), which unsurprisingly have not the remotest connection to the Huns….
[/quote]

[wulfgar60]

Hi Robert, I'll agree with about the fort. I was aware of the other formation on the outskirts of La Cheppe. This has the appearence of a typical Celtic Ring fort. If this is the one tradition has it was Attila's Camp, then it appears he used an existing formation.
My point is I'm not immediately concerned with the nature of the strategic formation of Attila's Germanic Vassals.
But of those forces subject to Hunnic Sub-generals and Warlords.
Perhaps you have some models of such strategic formations you can share with me.
Asking for factual proof is pointless. As you point out the information in this regard is obscure. What is known is the Hunnic Empire covered large territory's inhabited by lightly armed eastern European Tribesman, Slavic and otherwise. Your suggestion is it is unlikely that the Huns ever used these subjects in any military capacity at all?
How obscure is the information on this period anyway? One point of controversy I'm interested in. Is whether Late Roman foot soldiers used chain mail armor. I think it was Phil Barker who quite convinced they purely used leather armor. Due to the copious numbers of reliefs and monuments that exhibited the famed "Muscled Cuirass".
Have any insights on this one Robert?

[Robert Vermaat]

But of those forces subject to Hunnic Sub-generals and Warlords.
Perhaps you have some models of such strategic formations you can share with me.

?!? Formations are tactical. Strategy concerns defense policy and deposition of armies and similar long-term planning.

Asking for factual proof is pointless. As you point out the information in this regard is obscure. What is known is the Hunnic Empire covered large territory's inhabited by lightly armed eastern European Tribesman, Slavic and otherwise. How obscure is the information on this period anyway?

I would not say asking for facts is pointless, but basing theories purely on assumptions because facts are scarce surely is. I mean, what's the use of making assumptions when there's no corroborating evidence to test your assumptions against?

Of the Huns' ethnic background we know litttle to nothing, because so far it's not even been possible to establish which name in Chise and Persian sources actually compares to 'our' Huns. Assumptions vary from Eurasian groups to Turks or Mongol. There seems to be evidence of the Hun language being Turkish, but then there may have been several groups of Huns (White Huns, Black Huns and Red Huns) and it's unknown if they were ethnically similar.

For sources, especially about Attila in Gaul, look at Sidonius Appolinaris contemporary Camina, Hydatius' 5th chronicle, Jordanes' 6th-c. Getica (History of the Goths ), based on Cassiodorus' work (or even Priscus). Then there's the 6th-c. Historia Francorum of Gregory of Tours, plus a number of more or less valuable vitae (saint' lives), such those about Anianus (Orleans), Nicasius (Rheims), Servatus (Tongeren) or Genevieve (Paris).
Later oral sources include the Old Norse Völsunga saga and Hervarar saga, and the Middle High German Nibelungenlied.
Which add no details, mind you! The sagas are 'about' historical affairs, but distorted, while the saints' lives tend to make exaggerated claims about people, places and numbers. Such as the Late Roman cemetary of Krefeld-Gellep giving rise to an extremely early Medieval legend aabout 300 (numbers vary) noble ladies being slaughtered by the Huns.

Love this one:

Your suggestion is it is unlikely that the Huns ever used these subjects in any military capacity at all?

Well, 'not at all' would be very strong. But those we hear of in the sources are mainly the eastern and (to a lesser extent) western Germanic subjects such as Goths, Franks, Burgundians, Thuringians, Scirii, Rugians, Gepids, that sort of groups who paid tribute. And of course Alans and Sarmatians, subject nomad groups who will have been an important part of the cavalry. We see no use of large groups of Slavs, who only turn up a bit later when dominated by the Avars.

I mean, the Mongols also controlled vast areas, and for a much longer time, yet they did not bring a million Chinese with them when they invaded Europe.

One point of controversy I'm interested in. Is whether Late Roman foot soldiers used chain mail armor. I think it was Phil Barker who quite convinced they purely used leather armor. Due to the copious numbers of reliefs and monuments that exhibited the famed "Muscled Cuirass". Have any insights on this one Robert?

What's with the leather armour?? :twisted: For Late Roman infantry???

That's a totally different discussion, not for this section. If you really want to bring that up, best start a new thread in the archaeology & history section.

But back on topic: are you sure you have the correct Chalons? According to Jordanes, there was a sharp rise on on side of the battlefield. Whre is that on your Google map?

[wulfgar60]

I would not say asking for facts is pointless, but basing theories purely on assumptions because facts are scarce surely is. I mean, what's the use of making assumptions when there's no corroborating evidence to test your assumptions against?

As I said Robert. Think of the Detective who often has to solve puzzles on the basis of little evidence. It's called deduction, based on logic. Now it may turn out that the detective finds himself barking up the wrong tree. But in the process may come across better arguments, or even better constructions of what evidence there is. I notice you Robert doing this quite succinctly in other posts.
Remember the three P's Robert! Proposition, possibility and probability. Even our facts often contain great amounts of opinion.

Of the Huns' ethnic background we know litttle to nothing, because so far it's not even been possible to establish which name in Chise and Persian sources actually compares to 'our' Huns. Assumptions vary from Eurasian groups to Turks or Mongol. There seems to be evidence of the Hun language being Turkish, but then there may have been several groups of Huns (White Huns, Black Huns and Red Huns) and it's unknown if they were ethnically similar.

I thought Prisius's description of Attila's features was a bit of a give away!

But back on topic: are you sure you have the correct Chalons? According to Jordanes, there was a sharp rise on on side of the battlefield. Whre is that on your Google map?

I better go and check for some contour maps. It looks like the identification of the obvious Celtic fort as Attlia's Chalon's camp. Was the product of Napoleon III's romanticism. In 1864 they found a mass grave with 200 skeletons of men who sport a knife in their boots in the fashion of more contemporary Hungarians. Considering the amount of Austrian armies having gone through this region. They most likely were more contemporary Hungarians, rather than ancient Huns.
I was wondering if the larger markings were signs of some larger camp. But I'll except your experience on issue. The celtic fort would most likely been reused by parties through out history. It is supposedly one of the best Celtic forts in France.
Any army looking for defensive position in the region would have been attracted to it.
The region concerned is a good possibility. But has little else to affirm probability.

What's with the leather armour?? Twisted Evil For Late Roman infantry???

I'll leave that one to my thread on the subject.

[fasta]

What's with the leather armour?? Twisted Evil For Late Roman infantry???

I'll leave that one to my thread on the subject.

I'll look foward to hearing more about this as it would totally change everything on late armour that I know.Always willing to learn something new :wink: