Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Asian History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Asian History Asian History Forum - China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, and the Asia-Pacific Region


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 5th, 2012, 05:58 AM   #1
Archivist
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 112
How thousands of hun warriors conquered nearly half of europe?


While hundreds of thousands of xiongnus have been defeated and conquered by han dynasty?
Some people say huns are not xiongnu,but I think they are similar people,just like the relationship between turks and mongols.
tengri khan is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 5th, 2012, 12:38 PM   #2
.
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Valles Marineris, Mars
Posts: 4,835

Quote:
Originally Posted by tengri khan View Post
While hundreds of thousands of xiongnus have been defeated and conquered by han dynasty?
Some people say huns are not xiongnu,but I think they are similar people,just like the relationship between turks and mongols.
I think the Han Dynasty had better calverly then the Romans. I think that the Romans were also in deep decline when the Huns invaded.
Gorge123 is offline  
Old December 5th, 2012, 01:08 PM   #3

cachibatches's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,431

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorge123 View Post
I think the Han Dynasty had better calverly then the Romans. I think that the Romans were also in deep decline when the Huns invaded.
Since most fo the "Hun" army was German infanty, and since the Romans had defeated countles armies with better cavarly in their prime, and since the "Hun" army ultimately lost, this is really not a valid way of looking at the situation.

The Roman military system was in its last stages of decline.
cachibatches is offline  
Old December 5th, 2012, 01:28 PM   #4

Zeno's Avatar
l'esprit de l'escalier
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: ♪♬ ♫♪♩
Posts: 12,860

Quote:
Originally Posted by tengri khan View Post
While hundreds of thousands of xiongnus have been defeated and conquered by han dynasty?
Some people say huns are not xiongnu,but I think they are similar people,just like the relationship between turks and mongols.
Truth be told, they conquered the then weaker, less inhabited half of Europe, so that helped.
They were a very uncivilized bunch in that they lacked settled communities and central leadership. Moreover they were highly mobile and trained from a young age in horseriding and the use of their composite bows. The composite bow was new to Europe, and where the Huns rode there was none to match it. This made it possible for them to strike anywhere and made them virtually impossible to retalliate to to their foes.

Like most Steppe peoples the Huns tended to incorporate defeated tribes in their armies. If the host was big enough Steppe invasions would dry up in its human reservoir. At first the Hun ran into the germanic peoples who then lived from the the northern Black Sea shores to the banks of the Rhine. By the time of Atilla an Idunno-how-many-but a large part of his army was germanic. Hun warlords would gain followers and status if they could win on the battlefield and consequently provide booty. I suppose that is the best you can expect from any warlord... This concept surely wasn't alien to the germanic world.

And, yes, soon enough the Hun warlords, with their germanic allies, would find a formidable prey to suck booty from: the Roman Empire, the other, wealthier, militarily stronger and more populous part of Europe. At first often Huns would fight alongside the Romans, to crush the occasional pesky germanic tribe here and there... But as the gold beckoned, you could say the Huns centralised in their efforts to suck the gold out of the Roman empire. That empire was a tad out of balance at that time, being divided into two halves that failed to coordinate efforts against invaders.

So, in the end, i'd say the Huns dominated, rather than conquered, half of Europe (and for a brief moment more than one half) thanks to their lifestyle which gave them a military advantage initially and their system of leeching applied to a formidable prey like the Roman empire. The Huns were formidable, because the Romans were formidable. Jmo.

Last edited by Zeno; December 5th, 2012 at 01:34 PM.
Zeno is offline  
Old December 5th, 2012, 03:17 PM   #5

beorna's Avatar
αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Lower Saxony
Posts: 12,692

I suppose when people think of the conquest of the Huns they have such maps in the back of their minds
Click the image to open in full size.

or this
Click the image to open in full size.

I found this on the english wiki and i think it is far better and it shows as well the intensity of the hunnic rule
Click the image to open in full size.
beorna is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
conquered, europe&#, half, hun, thousands, warriors


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Would the mongols have conquered europe? harbinger War and Military History 15 April 3rd, 2012 09:56 PM
Why was Europe divided? Aison European History 145 April 13th, 2011 02:21 AM
is this Mathematics Textbook a rescource of Byzantine in 9th?when did it appear? aihumon European History 5 March 11th, 2011 08:41 AM
Zulu conquered Europe plutoboyz Speculative History 17 February 12th, 2010 02:57 AM
Monguls conquered Europe Commander Speculative History 7 July 8th, 2008 11:16 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.