Thye most modern view on medieval warfare

Thye most modern view on medieval warfare - nomads in Europe

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

am05@hotmail.com - 30 Jun 2009 19:55 GMT

4. Pre-Mongolian Nomads in Western and Central Europe

As everybody knows, a lot of bad things, from Völkerwanderung and all
the way to WWI had been attributed to the Huns. As a result, we have a
lot of knowledge regarding whereabouts, ethnicity, culture and warfare
of the XX century Huns [1] but, unfortunately, our knowledge of the
earlier species is neither complete nor definite. As a result, it
would not be totally unreasonable to assume that they could simply get
bad press coverage from all these Goths, Vandals, Suebi, Frisians,
Jutes, Alamanies and other people who invaded the Roman Empire
pledging refugee status [2].

As far as the earlier Huns are concerned, we have at least 2 main
theories:

1. Migration theory. The proto-Huns used to live on the wrong side of
the Great Wall of China and as a result had been oppressed by the
Chinese [3] and decided to move westward because this looked as a good
idea [4]. Upon reaching Volga, around 370AD, they started pushing the
locals around thus triggering Völkerwanderung.
2. Ethnogenesis theory is (IMO) much more open-minded and assumes that
most of the people involved had been ‘Huns by association’ (or even
not Huns under any definition) attached to the small groups of the
aristocrats who “may have carried ethnic traditions from place to
place and generation to generation” [5].

Not that any of the above theories has anything to do with the subject
under discussion. Well, one way or another, by the late IV century,
there was a really big number of the mounted archers [6] between Volga
and the Black Sea with not too many things to do. To quote Jefferson
Darcy [7], their style of warfare was “like sex: in and out”.
Considerably longer descriptions, like one of Ammianus, have very
little, if anything at all, to add [8]. Besides confusing speed of
movement, another winning factor was, according to [9], “their
fearsome physical appearance” [10] and “ragged marmot-skin
clothing” [11]. As if all of the above was not enough, they also had
bows, lassoes, long lances and, if they were lucky enough, “heavy iron
swords … likely … obtained by barter” [12]. By some, not totally
obvious reason, the authors insist that to use these words the Huns
had to dismount. Perhaps, this was some kind of a religious
idiosyncrasy, like Mongolian habit to finish aristocratic prisoners
without shedding their blood. “Another advantage that the Huns
possessed was their attraction for disaffected groups among both the
Ostrogoths and the lower classes in the Western Roman Empire” [13].
Unfortunately, their most advertised leader, Attila, made the same
mistake as Al Bundy when he did not listen to Jefferson’s advice (see
above): instead of keeping it simple and fast, he got entangled into
diplomacy, started fighting wars on other people’s behalf and
eventually confused things to such a degree that by 451AD it became
impossible to figure out who is fighting whom. At Chalons he and his
old buddy, Aetius, to a mutual great surprise, found themselves
fighting each other instead of joining their forces against the Franks
and Alans (as was initially intended). Confusion had been so
fundamental that in the middle of this sorry affair the Goths found
themselves fighting on both sides and Attila, quite unexpectedly
discovered that most of his Huns bartered their horses for the spears
and swords. To add insult to injury, almost immediately prior to
Chalons it was scientifically proven that his army simply can not
exist thanks to the grazing regulations so, instead of preparing to
the battle he was forced to haggle with the authorities about the
number of troops he would be officially allowed to maintain in the
Western Europe [14]. The best thing he and Aetius finally managed to
do was to disengage (with whatever combination of the troops each of
them found fighting on his side at this specific moment) and to go the
opposite directions. The legal wrangling continued for the next few
years until Attila died from a heart attack and the Huns had been
regulated into almost total disappearance until their reappearance,
centuries later, in Germany. By this time most of them turned into the
pedestrians while preserving a terrifying appearance and the spiky
helmets.

The next nomadic people worth mentioning were Avars. Just as was the
case with the Huns, their origins are not clear and there was a
contemporary controversy if they are “real” Avars [15] or just
“fugitive Scythians” fleeing from the Turic nation with an absolutely
unpronounceable name. It took approximately 14 centuries to come to
conclusion that whoever the Avars were, they were not a distinct
ethnic group, especially after they spent some time in Europe. Luckily
for them, nobody was concerned with enforcing the grazing laws at this
time and, as a result, there were no strong objections to their
arrival into the Balkans with approximately 20,000 horsemen. To
confuse the potential litigators, they came with an ingenious idea of
defining themselves as the numerous legal entities so, besides the
Avars, there were Kutrigur Bulgars, Utigur and Onogur Bulgars and many
others. Unlike the Huns, the Avars had been what some authors define
as “mailed cavalry” [16] armed with the bows, swords, sabres, lances
and, trebuchets [17]. Of course, the Avars lacked experienced
operators to position their machines correctly near the walls [18]. As
a result, the siege machines quite often had been placed far away from
the besieged places or even near the places which were not under the
siege at all and this resulted in the numerous protracted sieges.
Unfortunately for them, eventually the Avar rulers accumulated
considerable amounts of cash which they had been storing in their
capital. Quite understandably, Charly the Great could not tolerate
such a situation and started a series of the Avar Wars. Avar’s
traditional reliance on their reputation of a heavy cavalry did not
quite work out in this case [19]. Of course, being a practical man,
Charly get in touch with the local dissidents, arranged for a coup and
made one of his loyalists Khagan of Avaria. A little bit later the
Bulgarian khan Krum destroyed whatever left of the Avarian Empire.

In X century there came turn of the Magyars or Hungarians who are
correctly defined by Wiki as “an ethnic group primarily associated
with Hungary” [20]. Situation with their ethnogenetic (or other) roots
is similar to the cases describe above and will be skipped. After
settling in the area with which they are primarily associated, they
made themselves busy looting all their close and remote neighbors.
Just as the Avars, they totally ignored the grazing regulations, which
allowed them to increase their numbers well beyond the prescribed
limits. The most remarkable thing about the early Hungarian warfare
was their ability to perform all this looting, raping and burning,
while wearing their national dress [21]: “Usually this uniform
consisted of a short jacket known as a dolman, or later a medium-
length "attila" jacket, both with heavy horizontal gold braid on the
breast, and yellow braided or gold Austrian knots (sújtás) on the
sleeves; a matching pelisse (a short-waisted overjacket often worn
slung over one shoulder); colored trousers, sometimes with yellow
braided or gold Austrian knots at the front; a busby (kucsma) (a high
fur hat with a cloth bag hanging from one side; although some
regiments wore the shako (csákó) of various styles); and high riding
boots.” Add to this time and effort required for maintaining the long
moustaches and long hair and regular shaving of the beard. Small
wonder that when the Germans finally managed to catch up with them,
the result was tragic: the Magyars had been forced to accept
Christianity [22] and to …er… “civilize” themselves to some acceptable
level.

The smaller-scale mounted hooligans, like Pechenegs and Polovtsy had
been routinely operating much to the East and, as a result, can be
safely ignored.

_________________________________________________________________

[1] Ability to enjoy Wagnerian music, and read totally
incomprehensible philosophy, self-confessed bellicosity, sincere
obedience of the laws and regulations, deep attachment to the
uniforms, monstrous architecture, dislike of the French, obsession
with the well-groomed moustaches, unmatched skill in a goose-
stepping, etc.
[2] Being “pushed out” by the Huns was a standard excuse even for the
tribes who never saw a live or dead Hun. When questioned by the Roman
immigration authorities, they usually came with something like: “The
Huns pushed out the Vandals, who pushed out the Visigoths who pushed
out the Ostrogoths who pushed out the Suebi who pushed out Gepides
<etc.> who pushed out us. So, we are the refugees from the Huns and
have a constitutional right to the free bread distribution, lodgings
and the circus tickets.”
[3] Anyone who possesses more than an average degree of patience can
find a detailed description of how this would happen if Gibbon was
around in his book on the crumbling of the Roman Empire.
[4] In the modern version of this theory, an important role is given
to the eruption of the local volcanos, earthquakes, flood, draught,
global freezing and global warming which took place in the
contemporary Mongolia, thus leaving the Huns without the grass and
other types of food. As a result, the Huns had been forced to keep
going westward (Eastern direction was less attractive because you’d
bump into the Pacific reasonably soon and then have to swim all the
way to Japan before you reach some reasonably grassy area). On their
“Westward Ho!” route they had been consuming all available grass (and
most of the natives) thus leaving no eyewitnesses to their march.
[5] Very close to an idea of “general errant” discussed by Saltikov-
Schedrin in “The Modern Idyll”.
[6] Term “mounted archer” is (a) traditional and (b) totally confusing
because many inhabitants of the BT areas expressed an opinion that as
long as an archer was in a possession of a horse or even simply rode
other person’s horse (including a stolen one) at any point of his
life, he must be defined as a “mounted archer”. Some even went as far
as extending this definition to “an person who may or may not be in a
possession of a bow but was not prevented by law from possessing it
and using it within the boundaries defined by law and may or may not
ride a horse in a real life but could _potentially_ ride one, given an
opportunity, providing there were no objections from PETA or other
animal rights activists and providing this act would not contribute
too much to the global climate change and was in compliance with the
existing laws and regulations.”
[7] From “Married with children”
[8] “Divide suddenly in scattered bands and attack, rushing in
disorder here and there, dealing terrible slaughter; and because of
their extraordinary rapidity of movement, they cannot be discerned
when they break into a rampart or pillage an enemy’s camp ….” Etc.
[9] “World History of Warfare” by C.I. Archer, etc. (don’t get a wrong
impression that I read it).
[10] A sight of the thousands of mounted archers with the moustaches
similar to those of Kaiser Willy’s should have a deep psychological
impact on the totally unprepared Romans.
[11] How many ground squirrels one had to kill to provide uniforms for
the Hunnish army?
[12] A conventional view on the Hunnish idea of bartering goes along
the lines: “You give us <long list of the items> and in exchange we
will not kill you right now!” By using this simple but effective
formula the Huns managed to create a vast trade empire.
[13] Especially among the disaffected and otherwise underprivileged
females who “greeted their arrival in the fifth century with
enthusiasm.” The Huns with their healthy outdoor life style (not to
mention their access to the expensive furs of the endangered species)
looked (at least from certain perspectives) as a welcomed alternative
to the decadent Roman men. After the first few raids, their reputation
was firmly established and all following attempts of the Roman and
Ostrogothics authorities to solve “Hunnish problem” had been
undermined by secret but effective female’s fifth column.
[14] Even at their decline, the Romans had a Law and, barbarian or
not, you can’t successfully argue with the official document if you
already a part of the system (which Attila became as soon as he took
stimulus money from the Roman government). According to the
regulations described in [9], every invading rider “required around
ten mounts … and the western European countryside could not have
supported such a force.” Attila was trying to find a legal loophole by
claiming that officially the Hungarian Plain is not “Western” Europe
but it did not help because according to the regulations taking the
subsidies qualified him as Western European regardless of his actual
address. He did not have an option but reducing his mounted force to a
mutually-acceptable number between “two hundred to twelve hundred
men”. The fate of the extra horses is not definitely known but he
surely had a lot of the unused saddles in his camp by the time of
Chalons.
[15] Nobody was sure what this means except that it has to be
prestigious.
[16] It was like a mail-order braid but in the bigger numbers and with
the clearly stated return policy.
[17] As was explained by B.Bachrach, this was a device simple enough
to be operated not only by the Avars but even by the illiterate Slavs.
Unfortunately, he did not make it clear if the literate Slavs would be
up to this task.
[18] “The Emperor Maurice and his historian” By Michael Whitby. Did
not read it either.
[19] While an average Avar was approximately 2 pounds heavier than an
average Byzantian, he was at least 4 pounds lighter than an average
Frank.
[20] Which is much less confusing than to be associated with something
having a totally different name.
[21] Try when you are dressed like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:8e_hussards_1804(fr).jpg
or this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kiprensky_Davydov.jpg and
remember that cleaning services could be quite expensive.
[22] To be fair, while this act could somewhat restrict hussars’
behavior at home; it did not have any noticeable effect on their
behavior elsewhere for the next few centuries.

History Forum / General / Medieval Period / July 2009

Thye most modern view on medieval warfare - nomads in Europe