Why Were Attila The Hun 's Military Tactics Effective?

In Olson and Jasinski's academic article about General Jackson’s brilliance and tactics that altered the Civil War completely, the journalists highlight that Jackson used a military tactic that no one at the time did. Jackson was the first to try fighting at night in the dark, hence the name full moon in the title. Along with Jackson’s military tactics, the writers accentuate that The Battle of Chancellorsville and Stonewall Jackson’s actions in the battle altered the results of the Civil War in that even though Jackson was able to win the battle for the Confederacy, his death from lethal bullet wounds in the battle weakened the military leadership and strategy in the war. I would use this article to demonstrate that The Battle of Chancellorsville

This they place between their thighs and the backs of their horses and so warm it a little.” The Huns cutthroat way of life is jaw dropping and vaguely disturbing. There is no doubt that the strength and toughness of the Hun's would easily defeat the Romans in battle. Another external threat that Rome was faced with was a violent earthquake. Document F describes the earthquake as, “In the second year of The Reign of Valens (366CE) … the Roman world was shaken by a violent and destructive earthquake…

The issue of conflict in the roman empire was very prominent and it ultimately was one of its factors for its downfall. “The Nystrom Atlas Of World History, Herff Jones Education Division” (Document 2) exhibits multiple tribes like the Visigoths, Vandals, Alans, Sueves, Anglo-Saxons, and the Huns who all invade the western Roman Empire. These invasions of Rome cause not only conflict with the tribes but also caused

By the fifth century, the “powerhouse of the Mediterranean” was struggling to protect itself with its decreased population, apathetic military, and leaders with debauched morals. Outside of the Roman Empire, Germanic tribes took notice of the internal chaos and began invading the empire’s borders. Many of the tribes were cruel and combative, such as the Huns. The Huns “exceed any definition of savagery” and were “fired with an overwhelming desire for seizing the property of others, these swift-moving and ungovernable people make their destructive way amid the pillage and slaughter of those who live around them.” (Document D, excerpts about an Asian tribe called the Huns from Roman History by Ammianus Marcellinus). Roman soldiers would have had a challenge ahead of them if they had to deal with the Huns at the height of the Roman military, let alone having to fight them when their numbers were depleted and motivation running low. The Huns played a large part in minimizing what little hope Rome had of reviving itself into the Mediterranean-dominating empire it once was. Many other tribes followed the Huns example and invaded Rome at its borders. Document C, a map created from various sources,

This investigation focuses on the question and topic of, how effective was Attila the Hun’s military tactics against the Roman Empire? Why one would consider this question is it will help us understand how much of an effect this weakened the Roman Empires leading to this destruction. Specifically, one will be looking at his different tactics or strategies with things such as the Hun’s bows, their formations, and their use of cavalry. Along with a few other specifics. The focus will be on the time period of 445 CE to 453 CE, the time period of which Attila ruled the Huns as their sole ruler. After the time Western Empire. How this task will be accomplished is through the research of The Leadership Secrets of Attila the Hun by Wess Roberts and

Attila knew how to exploit the weaknesses of the Romans. He would strike fear into the hearts of his enemies by slaughtering entire towns and civilizations. Attila would then propose treaties that made the Romans pay tribute to him out of fear that he would attack. The way Attila leveraged fear gave him even more power. In 439 A.D. the treaty of Margus was signed. This treaty said that the Eastern Roman Empire had to return Hun captives and pay a yearly tribute to the Huns in gold. The Romans soon broke the treaty and the Huns attacked them, devastating many large cities such as Singidunum and Viminacium. After this war, more treaties were signed which gave even larger amounts of gold to the Hun empire. The plethora of wealth and political power Attila the Hun possessed gave him the upper hand in almost every battle he took on. The Huns peaked in power and wealth while Attila was

People always fear the day when they acquire “in-laws”; Tacitus on the other hand embrasses and admires his. Tacitus’, Agricola, was written to provide readers with a perspective on the history of Roman conquest, expansion, and behavior towards “barbarians”. It is written in Tacitus’ point of view, as well as many experiences told in the view of his father-in-law, Agricola. The Romans faced many challenges along their path of reaching their goal of conquering territory. We learn about the type of people they come in contact with and the attitude the Romans feel towards these new people they encounter. Within the Agricola, we see just how powerful the Roman army can be when it is lead by one of the greatest leaders they have ever had- Agricola.

Edward Luttwak’s The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire from the First Century A.D. to the Third gives a militaristic analysis of the tactics used by the Roman Empire while also highlighting parallels between Rome and contemporary U.S. military policy. Luttwak divides his book into three chapters, a chapter for each of the 3 identified systems; the first chapter discusses Rome’s use of mobile armies and client states to defend her borders. The second chapter shows border defense as was provided by small groups of marching legionary troops. The third and final chapter details the transition from an offense stance to a more

As a former general and having lived during the wars, the information he presents here is more likely to be reliable than a historical works such as Aristotle’s or Plutarch’s that are written centuries later. J. A. S. Evans agrees that Thucydides had a thought on history similar to this as he denounces Herodotus’ style, claiming that he thought his own work was more valuable than Herodotus and more accurate . However to what measure that Thucydides’ work is true or reliable is questionable, which W. P. Wallace notes that Thucydides did not explain his opinion on sources or where they came from . The reader has to rely on Thucydides being able to critically choose his sources well. His sources could be anything from a soldier who was there to a common man. This extract is Thucydides presenting his theory of why Agis’ left wing was overpowered and is a well-informed suggestion based on his own knowledge and observations and what he has been told by others, whether they are reliable sources or not. This extract provides insight into the ways of battle and war among the Greeks and helps to provide a better understanding of what a battle may have been like for a

Logically, it makes sense that the army with the most advanced technology would win battles against a less equipped one. However, in his paper titled “Weapons, Technology Determination and Ancient Warfare,” Fernando Echeverria Rey brings to light the paradox of this idea in ancient warfare, as well as undermine the modern idea of ‘technological determinism’ by claiming that it does not have an ancient equivalent. His argument approaches the study of ancient warfare from different perspectives as he “[offers] alternative ways to explain technological and tactical change in warfare” (Echeverria 2010: 24). Echeverria Rey makes strong points for his arguments and supports his ideas clearly. While

Our proud Canadian army, have brought us magnificent glory upon our country. We have defeated the Huns’ stronghold at Vimy ridge. Through our effort we have reclaimed a key territorial location in this war since we can now observe our and enemy position due to the high ground. Our assault have occurred beginning on Easter monday and lasted until yesterday, a quick decisive battle. We have strategized with a very detailed plan so that every Canadian soldier had a specific task in defeating the Huns’.

The exact origin of the Huns is not exactly known, but history shows that the Huns lived in Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. They were present between the 1st century and the 7th century. The Huns were nomads of the Central Asian Steppes. They appeared right after the Xiong Nu dynasty disappeared. The

You might wonder to yourself who Attila the Hun is when you hear his name. Attila was a ruler for the Hun army in the year 434 AD. Besides being the ruler, he was just like any other person who was a Hun. He was normal height for a Hun, which was short. Attila’s eyes were small and he had a snub nose.

Current militaries have benefitted from the principles of ancient Greek and Roman warfare by studying the ancient battles, tactics, and use of supplies to develop effective military plans. Current militaries study and debate historical turning points of the ancient battles to understand how the leaders planned and executed battles. The empires’ growth was due in part to the might and successes of their military. The strength of their militaries came from many factors including their use of armor, weapons, and military tactics. The empires’ leaders used these three advantages to create the superior armies of their time.

Where the Huns originated from has been a hot Topic for centuries. Some Historians believe they came from either China, Mongolia, or far eastern Russia. According to —- “The Huns, especially those who migrated to the west may have a combination of central Asian Turk, Mongolic, and Ugric stocks”. Mundzuk, the father of Attila, was brothers to both king Octar and Rugila who ruled over the Hunnic empire in the fifth century. Two relatives ruling was common among the Huns, it was not required, but it has appeared many times over Hunnic history. The year of Attila’s birth is not known, but many historians estimate it to between the 390s and the the beginning of the 5th century.