Attila�s Attack

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

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...

but then 70,000 would be good losses... it would be acceptable

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, he made few battles also

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

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.

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.

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

Possibly the horses left traces?