Who was the worst enemy of Rome: Hannibal or Attila?

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

I don't agree with Kim on everything, but he's really not biased.

Odoacer was half-Hun, the evidence points towards it. Mainstream scholarship accepts that Edekon/Edeko/Edica are one and the same. The name itself is Hunnic, being "edäkün" meaning "follower" or "retainer" - the Position Priscus describes him as. It may have been the Hunnish word for the position, and therefore a title, not a name. The Edeco defeated at the Battle of Bolia by the Goths is the same Edico in Priscus, as both are mentioned as being King of the Scirii by Priscus and Jordanes separately (Jordanes derives things from Cassiodorus who derived things from Priscus). Likewise Odoacer is King of the Sciri and the Torcilingi (the Toricilingi are now believed to be the ruling class of the Scirii, like the Iuthungi were of the Alamanni), and is the son of Idikon/Edeco - obviously inheriting the title from the former king.

Maenchen-Helfen dispelled the counterarguments in 1973 with his complex etymological example (although Maenchen-Helfen believes the name is Germanic, while Priscus, who knew the man personally, clearly states he is an ethnic Hun).

Do I think Ardaric and Valamir were Huns? No, or at least it's rather unlikely. That can't ever be known without finding the complete works of Priscus, which is still possible.

[Mamlaz]

Odoacer was half-Hun, the evidence points towards it

Evidence of a theory, making it a possibility, not a certainty as Dr. Kim put it.

I don't agree with Kim on everything, but he's really not biased.

=

Do I think Ardaric and Valamir were Huns? No, or at least it's rather unlikely.

These two statements do not go together, as if Kim was not biased, he would not use words like "most likely", "surely", "very likely" when he speaks of those names as being actual Huns, not even Hunnic, but he literally states them, and many others, as Huns, regardless of the fact that literally nothing is known of them that would justify such a claim.

He is obviously biased, you can argue for his works being impressive, which they absolutely are, but to argue that he is not a massive Hunophile or at least a nomad-steppe-phile is just wishwash.

He literally pictures Alans being the dominant influencing force in the Vandal conquests and an over-culture across all the Germanics from Belgium to Africa, his image of the European sedentary factions and tribes is basically a bunch of mindless sheep wandering about looking for a manly ubermesch horselord to worship.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

The Pontic Alans were quite important, they had a significant impact on Slavic culture, the Loire region of France, and were an essential part of Vandal North Africa.

And that's not the picture he paints. Actually the fluidity of Germanic society you kind of described is more similar to Heather's picture of micro-migration theory and the constantly changing allegiances of the canton chiefs in 3rd-4th century Germanic society.

[Basil II the B.S]

Attila's strong points:
-caused significantly more destruction of infrastracture and urban centers than Hannibal, the latter wasn't even interested in that;
-eliminated the last West Roman army; after the Catalaunian fields, the Western side was entirely reliant on barbarians for warfare, sealing the fate;
-held at ransom the Eastern side for a while;

Weak points:
-considering he was ruler of a vast barbarian confederation, he did not achieve that much; he's greatest accomplishments are the tributes from the East and the destruction of Aquileia and other cities of Northern Italy when he had invaded claiming half of the empire; he didn't even sack Rome;
-he faced a Western side far beyond the any recovery point. The East could at least rely on the Theodosian walls, that kept out anyone until the 4th Crusade. The West was just done.
-underwhelming death. After a marriage? Meh.


Hannibal's strong points:
-instant classics of battlefield strategies; Trasimene is the perfect ambush, Cannae the perfect execution of the pincer movement.
-faces Rome when it's a rising star, ironically Roman military reforms after Cannae make it the unstoppable force that ends up ruling the Mediterranean; an example of what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger;
-fights to the end: his post Punic wars life still sees him trying to fight Rome as a pirate, then scheming at the Seleucid and Bythinian courts;
-still doesn't get caught alive even after every option fails.

Weak points:
-his plan, though it was Hamilcar's plan, to disrupt the network of Roman alliances, ultimately fails; though a number of cities defect to him after Cannae, it proved to be not enough to end the Roman power;
-pointless drags everyone into what is a personal feud against Rome: Macedonia, Seleucids, even Carthage itself to a degree; though he had a point in understanding that Rome was a vital threat to Carthage, while the rest of the Carthaginian leadership did not see it.

Gonna go with the latter. While none of them ultimately achieved their goals, Attila with more means achieved nothing but destruction; Hannibal's plan at least partly succeeded as Capua, Tarentum and Syracuse sided with him. 1-2 more large centers and he'd have realized his goal to end the Latin league.

Hannibal also forces Rome to evolve or disappear. Rome scraps the alternate command of consuls and the 6 months limits because Hannibal had picked apart 4 times in a row plebeian backed, overly eager generals like Sempronius, Flaminius, Rufus and Varro, specifically asking to locals info about their temperament.

Similarly, post Cannae Rome starts shifting towards the manipular system that makes it great.

By contrast, Attila gives the final blow to the Western Roman army. However, I find it hard to think that if that hadn't happened, the Western side would have survived.

Both are stopped by walls. Attila at Constantinople, Hannibal at Rome. That's something they tie at.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

eliminated the last West Roman army; after the Catalaunian fields

Actually no, the battle was indecisive and the Romans seem to have had the better side of the battlefield.

considering he was ruler of a vast barbarian confederation, he did not achieve that much; he's greatest accomplishments are the tributes from the East and the destruction of Aquileia and other cities of Northern Italy when he had invaded claiming half of the empire; he didn't even sack Rome

He wiped out the Balkans. Were it not for Attila and the later Avars Slavic and Bulgar settlement of the Balkans probably never would have happened.

held at ransom the Eastern side for a while

And crippled their army.

[Basil II the B.S]

Actually no, the battle was indecisive and the Romans seem to have had the better side of the battlefield.

I think you are misunderstanding my point here.

I didn't claim he won at Catalaunian fields. The main source is Jordanes and if you have read him, you know how unreliable he is (he also claims the Goths win).

I think you are correct saying it was indecisive, which leads to what I was saying: the Roman side had gigantic losses (so did everyone else), to the point that the Western Roman Empire could not field another army when Attila invaded Italy later.

With ''last West Roman army'' I mean that it's the last battle where the Western side clearly fields its own army, while working with a Visighotic ally.

From the Catalaunian fields to the end of the Western Roman Empire, the only other Western Roman battles are under Majorian, but from what I read it was overwhelmingly barbarian levies. This is part of the reason Aetius gets the nickname of ''the last Roman''.

He wiped out the Balkans. Were it not for Attila and the later Avars Slavic and Bulgar settlement of the Balkans probably never would have happened.Th



And crippled their army.

Both are true but I already claimed that Attila's biggest achievement was destruction.

The Eastern side under Marcian was marching against Attila when the latter was in Italy, to the point Attila opted for withdrawal. It hints that the East still had a credible military force, hence the casualties inflicted by Attila to the East were not as devastating as they were for the Western side at the Catalaunian fields.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

to the point that the Western Roman Empire could not field another army when Attila invaded Italy later.

No not really, it's pretty clear Aetius still had forces in 453 and 454. It was really Aquileia that was the blow to the Romans. Aetius fortified the city so Attila would be forced to besiege it or be outflanked, but his gamble failed and Attila was able to take the city after a three month siege. That badly weakened his army.

I mean that it's the last battle where the Western side clearly fields its own army

Roman forces were still around. Ricimer had 6000 men when he deposed Anthemius in 472, although some may have been federates. Anthemius led an army against the Visigoths at Arles in 470 (or 471, don't remember). Roman forces fought the Goths at Piacenza in 456 and repelled the Alamanni in 457. Marcellinus had Roman forces operating in Sicily in the 460's at various points, although he was independent of both East and West.

The Eastern side under Marcian was marching against Attila when the latter was in Italy, to the point Attila opted for withdrawal. It hints that the East still had a credible military force, hence the casualties inflicted by Attila to the East were not as devastating as they were for the Western side at the Catalaunian fields.

I thoroughly disagree. Attila wiped out four field armies. Aetius had one. That's nowhere near the same. Thrace was the East's largest recruiting ground based on Hugh Elton's study of soldier origins in the 4th century and Attila wiped it out. Marcian's Aetius (a separate Aetius from the Western Aetius) was harassing the Huns on the Danube, but clearly didn't have the military capability to do much more. Attila withdrew due to diphtheria and other diseases plaguing his army as he was already well past the point of effective campaigning since he had been bogged down at Aquileia for months, and the campaigning season was almost over by then.

[Basil II the B.S]

No not really, it's pretty clear Aetius still had forces in 453 and 454. It was really Aquileia that was the blow to the Romans. Aetius fortified the city so Attila would be forced to besiege it or be outflanked, but his gamble failed and Attila was able to take the city after a three month siege. That badly weakened his army.

I'm talking about field army not garrison. Garrisons can be inflated with the local populace.

Roman forces were still around. Ricimer had 6000 men when he deposed Anthemius in 472, although some may have been federates. Anthemius led an army against the Visigoths at Arles in 470 (or 471, don't remember). Roman forces fought the Goths at Piacenza in 456 and repelled the Alamanni in 457. Marcellinus had Roman forces operating in Sicily in the 460's at various points, although he was independent of both East and West.

Ricimer's contingent against both Vandals and Anthemius were barbarians according to Priscus.

The latter one included Odoacer and were Erulians and Scirians.

I'm not sure about the episode of Piacenza you mention.

Marcellinus contingent according to Priscus was overwhelmingly Hun.

I thoroughly disagree. Attila wiped out four field armies. Aetius had one. That's nowhere near the same. Thrace was the East's largest recruiting ground based on Hugh Elton's study of soldier origins in the 4th century and Attila wiped it out. Marcian's Aetius (a separate Aetius from the Western Aetius) was harassing the Huns on the Danube, but clearly didn't have the military capability to do much more. Attila withdrew due to diphtheria and other diseases plaguing his army as he was already well past the point of effective campaigning since he had been bogged down at Aquileia for months, and the campaigning season was almost over by then.

Considering that noone knows for sure why Attila withdrew, let's say it was mix of causes like the epidemic you mention. However if the Eastern expedition was enough to hint withdrawal even considering the epidemic, then it was threatening enough.

[Mamlaz]

but his gamble failed and Attila was able to take the city after a three month siege.

he was already well past the point of effective campaigning since he had been bogged down at Aquileia for months, and the campaigning season was almost over by then.

Seems like the gamble worked out, just not for Aquilea.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

I'm talking about field army not garrison. Garrisons can be inflated with the local populace.

Priscus (via Jordanes) calls them the "finest soldiers of the Romans." Aetius reinforced Aquileia with the field army to stop Attila, just like the Alans at Orleans.

Ricimer's contingent against both Vandals and Anthemius were barbarians according to Priscus.

The latter one included Odoacer and were Erulians and Scirians.

I'd have to check the Greek to see what Priscus specifically calls them. At this point phoideratoi and symmakhoi were very different terms.

Marcellinus contingent according to Priscus was overwhelmingly Hun.

There's more than one source on Marcellinus, Priscus states he employed Huns but nothing more. MacGeorge shows he had Roman forces of some kind.

Seems like the gamble worked out, just not for Aquilea.

Or the Western Roman Army.

[Basil II the B.S]

Priscus (via Jordanes) calls them the "finest soldiers of the Romans." Aetius reinforced Aquileia with the field army to stop Attila, just like the Alans at Orleans.

Though Jordanes also mentions that Aetius could not afford much more than harassing Attila's troops during the Italian campaign, indicating he did not have a large enough force to face him in a pitched battle again.

Unfortunately the closest source remains the already mentioned one, and he's not that good of a source. The numbers for the whole era are also not exactly credible.

I'm willing to concede that Aetius might have had a Roman (ethnically speaking) army in Italy at the time, which mostly went to reinforce Aquileia but I don't see evidence that it was significant enough as he did not risk a battle against Attila.

I'd have to check the Greek to see what Priscus specifically calls them. At this point phoideratoi and symmakhoi were very different terms.

The third alternative that is actually rather likely is that they were mercenaries.

There's more than one source on Marcellinus, Priscus states he employed Huns but nothing more. MacGeorge shows he had Roman forces of some kind.

Do you have the latter's quotation?

Also what was his source?

It'd be also interesting to see whether he considers foederati as Roman or not. It can be done but that's not what we were looking in this discussion.

Nonetheless we'd be still talking about what are at best mixed forces where the ethnic composition is not better quantified. In Chalons case, while definitive numbers are still lost in historical obscurity, there's no doubt that the Roman side was Roman.