The fall of the roman military power

[Artorius1960]

Besides, the barbarian tribes gets stronger and stronger, for example, the Huns mounted archers were a revolution unity in that time that was almost unknown in the Roman World.

Was it that novel? Didn't Marcus Licinius Crassus face an army of horse archers at Carrhae? The Parthians and Sassanids had horse archers. The Romans, too, had equites sagittarii.

I think the main threat from the Huns came with the leadership of Attila, who brought together a consortium of barbarian peoples, of which the Huns were only a part. Before Attila, the Huns were a lesser threat and were almost no threat after Attila.

[P. Lilius Frugius Simius]

Publius Artorio sal.

ave!

I think you are understimating the huge difference between the Huns and other mounted archers. The Huns were pushing tribe after tribe for a Century before Attila, and quite effectively, at that.

During the II Century they arrived near the North of the Black Sea, near enough to push the Alans, who were Iranian nomads, archers as well, who in trun pushed the Sarmatians, basically mounted heavy spearmen, who gave lots of headaches to the Romans (see Trajan's Column).

Circa 360 they got ever further West in the north of the Black Sea, and pushed the Alans in a way that the Alans pushed the Sarmatians even more, and pushed the Tervingi and Greutungi Goths against the Empire, which started by Valens signing a "victory" which basically left Fritigern as chosen king of the Tervingi and without Roman interference (which was not the rule, but a huge exception in Imperial limes politics) and ultimately meant a massive crossing of inmigrants who were not dispersed, and finished with Valens's death and most of the the Eastern comitatenses army in Hadrianopolis. They pushed again and moved rapidly to the Great plains in Hungary, and conquered the Goths (who later would be the Ostrogoths), the Geta, Alamani, and many other Germanic tribes, while puching the Alans even further to the West, where part finished with the Visigoths, and the others pushed to the West the Suevi and the Vandals, and further to the North the Rugi, Turingi, Lombards, Heruli, etc...

When Rome fought against the Huns, the limitanei were always defeated, even the minor incursions, and then, after Attila killed his brother, every and all armies the Eastern Empire could muster and put to the field, in Attila's campaigns in the 440s... Again, only the huge (in political terms, if not in numbers) army mustered by Aetius against Attila in the 451 campaign managed to defeat them, and mostly because the Visigoths and Burgundians had developed their military capabilities and Aetius knew Hun tactics and methods very well (the same way the Huns learned from him and the Romans the siege techniques they used later to run over Europe). All the other Roman armies, posts and towns in the 451 and 452 campaigns surrendered or were duly defeated by them.

The Huns were nomadic archers, with bows much more powerful than Europe had ever seen ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hun_bow ), and probably superb horsemanship (was it Apollodorus who said they did everything on their horses?) which proved an unbeatable combination once the small warbands were united by a strong leader.

After Attila's death, the host of military slaved Germanic and Iranian tribes fought and eventually got their freedom, becoming the seed of the post-Romulus Augustulus fall kingdoms.

just thought we should have a better perspective.

best regards and salve

[Artorius1960]

just thought we should have a better perspective.

Excellent information! Thanks for the overview. I see that I need to read more about the Huns. (I did see the move with Jack Palance, however, and that more recent, more awful TV movie with Powers Boothe playing Flavius Aetius. :lol: )

[L.Valerius Gaudentius]

Besides, the barbarian tribes gets stronger and stronger, for example, the Huns mounted archers were a revolution unity in that time that was almost unknown in the Roman World.

Was it that novel? Didn't Marcus Licinius Crassus face an army of horse archers at Carrhae? The Parthians and Sassanids had horse archers. The Romans, too, had equites sagittarii.

I think the main threat from the Huns came with the leadership of Attila, who brought together a consortium of barbarian peoples, of which the Huns were only a part. Before Attila, the Huns were a lesser threat and were almost no threat after Attila.

But the Huns mounted archers were faster than the Parthians or the Sassanids. Besides, they were able to attack their enemy and escape without any damage. Their attack is more destructive than the others (like Parthians or Sassanids).

[L.Valerius Gaudentius]

just thought we should have a better perspective.

Excellent information! Thanks for the overview. I see that I need to read more about the Huns. (I did see the move with Jack Palance, however, and that more recent, more awful TV movie with Powers Boothe playing Flavius Aetius. :lol: )

Great Powers Boothe performing Flavius Aetius.

[L.Valerius Gaudentius]

Publius Artorio sal.

ave!

I think you are understimating the huge difference between the Huns and other mounted archers. The Huns were pushing tribe after tribe for a Century before Attila, and quite effectively, at that.

During the II Century they arrived near the North of the Black Sea, near enough to push the Alans, who were Iranian nomads, archers as well, who in trun pushed the Sarmatians, basically mounted heavy spearmen, who gave lots of headaches to the Romans (see Trajan's Column).

Circa 360 they got ever further West in the north of the Black Sea, and pushed the Alans in a way that the Alans pushed the Sarmatians even more, and pushed the Tervingi and Greutungi Goths against the Empire, which started by Valens signing a "victory" which basically left Fritigern as chosen king of the Tervingi and without Roman interference (which was not the rule, but a huge exception in Imperial limes politics) and ultimately meant a massive crossing of inmigrants who were not dispersed, and finished with Valens's death and most of the the Eastern comitatenses army in Hadrianopolis. They pushed again and moved rapidly to the Great plains in Hungary, and conquered the Goths (who later would be the Ostrogoths), the Geta, Alamani, and many other Germanic tribes, while puching the Alans even further to the West, where part finished with the Visigoths, and the others pushed to the West the Suevi and the Vandals, and further to the North the Rugi, Turingi, Lombards, Heruli, etc...

When Rome fought against the Huns, the limitanei were always defeated, even the minor incursions, and then, after Attila killed his brother, every and all armies the Eastern Empire could muster and put to the field, in Attila's campaigns in the 440s... Again, only the huge (in political terms, if not in numbers) army mustered by Aetius against Attila in the 451 campaign managed to defeat them, and mostly because the Visigoths and Burgundians had developed their military capabilities and Aetius knew Hun tactics and methods very well (the same way the Huns learned from him and the Romans the siege techniques they used later to run over Europe). All the other Roman armies, posts and towns in the 451 and 452 campaigns surrendered or were duly defeated by them.

The Huns were nomadic archers, with bows much more powerful than Europe had ever seen ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hun_bow ), and probably superb horsemanship (was it Apollodorus who said they did everything on their horses?) which proved an unbeatable combination once the small warbands were united by a strong leader.

After Attila's death, the host of military slaved Germanic and Iranian tribes fought and eventually got their freedom, becoming the seed of the post-Romulus Augustulus fall kingdoms.

just thought we should have a better perspective.

best regards and salve

Thanks for the explanation Lilius, you have explained better than me. :wink:

[Robert Vermaat]

I think you are understimating the huge difference between the Huns and other mounted archers. The Huns were pushing tribe after tribe for a Century before Attila, and quite effectively, at that.

Sure, they did that, but that had happened time after time with many tribes before them. By itself, it's not a sign of Hunnic invincibility. It's a common nomadic treat - if your enemy wants your land you fight, if you loose you move away.

When Rome fought against the Huns, the limitanei were always defeated, even the minor incursions

No, i don't think you can put it just like that. For one, the limitanei were never intended to deal with full-scale invasions. The Limitanei were there to guard the borders, deal with raids, stay in contact with the enemy. their static role and relative small numbers dispersed along the border made it impossible to deal with any full-scale invasion. However, when such an invasion was being dealt with by the Comitatenses, the Limitanei were usually involved in such a campaign.
Nor were the Huns never defeated. Back in 408 an invasion was dealt with. After that, for a long time they were allies of Rome. It was not until Attila became their leader when they became a major threat to the Empire. For a long time they were bought off. But after Attila's death, they never were a major threat again.

Again, only the huge (in political terms, if not in numbers) army mustered by Aetius against Attila in the 451 campaign managed to defeat them, and mostly because the Visigoths and Burgundians had developed their military capabilities and Aetius knew Hun tactics and methods very well (the same way the Huns learned from him and the Romans the siege techniques they used later to run over Europe). All the other Roman armies, posts and towns in the 451 and 452 campaigns surrendered or were duly defeated by them.

Visigoth and Burgundian armies were not the reason the Huns were defeated, there are no real signs of them becoming more of a military threat. It usually was Roman generalship that made the difference, so my point would be that Aetius managed to (just!) outgeneral Attila.

The Huns were nomadic archers, with bows much more powerful than Europe had ever seen ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hun_bow ), and probably superb horsemanship (was it Apollodorus who said they did everything on their horses?) which proved an unbeatable combination once the small warbands were united by a strong leader.

I have not heard any reason why the Huns would have been better horsemen than, say, the Scythians or the Parthians.

[Robert Vermaat]

But the Huns mounted archers were faster than the Parthians or the Sassanids. Besides, they were able to attack their enemy and escape without any damage. Their attack is more destructive than the others (like Parthians or Sassanids).

Why?
Only in the sense that both Parthians and Sassanid Persians would have been a mix of light and heavy cavalry? Why would the Hunnic horsearchers be faster that parthian horsearchers? Different breed of horses?

[L.Valerius Gaudentius]

But the Huns mounted archers were faster than the Parthians or the Sassanids. Besides, they were able to attack their enemy and escape without any damage. Their attack is more destructive than the others (like Parthians or Sassanids).

Why?
Only in the sense that both Parthians and Sassanid Persians would have been a mix of light and heavy cavalry? Why would the Hunnic horsearchers be faster that parthian horsearchers? Different breed of horses?

Because they have the ability to attack their enemy and escape without any damage (years of training :wink: ). The Parthians and Sassanid Persians "rarely" do this. Huns were the most powerful enemy of Rome (in the period of Attila and Aetius), for example, Litorius, roman (magister equitum hock: ?) defeated Visigoths with some Huns. If he had used the common sense, he would have defeated completely to Theoderic. But he didn´t use it and was defeated at Tolosa.

[P. Lilius Frugius Simius]

Publius Vortigerno sal.

aue!

I think you are understimating the huge difference between the Huns and other mounted archers. The Huns were pushing tribe after tribe for a Century before Attila, and quite effectively, at that.

Sure, they did that, but that had happened time after time with many tribes before them. By itself, it's not a sign of Hunnic invincibility. It's a common nomadic treat - if your enemy wants your land you fight, if you loose you move away.

True, but nobody pushed the Huns.

I mean, the Germanic tribes of the late Republic and early Principicate and Empire were small, politically independent and economically poor, to a point that it wasn't really economically worth for the Empire to conquer them, and many wars of expasion were fought for the personal glory of the Emperor, and therefore they were not a real threat, not even a little threat. The Sarmatians were moving from the Iranian plains for centuries, probably pushing the local non Indoeuropean tribes, and Indoeuropean tribes (like the Germanic, Baltic, etc) as well as being pushed by the Alans.

In an open, all-for-one battle, the heavy cavalry was surely able to crush light cavalry if they could not escape, but in the plains, the Alan archers were more than a match for the heavier Sarmatian cataphracti, and, actually, the Alans proved themselves a fair match and able to overcome all European barbarian cavalries and armies they met in Germania (in a broad sense of the term). If the Huns were able to push, defeat, assimilate a part, and force the rest of the Alan tribes and kings to run away, and even admitting the transitive property may not be applied in here, we can see that if the Alans were archers and won over the West, the Huns who were archers and beat the Alans would also be able to do so, and they proved it later on.

Now a bit of contextual history.

Once the Sarmatians arrived in the Hungarian plains, along the river Tizsa, and the Alans took the fertile lands around the Zahov Sea and the rived Don, the Goths, mainly the Tervingi and the Greutungi, arrived to the Pontus Euxinus following the Dnjester and Dnjepper.

When the Huns started to move following the Volga, one of the "branches" moved south circa 395, and arrived to Armenia, Capadocia, and Syria; the earlier incursions, circa 275, pushed teh Alans too far, and the Alans were forced to move further to the West, colliding with the Greutungi. The Huns pushed further, and as the result of several battles lost by the Goths, most of them moved to Roman land, crossed the Danube (Fritigern, and the Tervingi, later the Greutungi, and in 377 most of the Western Goths) and the whole war to Hadrianopolis until Theodoric peace treaty in 382.

Later on, circa 400, the Huns pushed further Westwards, which provocked the movement of Radagaiso's Goths, who entered Italy ca. 405... They later joined Stillicho's army, and when Stillicho's were killed, they joined Alaric's Goths, forming the Visigoths. In the meantime, the Alans also pushed Westwards the Suevi, the Vandals (Hasdingi and Silingi) and Alamani, which pushed the Burgundians towards Worms, further in the North. In 406 the Alans, Vandals and Suevi invaded Gaul, while Radagaiso's Goths invaded Italy, and in 408-409 Uldino's Huns attacked Castra Martis, in Dacia, although it didn't have too great impact.

Later, while Constantius was busy trying to recover Gaul and Hispania with Visigothic help, pushing the Vandals into Mauretania and, eventually, into Carthago, which was probably the final coup to the Western Empire economy, the Huns keps pushing West, and started to absorb more and more Germanic tribes, while installing themselves along the Danube and Rhenus borders, and being used by the Romans to suffocate Germanic intrusions, who had been forced to join and get stonger. By the time of Attila and his brother, in the 430s, they had been helping Aetius against usurpers and Germans for a while, and knew how the Romans fought.

Which leads us to:

When Rome fought against the Huns, the limitanei were always defeated, even the minor incursions

No, i don't think you can put it just like that. For one, the limitanei were never intended to deal with full-scale invasions.

(...)

Nor were the Huns never defeated. Back in 408 an invasion was dealt with. After that, for a long time they were allies of Rome. It was not until Attila became their leader when they became a major threat to the Empire. For a long time they were bought off. But after Attila's death, they never were a major threat again.

I wasn't trying to imply the limitanei were not good fighters. Actually I am pretty sure they were really good about it: they were always on the edge, with a hereditary position they couldn't leave: either you fight and live, or you die. Evidently, they had to be good. However, the legions were small (500-600 infatry and 500 cavalry men to cover some 50 miles of frontier?) and many times predated to fill in holes in the comitatenses and pseudo-comitatenses to deal with the other threats: actually I think the rebellion of Eugenius and the battle of the river Frigidus was the greater cause of the extreme weakness of the Gaul limitanei in the Rhenus that allowed the Alans, Vandals and Suevi to enter into Gaul so "easily" and the lack of a comitatenses army in the extreme west what allowed them to wander about Gaul for a decade without opposition.

The limitanei must have been good in fighting, pursuing and resisting attacks; the comitatenses would be good at running from here to there... :-) ) (just kidding, but haha only half serious). Anyway, when they had been pretty good containing small Germanic incursions into the Empire, only defeated when massive movements happened (as the ones mentioned, and which they weren't designed to deal with) they didn't managed to stop smaller Hun incursions, which got bigger and bigger until they were big enough to become full blown invasions in the 440s.

Also, you mention Uldino's Huns, and I agree with oyu as well. But it was this collaboration with the Romans what allowed Attila to crush the Romans for so long. Of course Attila's armies were not just Huns, also a good deal of Goths, Sarmatians, and many Germanic tribes he had been conquering as he established himself into the Hungarian plains...

Visigoth and Burgundian armies were not the reason the Huns were defeated, there are no real signs of them becoming more of a military threat. It usually was Roman generalship that made the difference, so my point would be that Aetius managed to (just!) outgeneral Attila.

Well, from my understanding of the battle of the Cathalaunian Fields, the Visigoths managed a good deal of things, forcing the Alans back into their camp, and forcinf Attila itself to do so, while the Romans got around the other side of the hill in the middle of the battlefield.

And according to the sources, Aetius preferred to stop pursuing the Huns so the Visigoths didn't become too powerful if the Huns were destroyed. Actually this led to the creation of the future kingdom of Tolossa.

I don't want to take credit from Aetius, he certainly must have been a huge general, of the size of Stillicho's, Constantii or even Justinian, Constantine, etc... But the Roman Empire army, by itself, wouldn't have been able to defeat Attila, and needed the help of the Visigoths from Aquitania, the Franks, Burgundians, ... Germanic tribes that were becoming the power in the Western praefecturae of the Western dioceses (where most of Hispania and Gaul were, in a way, off the Roman Empire, as most of its tax recollections were kept by the foederati as militari annonae and extra pays).

I have not heard any reason why the Huns would have been better horsemen than, say, the Scythians or the Parthians.

Now, I never said they were better horsemen than the Scythinas or the Partians. However, the Parthians were on the East, and the Scythians were pushed/destroyed/absorbed by the Sarmatians, who where then done the same by the Alans, who where done the same by the Huns.

However, some sources point to their excellent horsemanship, see, for example, this page: http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Article/398206

Their assymetric, reflex, recurved bow was more powerful than the symmetric ones found in the other nomadic cultures (Alans, Parthians, etc...) which gave them greater fighting reach.

Anyway, I was only tryong to point out that the Huns were a very important element in the late Empire and the trigger of the Western Empire ultimate demise.

It's gotten too late, and I gotta leave, but if you are still interested in this subject, we can keep talking another day...

best regards,

valete

[Primitivus]

...the emperor could not be everywhere in the empire at all times, so this imposed a further operational limitation...

Which was one of the reasons Diocletian envisioned the Tetrarchy as a means of allowing Rome's expansive borders to be better defended. Sadly, Romans were just like all other human beings... in that a willingness to share power is the exception rather than the rule.

[Primitivus]

After all this has been said I think that the true weakness of the later Roman troops was the lack of loyalty of the troops towards the emperor, the morale decline and not having this ideal of fighting for the Emperor, but rather for selfinterest and selfprofit.

Ah, the difference between patriotic soldiers and mercenaries. While recent studies have reinforced the notion that soldiers are willing to risk their lives for their comrades before they will sacrifice them for abstract notions... the fact remains that when people truly believe in their sovereign, nation, or duty, they make much more loyal warriors.

[Primitivus]

Why not hiring barbarian mercs who are with many and are expendable?

Just don't let the barbarians recognize that you consider them expendable! Made more than one of them seriously unhappy (and correspondingly disloyal).

[Thiudareiks Flavius]

Why not hiring barbarian mercs who are with many and are expendable?

Just don't let the barbarians recognize that you consider them expendable! Made more than one of them seriously unhappy (and correspondingly disloyal).

Hugh Elton examined the idea that the barbarian soldiers were somehow less loyal or less effective than Roman soldiers when in the service of the Empire. He concluded that the evidence indicates they were just as effective and actually more likely to be loyal.

[Robert Vermaat]

But the Huns mounted archers were faster than the Parthians or the Sassanids. Besides, they were able to attack their enemy and escape without any damage. Their attack is more destructive than the others (like Parthians or Sassanids).

Why?
Only in the sense that both Parthians and Sassanid Persians would have been a mix of light and heavy cavalry? Why would the Hunnic horsearchers be faster that parthian horsearchers? Different breed of horses?

Because they have the ability to attack their enemy and escape without any damage (years of training :wink: ).

Are you saying no other enemy of Rome trained/ I'm afraid making such a statement is not good enough. Have you any references for this?

The Parthians and Sassanid Persians "rarely" do this.

Again, have you any references for this proposed difference between Huns and Parthians/Sassanids in their attacks?

Huns were the most powerful enemy of Rome (in the period of Attila and Aetius), for example, Litorius, roman (magister equitum hock: ?) defeated Visigoths with some Huns. If he had used the common sense, he would have defeated completely to Theoderic. But he didn´t use it and was defeated at Tolosa.

Well, maybe you don't realise it, but the Huns were defeated before Attila and after his death (and it was not the Pope who made them turn back from Italy).
Were the Huns the most fearful enemy in the second quarter of the 5th century? I think not. The Sassanids were defeated in battle, sure, but never really destroyed before the Muslims did that in the 7th century. In fact the Eastern Romans bought peace from the Huns to get to grips with the Sassanids who they considered much more dangerous.
The Vandals were also an enemy rarely defeated (but most Roman expeditions to Africa failed) but only destroyed by Belisarius.

Really, I of course see the significance of the major threat that the Huns posed to the Romans (I mean, the huuuuge amounts of gold paid to buy them off is clear evidence that the Romans realised that, too), I'm not in favour of mythifying the actual strenght of the Huns. They had better bows, sure, a big advantage at the time. They did not have stirrups (as some authors supposed), they did not shoot sharper than any other horse-archer, they did not get away with any attack due to better training, their horsemanship was not superhuman and they did not eat babies. Or something. They were a powerful enemy but they could be defeated, as they eventually were.