Ancient and Archaeology permalink
Attila the Hun
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by Alaric the Goth (U1826823) on Thursday, 14th February 2008
Did any of you watch 'Attila the Hun' on Ö÷²¥´óÐã1 last night? I did, and somewhat to my surprise, quite enjoyed it. I have some gripes and queries, though.
Firstly, the casting. Rory McCann looked like a barbarian, but a Hun? They were Asiatic Steppe nomads, speakers of a Turkic language. Here was a chance for the Ö÷²¥´óÐã, which are by no means averse to this, to give a starring role to an Asian man, yet they didn't.
My biggest gripe was that the Huns excelled as horseriders, shooting their composite bows whilst riding. This tactic was one of the biggest reasons for their success. Yet in the dramatisation they seemed to do precious little of this. The Ostrogoths, also part of their horde, were skilled riders. And the horses! I would have thought that some sort of Steppe pony would be appropriate, but small British breeds like the Dartmoor pony would have been better than the very large looking horses used in it.
The final battle shown was that of the Catalaunian Plains. The lack, in the dramatisation, of mounted warriors on both sides was astonishing: as well as the mounted Hunnish horde, the Visigoths under Theodorid, on Aetius' side, used cavalry to great effect in obtaining the victory.
The drama also did not explore how Aetius allegedly let te Hiuns get away and did not follow up the victory, as he hoped to keep them in existence to use against the Visigoths, should the latter get too poewrful at a later date.
Lastly, Attila's name. It came as no surprise, but the origin of the name was overlooked in the programme. Christopher Tolkien pointed out, in a lecture he gave in the 1940s or '50s, that the name is Gothic in origin, and is a nickname. It derives from 'Atta', the Gothic word for 'father', and means 'Little Father' or even 'Dad'. The Ostrogoths in Attila's horde must have dubbbed him thus.
What did others make of it? -
Message 2
Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Thursday, 14th February 2008
To my surprise I enjoyed the programme. Though dificult to stage widescreen battles with vast amies, the technique used here was convincing.
You, Aleric, knowing the history can make comment about the authenticity, I can't - though we had the Beeb's assurance that it was well researched.
A small point, Aleric. In the ancient city complex Taxila north of Rawalpindi, the Bhuddist temple site, Julien, is said to have been destroyed by Huns. There was no mention of their spreading that way on the graphic maps. Did they? -
Message 3
Posted by Alaric the Goth (U1826823) on Thursday, 14th February 2008
The Huns are thought to be the same people as those referrewed to by the Chinese as 'Hsiong-nu', who attacked the Chinese Empire. When they turned West they may well have attacked Northern India befiore they headed for Europe.
After Attila's death, the Hunnish 'Empire' fell apart, and no Steppe nomads were as powereful till the much later Mongols (the Huns, btw, probably originated in Mongolia/Western China, where the Uighur people are probably their nearest living relatives). -
Message 4
Posted by ElizaShaw (U10750867) on Thursday, 14th February 2008
Did Huns use stirrups? (I didn't see the programme, so don't know if they did or not, and anyway, wasn't the dire Alex the Great film made even direr because Health and Safety said the riders had to have stirrups?!)
-
Message 5
Posted by Alaric the Goth (U1826823) on Thursday, 14th February 2008
No, the stirrup wasn't around then. I can't say I noticed them (or lack of them, as the case may be) in the programme: an indication perhaps of the shortage of scenes with men on horseback!
-
Message 6
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Thursday, 14th February 2008
Hi Eliza,
I might be wrong, but I'm sure someone on this board said that stirrups are only really effective when you have heels on footwear. No, now that I think about it, I probably am wrong...
Cheers,
RF -
Message 7
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Thursday, 14th February 2008
Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:21 GMT, in reply to Alaric the Goth in message 1
I'm not too hot on this bit of history, so I can't really comment on the accuracy, but I was pretty impressed.
Where costumes are concerned, I'm on firmer ground. The Huns weren't wildly impressive, looking like a cross between Anglo-Saxons and refugees from Braveheart. However, the Roman troops were the most accurate I've ever seen on film or TV. Not perfect, but still very impressive (though they seem to have invented the trebuchet a few centuries too early!) Shame the sheer opulence of high status late Roman clothing wasn't shown - some of them looked decidedly rough and ready. -
Message 8
Posted by Alaric the Goth (U1826823) on Thursday, 14th February 2008
On the question of appearances, I think that the Hunnish troops should have looked more like Steppe nomads, wearing hardened leather as their only armour (their leaders may have had some better pieces of armour) and probably with 'Phrygian caps' rather than helmets. The Germanic peoples in their horde should have been recognisably different from the Huns, yes, a bit like Anglo-Saxons, but with taller helms, maybe the leaders having horsetail crests to these.
The Huns would be armed with short,composite bows, shortswords and some with lassoes. The Ostrogoths (and the Visigoths in Aetius' host)would usually have spears, but have some longswords, and of course a fair few Roman-made weapons would be around on both sides, having been captured, or given to 'federate' barbarians (even the Huns had been 'foederati' at one stage, I believe. Aetius had set them on the Burgundians when they were living further north than Burgundy, on the Rhine). -
Message 9
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Thursday, 14th February 2008
I sat through the entire program more out of morbid curiosity than any hope to see history portrayed on TV.
Why the TV companies feel the need to make such nonsense is beyond me, they obviously have the ability to produce wonderful scenes and stunning visual effects, so why cant they get the simple history correct?
Major aspects of history were ignored, the Huns being depicted simply did not look like Huns, the real Huns were a nomadic horse tribe, but the program left out the horses, why?
The clothes were wrong, some Roman soldiers were dressed correctly but some had 1st century legionary equipment and most of the Huns were in disguise as Goths!
Using modern names for cities and regions was also deceptive, but a minor point when other travesties were being committed.
As for the daft battle scenes it now appears that Errol Flynn is a bigger influence on TV history than any military writings or teachings.
Ancient battle were not fought like that, they did not prance around fighting individually with swords, cohesion and formation was key, look at a modern police line in a riot and it will give a clearer picture of an ancient battle. It was all about formed lines against charging mobs and when they meet it turns into a srcumage of push and shove, not dancing around like Errol Flynn.
The final battle which I think they called the Catalaunian Plains (I got this from Alaric’s firtst message) was supposed to be the battle of Campus Mauriacus sometimes called the battle of Chalons for some strange obscure reason.
It bore no resemblance to the historical records, which are pretty vague it must be said. The Romans only made up a small proportion of the mainly Visigoth army.
The Roman contingent probably held the left flank and the crucial point was a small hill in the centre, not a massive ridge. Most of the fighting was done by Visigoths along with their Frank, Sarmation, Burgundian and Saxon allies.
Eliza, the Huns did not use stirrups, they were introduced into Europe in the late 6th century, the Byzantines adopted them from the Avar’s.
But Huns with stirrups to comply with health and safety would have been better than depicting Huns as infantry! -
Message 10
Posted by ElizaShaw (U10750867) on Thursday, 14th February 2008
Eliza, the Huns did not use stirrups, they were introduced into Europe in the late 6th century, the Byzantines adopted them from the Avar’s.
But Huns with stirrups to comply with health and safety would have been better than depicting Huns as infantry!
***
The film of Arthur of the Britons (or whatever it was called) with Clive Owen a couple of years back, had him as a Samartian and using stirrups along with his comrades in arms, at a time when the Lex Romana still ran (just!) in Britain. How accurate/plausible was that?
(Stirrups is one of those 'no brainer' inventions that I always find it hard to understand why it took so long to be adopted by horseriders. Ditto for horse collars....) -
Message 11
Posted by Alaric the Goth (U1826823) on Thursday, 14th February 2008
Yes, the Visigoths were the decisive force in the victory of the Gallo-Roman/Germanic host.
You echo what I have said about the lack of horse-warriors, and I said that the Huns should look 'Asiatic;' and be in contrast to their Germanic allies in terms of armour (or rather lack of it) and weaponry.
The programme ended prematurely in that the rather large, significant campaign of the Hunnish horde in Italy was only refered to. They made it as if it was Attila's last battle at, as you have corrected, Campus Mauriacus.
Aetius stood accused of allowing the sacking of Roman cities in Italia to occur becasue he did not folow up the victory and destroy (or rather, allow the Visigoths to destroy) the Huns. -
Message 12
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Thursday, 14th February 2008
Eliza
I am not a horses person, not many horses around north London unless it is a match day. So what I have to say is based on others experiences.
Stirrups are not that essential if you have the correct saddle, the roman saddle had four posts that kept the rider firmly in place and most important of all nobody missed the stirrup because everyone learnt to ride without them.
Ancient horses were much smaller than the modern beasts, so it was much easier to mount a horse without a stirrup.
Ancient heavy cavalry such as Sarmations and Parthians were every bit as powerful as medieval knights. Roman units of Catafractarii and Clibanarii were probably more powerful than the romantic charging knights of feudal Europe, the lack of stirrups made no difference when it came to the shock of the impact.
I have not seen the Arthur film, and I am not keen to see it anytime soon, but the use of stirrups is totally erroneous, as is the depiction of 5th Century Sarmation’s within Britain.
The 5,500 Sarmations that were posted to Britain in the 2nd century would have been totally assimilated into Romano British culture, even if they had remained.
Probably any remaining Roman army unit of Sarmation heritage would long since been transferred to mainland Europe by the start of the 5th century.
Most of the conjecture about Sarmations and Athurian links comes from the works of C. Scott Littleton and Ann C. Thomas.
They theories that ancient Sarmation legends are very similar to Arthurian legends. Any basis in truth depends if you believe that these legends are indeed Sarmation and just how much of the Arthurian legend stretches back beyond the 19th century. -
Message 13
Posted by ElizaShaw (U10750867) on Thursday, 14th February 2008
I just hate the thought of my feet dangling uselessly!
-
Message 14
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Thursday, 14th February 2008
Alaric
5th century european politics are beyond my understanding, and obviously beyond the comprehension of TV script writers.
Why Aetius did not pursue the defeated Huns is often put down to his wish to keep the threat alive and thus force the Visigoths to remain loyal.
I prefer the military explanation that the Romans and Visigoths were so exhausted after the very hard fought battle that they were simply unable to pursue a still very powerful Hunic army.
Looking through some other references I have just seen some justification for Huns fighting as infantry during their long invasion of Gaul and the rest of the Western Roman Empire. Some historians claim that by then they resembled Germanic tribes and that they had lost the ability to maintain large numbers of horses. Long years of settlement north of the Danube had changed them from nomadic horse men into well fed infantry.
I personally don’t agree, I prefer the idea that the majority of true Huns still rode into battle, but that their allies were mostly infantry based. -
Message 15
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Thursday, 14th February 2008
Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:19 GMT, in reply to englishvote in message 9
some Roman soldiers were dressed correctly but some had 1st century legionary equipmentÂ
Most were pretty good, I'd say, but I'd forgotten about the 1st C centurions who seemed to have fallen through time - a job for Torchwood, I'd say!
-
Message 16
Posted by Volgadon (U10843893) on Friday, 15th February 2008
The programme sounds silly, but I'm not sure that having many of the Huns look like Goths is all that wrong. Yes, they were Central Asian nomads, but they had also been with the Goths for a while, so I'm sure that each adopted the fashions of the other, both from practical and fashionable reasons.
-
Message 17
Posted by Showcase22 (U11085610) on Monday, 18th February 2008
I also agree with the lack of horses on both sides and the sudden change that Attila was Scottish.
Another aspect that was interesting, for all the wrong reasons, were the seige towers. A seige tower would have been heavily armoured at the base since it is the weak point of the entire structure. However, seige towers were shown with no defence at the base and smaller than the wall they were trying to attack!
Another aspect of the seige that was completely false was the way Attila turned and shouted "come on!" to his allies. Surely this would have insulted their honour and weakened his leadership in some way?
Was it also that easily to break into a guarded Roman city? The battering ram was pathetic and the door it broke down appeared unguarded.
I do hope the Ö÷²¥´óÐã make a show on a historical figure that is actually accurate and less excruciating to watch.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Ö÷²¥´óÐã iD
Ö÷²¥´óÐã navigation
Ö÷²¥´óÐã links
Ö÷²¥´óÐã © 2014 The Ö÷²¥´óÐã is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.