Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
rider
Tsar
Suspended
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4664
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Attilas Attack Posted: 19-Aug-2004 at 06:56 |
How about the Attila's conquest, where on the fields of Catalonia where Attila lost 700,000 men of 2 million he was counted as totally defeated???
Maybe he could have conquered Rome...
Edited by rider
|
|
Yiannis
Sultan
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2329
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Aug-2004 at 07:06 |
I think that you need to seriously reconsider these numbers. Slashing them to 1/10th would do the jod.
As to if he would be able to sack Rome or not, he probably would but with his army infested with disease and the Byzantines threating his retreat and his base of operations in Hungary ,that would probably be a reckless act.
|
The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics
Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
|
|
rider
Tsar
Suspended
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4664
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Aug-2004 at 07:13 |
it would not be logical other numbers, but i read it (2,000,000) from a site, i do not remember and it could be right...
|
|
Rebelsoul
Knight
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 73
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Aug-2004 at 07:33 |
Regarding "the battle of nations" (Cataulanian fields) the numbers seem to be about 200 to 250K men fielded total (both armies, that is). That is a long shot from the absurd (and completely ridiculous, actually) numbers like 2 mi. men - nobody could field that kind of an army in that era. Even the 200K I am suggesting might be too big.
Other than that, Yiannis has given a perfect reasoning for him not sacking Rome when he could. But there might be more to it...
|
|
rider
Tsar
Suspended
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4664
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Aug-2004 at 08:01 |
but then 70,000 would be good losses... it would be acceptable
|
|
fastspawn
Earl
Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Location: Singapore
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 269
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Aug-2004 at 11:03 |
conquer is a strong word to use. I wouldn't say he conquered, more like he pillaged, sacked and destroyed.
|
|
Dari
Shogun
Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 205
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Aug-2004 at 11:10 |
Losing seventy thousand men in a single battle, is not an acceptable casuality rate. Hell, in modern warfare, losing more then ten precent of your soldiers in a battle is not acceptable for a single battle.
|
Dari is a pimp master
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Aug-2004 at 11:12 |
Or you could just say razed
|
|
rider
Tsar
Suspended
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4664
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Aug-2004 at 11:35 |
well, he made few battles also
|
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Aug-2004 at 13:24 |
I'd say the battle was more like 30,000 at most, per side. 250 K is very unlikely.
|
|
Styrbiorn
Caliph
Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2810
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Aug-2004 at 13:49 |
Originally posted by Dari
Losing seventy thousand men in a single battle, is not an acceptable casuality rate. Hell, in modern warfare, losing more then ten precent of your soldiers in a battle is not acceptable for a single battle. |
Well, warfare was more intense when the battle once started. Today and the last half a century in a war, there are almost constantly battles. Ancient warfare on the other hand, was mostly marching and camping.
A normal day-to-day log of a pre-20th century soldier would look like this: walked, walked, walked, walked, walked, walked, walked, walked, walked, walked, walked, walked, walked, heard rumours about the enemy, walked, walked, camped, walked, walked, walked, camped, walked, walked, walked, walked, walked, walked, walked, camped, fought, camped, walked, walked, camped,walked, walked, walked, walked, walked, walked, walked, camped,walked, walked, walked, walked, walked, walked, walked, walked, walked, walked, walked etc.
Edited by Styrbiorn
|
|
Roughneck
Pretorian
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 192
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Aug-2004 at 00:12 |
Originally posted by Dari
Losing seventy thousand men in a single battle, is not an acceptable casuality rate. Hell, in modern warfare, losing more then ten precent of your soldiers in a battle is not acceptable for a single battle. |
That's looking at it from a 21st Century perspective, with a media and voting public to be concerned about. Back in the days when rulers were absolute, I'm sure they could sustain such casualties if they had the manpower.
|
[IMG]http://img160.exs.cx/img160/7417/14678932fstore0pc.jpg">
|
|
Roughneck
Pretorian
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 192
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Aug-2004 at 00:13 |
The figures of 250,000 on both sides is the highest figure I could buy. Two million is absolutely absurd prior to the 19th Century, maybe even 20th.
|
[IMG]http://img160.exs.cx/img160/7417/14678932fstore0pc.jpg">
|
|
Imperatore Dario I
Shogun
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 204
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Aug-2004 at 15:38 |
Why didn't Flavius pursue Attila after he fled Chalons? Is it that he couldn't? Did he mistakenly believe that Attila would not come back? (Was he assassinated after the battle?)
|
Let there be a race of Romans with the strength of Italian courage.- Virgil's Aeneid
|
|
Cornellia
Baron
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 474
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Aug-2004 at 15:47 |
When Attila crossed the Rhine, he claimed that he merely sought by force what was his by right of betrothal. The two forces, Hun and Roman clashed in a massive battle somewhere in Champagne called the Catalaunian Plains or locus Mauriacus in June, 451 AD. The ensuing battle lasted all day with the Romans and Visigoths only gaining the upper hand toward the end of the day throwing the Huns back down the hill. Theodoric, the Visigoth king, was killed and angered by his death, the Visigoths hit the Huns with renewed energy. Many of the Huns and their allies fled with Attila and the body of his army retreated behind the wagons of their encampment.
The next day, each side awoke, made a lot of noise about making a last stand but in the end, everyone found an excuse to be somewhere else.
Before Attila could pursue his planned campaign against Constantinople that would forever insure the tribute of the Romans, he stopped to celebrate the addition of another woman to his harem. The actual cause of his demise may be disputed....was it poison? Was it a stroke? Was it a nosebleed? We may never know but what we do know is that he'd overindulged in food and drink and was passed out drunk at the time of his death.
|
Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas
|
|
Roughneck
Pretorian
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 192
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Aug-2004 at 16:24 |
Originally posted by Imperatore Dario I
Why didn't Flavius pursue Attila after he fled Chalons? Is it that he couldn't? Did he mistakenly believe that Attila would not come back? (Was he assassinated after the battle?) |
One theory that I've heard is that He wanted to keep the Huns as a possible ally in the future. Remember, he had previously fought with the Huns against the Visigoths. Who's to say he could not have had use for the Huns again? If he had destroyed them, he would have had no one to call as an ally should someone turn on him. I also think that the men were exhausted and couldn't pursue, much like Union forces after Gettysburg, and the Visigoths had already decided to move on anyway, meaning Flavius wouldn't have had enough forces to do so anyway.
|
[IMG]http://img160.exs.cx/img160/7417/14678932fstore0pc.jpg">
|
|
Imperatore Dario I
Shogun
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 204
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Aug-2004 at 18:35 |
Originally posted by Roughneck
Originally posted by Imperatore Dario I
Why didn't Flavius pursue Attila after he fled Chalons? Is it that he couldn't? Did he mistakenly believe that Attila would not come back? (Was he assassinated after the battle?) |
One theory that I've heard is that He wanted to keep the Huns as a possible ally in the future. Remember, he had previously fought with the Huns against the Visigoths. Who's to say he could not have had use for the Huns again? If he had destroyed them, he would have had no one to call as an ally should someone turn on him. I also think that the men were exhausted and couldn't pursue, much like Union forces after Gettysburg, and the Visigoths had already decided to move on anyway, meaning Flavius wouldn't have had enough forces to do so anyway.
|
Thank you
|
Let there be a race of Romans with the strength of Italian courage.- Virgil's Aeneid
|
|
rider
Tsar
Suspended
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4664
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Aug-2004 at 11:49 |
and just for a question, how could aremed legions on foot, track fleeing cavalry...
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Aug-2004 at 13:07 |
Possibly the horses left traces?
|
|
rider
Tsar
Suspended
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4664
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Aug-2004 at 08:17 |
but, they would be sao much quicker. miles and miles away from the legiones.
|
|