The Huns were one of the most feared groups at the time as they as a group under the command of Attila the Hun, conquered almost all of Europe. Attila was seen as a vicious beast by the Church, a savage barbarian commander by the Romans but he was more than that. This essay will argue that the Huns can be credited for having no political opposition which left him unchallenged in Eastern Roman lands, achieving a formidable reputation; and finally, their tactics used in battle were unmatched against other forces.
After the decline in Power in the Eastern Roman Empire, Atilla spotted this weakness and was able to take full advantage of it. The Huns became a force to be reckoned with Attila and his brother Breda coming to power in 433 AD after
…show more content…
Prior to their debut, traditional warfare was fought on foot like that of the Romans. The Huns on the other hand fought on horseback which was revolutionary at that time gave them the upper hand in the majority of scenarios where they had increased manoeuvrability and lethality of blows against opposing forces. The bow was the weapon of choice for the Huns (Maenchen-Helfen 1973, p.221). They were unrivalled in terms of accuracy and speed. A century later, after the East Romans had adopted tactics and weapons from the barbarians like the Huns. They were expert horsemen and were able to direct their bows in any direction while at full speed, and to shoot at opponents whether they were attacking or evading. And after all this, the Huns were still the best bowmen during their time and even after. They were called “the fiercest of all warriors, because they fight from a distance with ‘missiles’ having sharp bone points instead of the ‘ordinary’ points.” (Maenchen-Helfen 1973, p.221). Honour was also a factor in how they were able to overwhelm armies. Traditional armies and its soldiers didn’t want to stoop to their level as it was seen as a cowardly act to fight on horseback. We could also argue that Enemies like the Romans just weren’t prepared (Barbarians Rising: Attila, King of the Huns, History Channel). Their tight formation was what allowed Attila and his men to exploit them with his hit and run tactics. This whole notion honour was why the Huns were so formidable because the opposition were too ignorant and wouldn’t ‘innovate’ their style of warfare and fought old school. The decisions made by the enemy resulted in defeat as their ignorance caused them to lose control of their power and territory. Attila and his continuous waves of men. Overall, Attila’s people were his greatest weapon. The way they fought and the terror they instilled gave them the strength
Another fact is Powhatan warriors used tomahawks or wooden war clubs. They also carried shields and hats. Powhatan hunters use bows and arrows. If you would like to learn more about the Powhatan tribe, please continue reading this paper. You will learn all about the Powhatan and how they lived.
The Web. The Web. 23 Nov. 2013. This website gives information on events and battles that happened at the time. The "Untitled Document" is now available.
In relation to war, the most preferred weapon was the javelin, which could be used for both close combat and long range. The javelin was a highly effective weapon and it ensured that those using it were not easy to defeat. Furthermore, the javelin was often used alongside a shield, which was essential for not only blocking attacks, but also kept the enemy at bay while the javelin was used to strike. 'The horse' was also used but because of having to use both a shield and
As the ancient civilizations of the west grew their empires, they encountered something so powerful, beastly, and strong that no man could hold down with his own two bare hands, nor could they be tamed. As centuries go on, men learned the ways of the horse and learned to ride upon their backs. They found them to be a key component in transportation, carrying goods, and warfare. As time went on, for every footprint of a human left behind in the wet mud, there was a hoof print not far from the footprint. Ancient Greeks believed that the horse was a gift from the gods, and they were greatly valued in their society.
The climate of Germany suited the warriors well. The combination of “wild scenery and harsh climate” (Tacitus, Germania) had given the barbarians an inherent endurance towards cold and hunger over time. To cope with their surroundings, the warriors had developed powerful physiques, yet their abundant resources of strength and stamina proved not to be a source of pleasure for them, for the warriors had “no fondness for feats of endurance or for hard work” (Tacitus, Germania). In earthly matters, Germany’s apparent lack of precious metals made the warriors quite utilitarian in regards to physical possession. They preferred silver to gold, as silver could be more easily fashioned into useful objects. Only the tribes of warriors on the borders of the Roman empire recognized gold and silver as trading commodities, while the ‘backwoods’ tribes traded through the simple practice of barter, yielding one item in exchange for another (Tacitus, Germania).
...hip failures on the part of Mark Antony. These decisions allowed an outnumbered and outclassed fleet to win an extremely decisive victory. It is truly a lesson in the power of good strong leadership.
Another aspect of the creation of the ‘Bestial Hun’, although was not as focused and publicized on, was the destruction of property committed by German soldiers. In ‘The Bryce Report’ there is an overwhelming mass of the deliberate destruction of private property by German soldiers. “The destruction in most cases was effected by fire, and the German troops, had been provided beforehand with appliances for rapidly setting fire to houses... Besides burning houses, the Germans frequently smashed furniture and pictures: they also broke in doors and windows,... they also on numerous occasions threw corpses into wells, or left them in the bodies of persons murdered by drowning.”
"The Anglo Saxons appear as a race of fierce, cruel, and barbaric pagans, delighting in the seas, in slaughter, and in drink "(Allen, 17). The character of the ancient Saxons displayed the qualities of fearless, active, and successful. The Anglo-Saxons are mostly a barbaric race, not savage and rude but mostly military and...
Long distance weapons were essential to European combat. The main long distance weapons used by Europeans during that time were the longbow and the crossbow. Each form of weaponry had its unique advantages and their pejorative. The long bow (shown in figure 1) was the original form of distance weapons. The term ‘bow’ means to be made from wood, iron or steel. The Welsh, who inhabited England, were the first people to use longbows. Longbows were 6-7 feet long and had a range of 250 yards, and still had the ability to pierce a knight’s armor (Byam 12). A well trained archer could shot 10- 12 arrows in a single minute. Despite these pro’s the longbow had a lot of disadvantages as well. One draw back was only skilled archers, who were costly to train, could use a longbow. Another disadvantage was it didn’t have a ready loaded arrow (Edge 34). The crossbow (shown in figure 2) on the other had been emphatically different. The crossbow had a span of 2-3 feet and could kill a knight on horseback with one shot, because of good aim (Byam 30). Crossbows had ready loaded projectiles, while the longbow didn’t and the crossbow could be used by anyone since it didn’t require any skill. The crossbow did have a down side though, it had slow reloaded because of a crank and it was expensive. Crossbows were also used for other thi...
"The Day of the Barbarians: The Battle That Led to the Fall of the Roman Empire." Publishers Weekly 22 Jan. 2007
Throughout history, an important feature of any culture is the people's relationship to animals. Whether it be the thousands of cat mummies from the ancient Egyptians or the sacrifices from Greek temples, animals play an integral part in interpreting a culture and the mindsets of its citizens. Often these animals were more than just staples of domestic life, but also served as sacred creatures that connected humans to the spiritual world. When it comes to the Vikings, several species played important roles in day-to-day life, but none more so than the horse. Sure, they were used as transportation and played a key part in battle, but they were more than just a means to an end, much like the ancient Celtic peoples several centuries before.
Most of the time, though, the Huns just fought in a very random way. They would scream and run about and then all come together in a large group. They would then, as a group, approach the camp or town of the people they were attacking, and destroy it. Most of the time, the people the Huns attacked never even saw them coming. There were many ways in which the Huns chose to fight. They often s...
... in their enemies to their greatest advantage. When the Vikings sailed abroad to a new town, even just the sight of them sent the inhabitants running in the opposite direction. Even with all the terror that the Vikings spread, they were not around for a very long time. There are many other interesting lifestyle choices and aspects of the Vikings, but their unique warfare techniques and strategies are what they are best known for.
Lesser armies made it simple for the Huns to invade.
This assignment is both a comparison and an analysis of two essays; The Decay of Ancient Civilization written by Michael Rostovtzeff and Mohammed and Charlemagne by Henri Pirenne. The two essays offer varying perspectives on the fall of the Roman Empire and more specifically the transition between late antiquity to the beginning of the middle ages. The collapse of the Roman Empire is generally known to have concluded through one particular event; the sack of the great city of Rome. Although both essays give different accounts as the eventual collapse of the Roman Empire entails more than the “Barbaric” invasion as they further delve into from different perspectives. When further examining the Historiography and perception of the Authors we