Huns: some thoughts

[Antonio J Carrasco]

Well, this is not actually a project that I am willing to start -not now!- but I am curious nonetheless. While we are not spoiled for choices of Hunnic warriors, there are a few manufacturers that produce Huns in 28mm. However, as far as I know, only Aventine Miniatures has one pack of Hun Light Horsemen that don't look just as Mongol copycats.

Hunnic material culture is not very transparent in the archaeological record. According Peter Heather while there is an abundance of Germanic burial sites that can be dated back to the period of Hunnic dominance, roughly in the region where Attila built his Empire, distinct Hunnic burials are almost non-existent. Actually, many of them are only deduced as such for the elongated shape of the cranium -Huns were known for binding babies' heads, causing the deformation of the cranium-, and even that evidence is flimsy as there is nothing that would have impeded a Germanic subject to follow Hunnic tradition with his children, in order to make them more akin to their masters. In other words, how actual Huns looked like and how they dressed is difficult to guess.

Truth be told I am not convinced that the Mongol look is accurate at all. While fashion changed slowly back in the Middle Ages, we need to remember that 800 years separated both nomadic empires. Moreover, the theory that put the origin of the Huns roughly in Mongolia/Northern China has been under academic attack for years now. Many scholars agree that present-day Kazakhstan is a more probable candidate as the original location of the Huns, which would have been, possibly, a nomad people of Turkic origin rather than Mongolian.

Therefore, if some day in the far future I would decide to collect a Hunnic warband -which at this moment is not probable it happen anytime soon!-, I am thinking that, possibly, it would look more "accurate" -as far as we know- if I use Goth cavalry and infantry, with the odd "Mongol" looking warrior interpersed, that if I go for the Mongol-Look.

Another problem, I think, is the emphasis that most rulesets make in Huns as a mainly Light Cavalry army. I believe that is a consequence of the Mongol-alike mentality. In truth, while Huns were indeed known for their cavalry arm -which is consistent with their nomadic origin- they also counted with thousands of warriors from Germanic tribes subjected to their rule. It is probable that in most Hunnic armies, real Huns were a minority. It is interesting to remind that the Huns were the first Eurasian barbarian coalition that were efficient at capturing fortified Roman towns and cities. While the Goths in the 380s and 400s -Alaric's sack of Rome nothwithstanding- tried to "keep peace with the walls", Huns didn't shy from sieges. That suggest that they should have available the manpower needed to attack cities.

Both Sassanians and Mongols, both mainly cavalry armies, also showed to be more than capable of capturing walled cities. However, in both cases they used mostly foot soldiers for that task, while the "elite" cavalry arm devoted themselves to security and scourging the hinterland for supplies. I wonder if Huns had the same "job specialization", but I think that it wouldn't be a huge leap of imagination to suppose that if the "German theory" is at all accurate Hunnic armies fielded masses of foot soldiers in a regular basis. The battle where Aetius stopped Attila's rampage in Gaul -Mauriac or Catalaunic Fields; it goes for either name- would lent some credibility to that hypothesis: the scarce written material that has survived makes emphasis in the close combat nature of the battle in the Visigothic sector, and we all know that Light Horse archers are not particularly good at close combat, which suggest either a strong force of heavy cavalry or, more probably, infantry.

These reasons make me believe that Hunnic army lists should be, perhaps, a little less "cavalry-heavy" and allow for a bigger presence of foot warriors.

What do you think? Makes sense?

[Codsticker]

Yes.  I think you could quite easily justify building a Hunnic Empire army using a large number of Goth infantry; perhaps less if you are representing a Hunnic army on the plains of Eastern Europe early on, and more if you are representing Atilla's army in Gaul.

[Goliad]

I like the Basic Impetus Hun list, which has two options, one being the majority of the army Goths. The first edition of BI didn't really give you any option but to field mostly Goths in a Hun army if I recall. I agree that the Huns as Asiatic LC Horde idea is overdone. The Foundry range has some good Goth looking figures, especially among the heavy cavalry. I do wonder if most Hunnic lists need to allow more HC rather than the usual 1 or 2 units of "noble" cavalry as HC. The Huns in my reading seem quite tactically flexible and ready to get stuck in so I would allow Huns the option to field more heavier cav in a field force.

[WillieB]

This is going to sound like heresy.
For a 4th- 6th C Hunnic army start with Late Romans and Gothic cavalry. Do a few headswops with more Eastern looking helmets. Add a bow and quiver here and there.
Mix in a few 'traditional' light cavalry. Done.

I'll get my coat now....

[Patrice]

I quite agree with all the above.

It probably depends on what you want to do. For large battle all of this is quite right. For multi-players skirmishes which I am thinking about, I would prefer each player to have a small troop of only one people per player character (PC) – say, one PC troop of real Huns, one or two PC troops of Goths, one troop of PC Alans or whatever if there are more players on the same side, etc.

[Antonio J Carrasco]

This is going to sound like heresy.
For a 4th- 6th C Hunnic army start with Late Romans and Gothic cavalry. Do a few headswops with more Eastern looking helmets. Add a bow and quiver here and there.
Mix in a few 'traditional' light cavalry. Done.

I'll get my coat now....

I think that you read my mind. Perhaps we can start a Club of Heretics, can't we?