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...

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

Thanks!

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

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...

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 Sâssânids didn't use stirrups

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.

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.

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.

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.