I suppose all bits of war are politically motivated, and so I put it in this forum.

Anyway..

Since Attila is one of the most mentioned and, perhaps, respected of historical war, what do you guys think of him/his armies/motivations?

Personally, I think his barbaric acts were necessary to create fear in the time where death was celebrated. Fear is a very powerful weapon, and I think Attila used it effectively.

Malaria,

Small point, Atilla won, but he didn't write the history book.

Nox

Attila was just a stupid barbarian with some luck. Without the stupidity of Justinian, the superiority of the Composite Bows his men carried to battle, and the ready-made calvalry, he would have been nothing.

Are you hinting that Attila and his forces weren't as savage as they are said to be?

I assume that there is obvious error in that the Huns didn't write the history books, but there must be some basis for the ways they are described and feared amongst historic record keepers.

Well, they started out with nearly a complete army of horsemen, but were reduced by a large fraction when they came down from the steppes and realized they couldn't feed all the horses with the lack of vegetation. So even for a while, with man to man combat, they did rather well at destroying large portions of the Empire..

Nox:

I found this while looking around for more about Attila.

quote:

---

From Realm of Shade / Thoughts from Attila
Contrary to what most chieftans think, you are not remembered by what you did in the past, but by what most Huns think you did.

---

Coming from his mouth, could that be an indication that he may have lied to his own people for favour? Or just a general statement of how things are?

Hey how did Attila die? I read in one book he was poisoned, in another he hemorraged from a nose bleed after a night of partying with his men

he took a wife was partying fell smashed his nose and drowned in his own blood, or at least that was the story I heard.

Sounds like a lifestyle most people would envy.