Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Attilas Attack Posted: 22-Aug-2004 at 10:35 |
Legion foot soldiers can't pursue cavalry. That's why the Romans had
their own cavalry to run down routers. Of course, during Attila's time,
the Legion was no longer the main part of the Roman army and Attila's
army by Chalons was mostly Germanic foot soldiers.
|
|
Yiannis
Sultan
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2329
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Aug-2004 at 04:22 |
There weren't any legions at Chalons (or Catalunian Fields). There were two "barbarian" armies facing one another.
It was Aetius achievement to manage that. I also agree that Aetius didn't want Attila's army destroyed as he needed him as a counterbalance against the Goths.
|
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
|
|
Rebelsoul
Knight
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 73
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Aug-2004 at 07:23 |
Originally posted by Yiannis
There weren't any legions at Chalons (or Catalunian Fields). There were two "barbarian" armies facing one another.
It was Aetius achievement to manage that. I also agree that Aetius didn't want Attila's army destroyed as he needed him as a counterbalance against the Goths.
|
Absolutely, Yiannis. Very true, on both legs
|
|
Yiannis
Sultan
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2329
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Aug-2004 at 07:53 |
Thanks!
|
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: 23-Aug-2004 at 09:30 |
two barbarians!!!
good- actually three barbarians for romans were against visigoths, attila was against visigoths, attila was against romans, visigoths were against attila, romans were against attila
|
|
ihsan
General
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 06-Aug-2004
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 831
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Aug-2004 at 18:02 |
250,000 is surely a very high figure, but I guess both armies weren't lower than 40-50,000. Remember that the Romans had Visigoths, Latinised Celts, Franks and Alans (real Roman soldiers were quiet few) whereas the Huns had Huns, Ostrogoths, Gepids, Burgunds, etc...
|
|
|
rider
Tsar
Suspended
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4664
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 31-Aug-2004 at 04:38 |
Huns could have got tghe hole East...
|
|
Gallipoli
Consul
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 318
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 31-Aug-2004 at 04:49 |
Well there is Mongolian Vodka called "Atilla"
|
|
warhead
General
Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 760
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Sep-2004 at 11:00 |
Btw, are there prove that the huns under Attila have stirrups? The first mentioning of stirrups in Europe is under the Byzantines in 602. Are there any records before that mentions the Huns with stirrups? If they did its odd that stirrup wouldn't be addopted by the armies around Europe until the 6th century, and many contriute to the Avars that brought stirrup to Europe rather than the huns.
|
|
ihsan
General
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 06-Aug-2004
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 831
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Sep-2004 at 16:41 |
AFAIK no evidences of Huns using stirrups have been found. They, along with the Xiongnu and Scythians, were the major non-stirrup-user nomadic peoples of Euroasia. The Sarmatians were the first Steppe people to use iron stirrups but it's useage wasn't wide-spread for several more centuries.
Even the Sssnids didn't use stirrups
|
|
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Sep-2004 at 18:27 |
Right. The problem, as you implied, is that they could've had non-iron stirrups that have decayed.
|
|
warhead
General
Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 760
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Sep-2004 at 22:09 |
If the samartians had stirrups why didn't their army have a advantage over the others and conquer the neibouring territories?
|
|
rider
Tsar
Suspended
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4664
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Sep-2004 at 02:39 |
maybe they had the stirrups but werent good fighters.
|
|
ihsan
General
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 06-Aug-2004
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 831
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Sep-2004 at 02:56 |
Originally posted by warhead
If the samartians had stirrups why didn't their army have a advantage over the others and conquer the neibouring territories? |
They still managed to defeat the Scythians and end their domination on the Western Steppes. However, the useage of stirrups among the Sarmatians wasn't very wide-spread.
|
|
|
warhead
General
Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 760
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Sep-2004 at 14:22 |
But the sarmatians still got overwhelmed by the Germanic tribes in the end.
And why isn't it widely in use? if its proven effecitve on the field it should have been implied. Stirrup isn't costly or anything.
|
|
Evildoer
Baron
Joined: 25-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 434
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Oct-2004 at 17:50 |
Sometimes in history the things that were found to be advantageous and easy to impliment were not done...
For example, although Turkish armies with muskets were being kicked around by European counterparts with rifles, the senior officials and jannisarries refused to change their weapons because they were "non-islamic". I don't remember the exact reason, but I read this in a book on Turkish Empire.
|
|
ihsan
General
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 06-Aug-2004
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 831
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Oct-2004 at 15:20 |
Not because they were "non-Islamic", but because the soldiers weren't willing to give up their classical ways of fighting.
Besides, there were no battles where the "rifle"-using Europeans (more correctly, Austrians and Russians) defeated the "musket"-user Ottomans. When the Europeans were using muskets, so did the Ottomans. When the Europeans started using rifles, so did the Ottomans.
Edited by ihsan
|
|
|