The fall of the roman military power

[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: ).

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.

I expressed bad Vortiegern, I´m sorry :oops: . All the enemies of Rome were trained, but the "speciality" of the Huns was the mounted archers, specially with his bow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hun_bow , the Parthians ans Sassanids used it but they used many other weapons (and units).

Regards.

[Robert Vermaat]

True, but nobody pushed the Huns.

Hi David,
I think we see each others' point of view.
Just some remarks, then.
Did nobody push the Huns? How do you know? When we see the Sarmatians Iaziges and Roxolani first, they are the upcoming tribes pushing earlier Sarmatian tribes in the Don basin. Later on, they themselfves become the ones pushed by Alan tribes. The Hun we first hear from in the late 4th c. Are of course not alone either. While the European enemies of the Romans are sometimes referred to as 'Black' Huns, the sassanids were harried by their eastern counterparts, the 'White' or Hephtalie Huns. Of course these Huns did not form one big empire under one kings, as had the Sarmatians and Alans not been before them. The Huns in Europe of course were under pressure themselves, as had been the case with every nomad society before them and after them. If the Huns can indeed be equated with the Hsiung-Nu from Chinese sources, it was the Chine who presured them into moving West. Soon after the Hephtalite threat is gone, we already see the first true Turkish tribes appear in the form of the "Blue' or heavenly Turks (Kok-Türük).
Of course someone pressure the Huns.

in 408-409 Uldino's Huns attacked Castra Martis, in Dacia, although it didn't have too great impact.

Indeed. In fact, they and their Skirian allies were defeated.

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...

Yes, Attila used infantry. And lots of it. Germanic, of course, but nonetheless many people see the Hunnic invasions as a) purely Hunnic and b) only cavalry..

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 forcing Attila itself to do so, while the Romans got around the other side of the hill in the middle of the battlefield.

They did, but from an analysis of the Visigothic battles during the 5th c. (Elton, H. (1992): Defence in fifth-century Gaul, in: Drinkwater & Elton: Fifth-Century Gaul : A Crisis of Identity?, pp. 167-176) has shown that the Visigothic army, operating on its own, rarely scored big successes and mostly lost to Roman armies.

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, ...

Absolutely! It was the Roman lack of manpower and the ability to continue deploying good armies that did them in. Waht you see as Visigoths, Franks, Burgundians were of course at that time not yet separate states, they were seen and saw themselves as soldiers fighting for Rome, which was their duty. When Visigoths fight Romans that was at the time not really a barbarian vs. a Roman, but more like any other general rebelling. Today with hindsight we of course see that different, but at the time for the locals there was no big difference between a Visigothic force exerting pressure by besieging a Roman town and a Roman general fighting another Roman general! Increasingly that changed from 'fighting for Rome' to 'fighting for Roman generals', which is the exact moment when they go their separate ways.

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.

Sure. Part of the history of tribes being overcome by new arrivals is that they tend to settle down when arriving in the Ukraine and the area of the big European rivers and the Black Sea coast. The Alans still living today are high up in the Caucasus Mountains. This will for sure have an impact on their ability to mobilise true steppe horse archers. Heavy cavalry seems more developed with tribes that are also more dependent on agriculture.

[Razor]

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.

yup I agree with you. of course I was speaking for the whole legion/units. For example when an emperor decided to go campaigning in the east (Constantius II and Julianus) the field army first refused to go on campaign and proclaimed Julianus emperor hoping/expecting that he would make conditions better for them.

Quote:
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).

no kidding... :lol:

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.

Wouldn't their loyalty depend more on the loyalty of their leaders towards the Roman authority? I mean if their leader got into a war with the Roman authority/authorities :roll: it would be very very likely that they would be his followers rather then his enemies. So the question would be: are they indeed loyal to the Romans directly? I think not, but merely indirectly through their own leaders as were the Roman legions themselves through their leaders.

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.

Since all kinds of known myths are being mentioned here and many has been explained, I have another question. Did the Huns also use some sort of armour piercing arrowheads?

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, ...

Absolutely! It was the Roman lack of manpower and the ability to continue deploying good armies that did them in. Waht you see as Visigoths, Franks, Burgundians were of course at that time not yet separate states, they were seen and saw themselves as soldiers fighting for Rome, which was their duty. When Visigoths fight Romans that was at the time not really a barbarian vs. a Roman, but more like any other general rebelling. Today with hindsight we of course see that different, but at the time for the locals there was no big difference between a Visigothic force exerting pressure by besieging a Roman town and a Roman general fighting another Roman general! Increasingly that changed from 'fighting for Rome' to 'fighting for Roman generals', which is the exact moment when they go their separate ways.

Well said! However I don't think fighting for Rome would fit in quite. The Germanic tribes fighting on the Roman side all had a profit to be under Roman government. I think it's better to interpret it as "fighting for their own sake" instead of romantic interpretation "fighting for Rome". IMO the Hunnic threat kept the Roman-Germanic alliance firm.

[Robert Vermaat]

I expressed bad Vortiegern, I´m sorry :oops: . All the enemies of Rome were trained, but the "speciality" of the Huns was the mounted archers, specially with his bow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hun_bow , the Parthians ans Sassanids used it but they used many other weapons (and units).

That still does not explain your statement that the Huns were faster and escaped attacks without damage.

[Primitivus]

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.

Yes, in terms of those entrusted with the protection of the emperor himself, the Byzantine era Varangian Guard was probably the most famous example of this. Earlier emperors also utilized foreign troops as bodyguards. The Germani custodes corporis or German bodyguard provided protection during the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Their dissolution in AD 69 was one of the smaller actions which undermined the reign of Galba. If barbarians could be entrusted with safeguarding the royal personage, they could certainly be trusted (for the most part) on the battlefield.

...at least until they began to suspect they may be simply being treated as “cannon fodder.â€

[Goffredo]

The Huns were in contact with Romans for some time, at least 70 years before Chalons. In that long period huns (individuals, groups) fought with Rome as auxilliaries and there were all kinds of exchanges. To think that the Huns were like aliens that stunned the romans with unheard-of weapons or surprising fighting techniques is, to put it frankly, quite naive.

[S SEVERUS]

The begin of the fall of the western empire is also to blame on Theodosius the Great. Instead of exterminating or expelling the Goths he just left the whole tribe inside the empire. And his succession after his death was bad because his two sons were not capable. The late roman army was a very efficient army but with the empire divided between two halves that weren't assisting each other it became very difficult for the West to keep paying it's army after the loss of so much territory or devastation of territory.

[Theodosius the Great]

To think that the Huns were like aliens that stunned the romans with unheard-of weapons or surprising fighting techniques is, to put it frankly, quite naive.

Maybe they were stunned by their grotesque appearance.

Judging from this picture, the Huns must've been the ugliest SOBs the Romans ever encountered hock:



:lol: .......................................................................................................................:lol: ..

The begin of the fall of the western empire is also to blame on Theodosius the Great. Instead of exterminating or expelling the Goths he just left the whole tribe inside the empire.

Hi Severus,

The way you phrase what happened seems a bit misleading. You seem to think that Theodosius had a choice. The fact is : he spent years trying to contain and expell the Goths but failed despite the support he received from the West. So he had to rationalize the new matrix by making a treaty with them, granting them land and some autonomy. Clearly, this wasn't his first or ideal choice. Besides, the Goths didn't get everything they wanted. They didn't get the land of their choice and they agreed to serve the Empire when required to (granted, they commanded their own forces, but nonetheless it was a concession made on their part).

And his succession after his death was bad because his two sons were not capable.

The problem was he died unexpectedly. Had he lived, I think his sons may have been reared to become great emperors. But they were too immature to rule when their father died and were placed in the care of corrupt regents who ruled in their names. They weren't "bad", just docile.

[P. Lilius Frugius Simius]

hiyas there, Robert,

Yes, I see your point, let me finish this off by clariying some things and asking some questions... :-) )

True, but nobody pushed the Huns.

Hi David,
I think we see each others' point of view.
Just some remarks, then.
Did nobody push the Huns? How do you know?

(...)

The Huns in Europe of course were under pressure themselves, as had been the case with every nomad society before them and after them. If the Huns can indeed be equated with the Hsiung-Nu from Chinese sources, it was the Chine who presured them into moving West. Soon after the Hephtalite threat is gone, we already see the first true Turkish tribes appear in the form of the "Blue' or heavenly Turks (Kok-Türük).
Of course someone pressure the Huns.

I have never thought of this subject in these terms. My statement was referring to the fact that what destroyed Attila's Huns were internal factors, such as his Germanic and Iranian subject tribes uniting against Attila's sons and finally dissolving the Hun Empire, not as the Huns themselves did to basically everybody else, pushing them further and further.

The great Eurasian plains were spilling nomadic groups almost regularly, and those groups pushed everyone else, and they were being pushed by some unknowns, be it demographic pressure, natural catastrophes, climate changes, factions of their culture that did not had to migrate, or new, powerful enemies that entered from "Beyond".

But I think the 'Black' Huns that formed the core of Attila's Empire were simply installed there, not running away from other groups, but by following the trail of Roman gold. That's what I meant by 'nobody pushed the Huns'.

Thanks a bunch for this insight! Of course, if Huns were, indeed, uro-altaic, they had to be related with later Turkish waves that penetrated deep into the West in Asia and Europe, well before the Mongols.

Yes, Attila used infantry. And lots of it. Germanic, of course, but nonetheless many people see the Hunnic invasions as a) purely Hunnic and b) only cavalry.

I think it's only natural, as they were seen as nomadic and mounted archers. However the core of the Hunnic Empire in the West was surely well below the 50% mark, and that probably explains why it did fall so "easily" once Attila died.

Also, the great plains can only sustain so many horses... Heather's numbers, about 10 horses per man (to allow for rest to the other mounts) I see a bit high, maybe 5 horses per man would be enough (of course, it may also be a cultural trait, I don't have any numbers) but 50,000-100,000 horses only allow for some 5,000-10,000 Huns... The rest must have been Germans and Iranians, which would have about 1-10 ratio of horsemen to infantry, maybe a bit higher as late Germanic tribes had higher populations and economies... Therefore, in a huge army of 50,000 fighters, only about 15,000 would be cavalry, counting Huns, Germans from many tribes, Sarmatians and Alans.

(... Visigoths in Battle of Châlons ...) They did, but from an analysis of the Visigothic battles during the 5th c. (Elton, H. (1992): Defence in fifth-century Gaul, in: Drinkwater & Elton: Fifth-Century Gaul : A Crisis of Identity?, pp. 167-176) has shown that the Visigothic army, operating on its own, rarely scored big successes and mostly lost to Roman armies.

I didn't know that analysis, but it's a fact in itself that History shows: Goths were not really great fighters by themselves, and they routinely lost against Roman (and other Germanic tribes) when going by themselves: Stilicho defeated Alaric routinely, he defeated Radagaisus; then Constantius fought them in Narbonensis, until he got a new Visigothic king (Roman political interference, which was the norm for the Empire) and Gala Placidia (and, basically, access to the throne of Honorius's); then then Franks and the Burgundians took them out of Tolossa and pushed them into Hispania, the Byzantines took a good chunk of land around Cartago Nova, and it took them over a century to recover it (because Byzantium was weak elsewhere)... Late Visigothic armies (in the final years of the Kingdom of Toledo) were probably the best ones in terms of army equilibrium and strategical deploy, but by then the ranks of the Visigoths were exhausted by intestine wars between king wannabees, and they easily fell to the Arabs once they "invited" them to Hispania to help (battle of Guadalete and the following).

(...) Today with hindsight we of course see that different, but at the time for the locals there was no big difference between a Visigothic force exerting pressure by besieging a Roman town and a Roman general fighting another Roman general!

Interesting... One of the points I am thinking to put into Alaric's personality is his almost obsession for Rome to recognize him as a true Roman, and thus he's becoming magister militum. Of course if he was Roman, all the Goths were Romans, because he was their king, and this things get conveniently transitive... :-) )

Increasingly that changed from 'fighting for Rome' to 'fighting for Roman generals', which is the exact moment when they go their separate ways.

So, in this light, Radagaisus's Goths that joined Alaric after Stilicho's death were simply changing their allegiance to a new magister: instead of Honorius, Alaric? Sounds tremendously attractive... :-) )

Alaric did not try to get the purple for himself, therefore his troops could be seen as simply supporting the magister that followed the "true" emperor, Priscus Attalus, instead of that traitor of Honorius... Cool! :-) )

The Alans still living today are high up in the Caucasus Mountains. This will for sure have an impact on their ability to mobilise true steppe horse archers. Heavy cavalry seems more developed with tribes that are also more dependent on agriculture.

Nod, once you "only" have to wait for them to come to your piece of land, you want a good shock force, no need to run after them, even if you anihilate them all this time, others are bound to, eventually, come...

Which, in a way, was exactly the situation the Western Roman Empire found itself in the V century... However, the huge extent of the limites made the heavy infantry/heavy cavalry impractical, and I guess trying the Chinese-scale version of Hadrian's Wall was impractical, or they would have done it...

Well, thanks for a great thread, I've learned a lot...

gratefully salve!

[S SEVERUS]

Hi Theodosius the Great

I agree with you that he died suddenly but the fact is that it was he who made the treaty with te Goths that was so disastrous. Never before was a tribe of barbarians treated in this way. Probably he did so because he needed the gothic warriors for his wars. He used them at the fregidius.

[Aryaman2]

As has been said, Roman army at their best were far from unstopable, howvwer it also can be said that, without following Vegetius to the extreme, Roman infantry in the V century was considerably weaker than in previous centuries, a decline in discipline is visible in the fact that soldiers go plundering enemy camp in victory instead of executing the routed enemy, and by the VI century Roman infantry was worthless according to Procopius.

[Primitivus]

...Roman infantry in the V century was considerably weaker than in previous centuries, a decline in discipline is visible in the fact that soldiers go plundering enemy camp in victory instead of executing the routed enemy, and by the VI century Roman infantry was worthless according to Procopius.

Add to that the fact that they faced an increasing number of enemies who fought effectively from the horse, and we can see a geometric decrease in the value of infantry (especially infantry which was not supported by a significant cavalry contingent of its own).

[Theodosius the Great]

I agree with you that he died suddenly but the fact is that it was he who made the treaty with te Goths that was so disastrous.

Well, as David said earlier, the Visigoths weren't formed until after Theodosius' death. That's when they became a menace to both parts of the Empire, so I don't think you can blame this on Theodosius. Rather the blame lies with the regents who succeeded him (Stilicho and Rufus).

But I don't think Theodosius should've fought Maximus, with or without foederati. The best troops from the Eastern Empire were slaughtered and the Western Empire's were defeated at the Frigidus. So when he died, the troops from the West were split between the two halves - in effect weakening now both halves of the Empire.

Even so, the Empire could've expelled the tribes who would later form the Visigoths if only both halves of the Empire cooperated. It almost happened with Stilicho but the East undermined his efforts.

That was the true disaster, IMO.

[S SEVERUS]

Hi Theodosius,

I used as source Theodosius,The Empire at Bay Edition New ed
Williams, Stephen, Friell, Gerard Paperback.

You said :
"Even so, the Empire could've expelled the tribes who would later form the Visigoths if only both halves of the Empire cooperated. It almost happened with Stilicho but the East undermined his efforts."- I agree.

But it all began with the emperor (who's name you use) and his treaty. It's because both sons were no match for there father. He even made Honorius Augustus so like Marcus Aurelius he made a bad choice! The fact that Honorius and Arcadius were mere puppets in the hands of there Magister M is only to blame on their father. In fact Honorius was already 18 years old when his father died.

But I must say I like this discussion. It would be much easier for me to discuss in Dutch than in English. I am struggling to put my opinion in clear language.

Greets

Geert

[S SEVERUS]

Primitivus,

The romans also fought the sassanids (cavalry armies) and still could defeat them with infantry armies. But I have to look some things up.

Can you be more specific which peoples you see with great cavalry armies? And if you give you're sources I would thank you.

Greets

Geert