Podcasti zgodovine

Zakaj so bili Huni tako uspešni pri obleganju, Goti pa ne?

Zakaj so bili Huni tako uspešni pri obleganju, Goti pa ne?


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Poslušam podcast Mikea Duncana z naslovom "Zgodovina Rima" in v njem je omenil, da je nekakšna skrivnost, da so bili Huni tako uspešni pri obleganju, Goti pa ne. Oba sta veljala za barbarska plemena, kljub temu pa sta imela oba voditelja, ki sta služila v rimski vojski. To je pomemben dejavnik, saj bi tako Hunom kot Gotom omogočil enak dostop do znanja o metodah, ki so jih Rimljani uporabljali za vojskovanje in obleganje.

Da so bili Huni vrhunski bojevniki (morda zaradi svojih konjenikov in njihovih legendarnih lokov) v primerjavi z Goti in njihovimi sodobnimi rimskimi kolegi, ni del skrivnosti. Pravo vprašanje je torej: kako so Huni, za razliko od Gotov, uspeli prebiti obzidja večjih mest (seveda razen Teodozijanskega obzidja)?


Glede na obleganje in vojaško organizacijo v državah naslednicah (400–800 n. Št.) (Strani 365–6), strašne poliorcetične sposobnosti Hunov pod Atilo niso prihajale le od Rimljanov, ampak tudi zaradi predhodne izpostavljenosti v bližini, Bližnji in Daljni vzhod do drugih civilizacij, usposobljenih za obleganje vojn:

Morda so bili zato že več stoletij seznanjeni s poliorketiko in napredno tehnologijo iz Kitajske in osrednje Evrazije. Po vseh podatkih so bili v času Atile zagotovo že več kot stoletje v stiku s Perzijci in srednjeazijskimi državami, ki so bile usposobljene za obleganje.

To bi sklepalo, da niso uporabljali samo zajetih in zapuščenih rimskih inženirjev za izdelavo svojih oblegalnih strojev, ampak so imeli svoje domače inženirje obleganja. Ker je bila spretnost, potrebna za izdelavo njihovih finih sestavljenih lokov, verjetno celo večja od tiste, ki je bila potrebna za izdelavo obleganega stolpa, si tega nikakor ni nemogoče predstavljati.

Čeprav se le bežno sklicuje na njihovo sposobnost obleganja, svet Hunov: študije o njihovi zgodovini in kulturi vsebuje celo poglavje o njihovem vojskovanju, vključno z nekaterimi posrednimi dokazi, da so maj so imela stremena iz pokvarljivih materialov.


Vsak odgovor bo špekulativen, toda pojasnilo "učno obleganje s stikom" postavlja vprašanje, zakaj Nemci in Goti, ki že stoletja živijo na robu Rima, niso storili iste stvari.

Razlika med Goti in Hunskim cesarstvom, ki bi lahko pojasnila rezultat, je, da so bila gotska plemena etnične enote, medtem ko so Huni k svojemu cesarstvu množično dodali cela ljudstva (vključno z Goti) in posameznikom dali resnično sposobnost vključevanja v vrste odločanja Hunov. Obstaja opis odposlanca pri Hunih, da je srečal nekdanjega Rimljana, ki je bil zdaj načelnik srednjega razreda.

Razlika je lahko v bogatejših nagradah za tiste, ki bi to delo lahko opravljali kot energični oblegalec pri Hunih.


Kaj je naredilo Vikinge tako vrhunske v vojskovanju?

Prebral je veliko o tem, kako so ropali blizu in daleč & ndash skoraj tako, kot da bi imeli prosto voljo, da počnejo, kar se jim zdi.

Toda kako bi to lahko bilo? Naš bralec sprašuje: & ldquo Kaj je naredilo Vikinge tako vrhunske v vojskovanju? & Rdquo

Za pomoč pri odgovoru na to vprašanje smo se obrnili na vikinško strokovnjakinjo Else Roesdahl, profesorico srednjeveške arheologije na univerzi Aarhus na Danskem.

Vikingi niso zmagali v vseh svojih bitkah

Roesdahl začne previdno. Čeprav so se Vikingov bali po vsej Evropi, niso zmagali v vseh svojih bitkah & ndash daleč od tega & ndash, čeprav se zdi, da tako mislijo mnogi.

Pravzaprav viri prav tako dokumentirajo, kako so racing Vikingi utrpeli velike poraze, ko so vdrli v tuja kraljestva in ozemlja.

& ldquoMnogi arheološki in pisni viri kažejo, da so Vikingi precej pogosto izgubljali. Mi & rsquove smo na primer našli nekaj množičnih grobov Vikingov, ki pripovedujejo o neuspelih napadih, «pravi Roesdahl.

Kljub temu ni dvoma, da so bili skandinavski bojevniki v večini svojih prizadevanj precej uspešni. O tem pričajo tudi izropani zakladi iz samostanov, vasi in celo večjih mest.

Strokovnjaki za element presenečenja

Eden od razlogov za to je bila vrhunska mobilnost Vikingov & rsquo.

Njihove dolge ladje & ndash z značilnim trupom plitkega vleka & ndash so omogočile prečkanje Severnega morja in krmarjenje po Evropi ter številne reke in se pojavile od nikoder ali zaobšle sovražne kopenske sile.

& ldquoTo se je zgodilo v Lindisfarnu leta 793 pr. Vikingi so se nenadoma pojavili v nenavadnem napadu, za katerega nihče ni mislil, da je mogoč, & rdquo pravi Roesdahl.

Toda Vikingi še zdaleč niso edini pri izkoriščanju vrhunske mobilnosti v vojskovanju, pravi.

Azijski nomadi, kot so Huni, so v 5. stoletju n.š. vdrli daleč naokoli, enako velja za islamsko širitev po smrti Mohameda rsquosa leta 632 n.š., in akcije Magyar & rsquos v srednji Evropi v 10. stoletju n.

Velika omrežja so zagotovila poznavanje sovražnikov

Vikingi so ohranili tudi obsežno mrežo, ki jim je omogočila, da so udarili točno takrat, ko so zakladnice in kašče zrele & ndash in najmanjši odpor.

Vikingi so pogosto vedeli, kje in kdaj se je množica ljudi zbrala na sejmih. Primer tega je napad na Nantes leta 843 n.

Vsako leto so ljudje na daljavo na dan sv. Verjetno lahko uganite, kateri dan so se pojavili Vikingi.

& ldquoVikingi so pregledali območja, ki so jim bila dosegljiva. Nato so čakali na pravi trenutek za napad & ndash in [v primeru Nantesa] so najverjetneje sklenili tudi zavezništvo s frankovskim grofom, ki je hotel mesto zavarovati zase, & rdquo pravi Roesdahl.

Izkoriščeni politični nemiri in boji za oblast

Zgodnji srednji vek je bil burno obdobje in Vikingi so to znali izkoristiti v svojo korist.

Politični nemiri in spopadi za oblast so običajno pomenili, da so se kralji in knezi zavzeli med seboj in se borili drug proti drugemu, kar je pomenilo, da niso bili v bližini, da bi zaščitili mesta ali samostane pred napadi Vikingov.

To se je na primer zgodilo, ko so se proti njemu uprli trije sinovi frankovskega cesarja Ludvika Pobožnega & sin Karla Velikega & ndash.

Sledilo je skoraj desetletje državljanske vojne in Vikingi so bili na mestu, da bi izkoristili notranje boje.

& ldquo Vidimo lahko, da so Vikingi natančno vedeli, katere države so močne ali ne, & rdquo pravi Roesdahl.

Vikingi so bili do zob oboroženi

Zdaj je čas, da si ogledamo vojaško strojno opremo.

Arheološke najdbe kažejo, da so Vikingi imeli vse, kar je bilo potrebno od strašnega sovražnika.

Njihove sekire, meči, sulice, loki in puščice, ščiti in oklepi so bili enaki orožju in oklepu v celinski Evropi in Veliki Britaniji in pogosto najvišje kakovosti, ki je bila na voljo v tistem času.

& ldquo Dejansko so mnogi meči, ki so jih uporabljali Vikingi, prihajali od frankovskih mečarjev, ki so izdelovali izjemno dobre meče. Ko pa so se frankovski vladarji začeli zavedati, da se proti njim uporablja njihovo lastno orožje, so prepovedali njihovo prodajo Vikingom, «pravi Roesdahl.

Nordijci so znali uporabljati tudi oblegalne stroje, kot so katapulti in udarni ovni. Vse to so Vikingi zaposlili med obleganjem Pariza leta 885-886 n.

Stroga vojaška organizacija in disciplina

Napredne bojne taktike so prispevale tudi k uspešnim napadom Vikingov.

Roesdahl pravi, da je podoba Vikingov, ki skačejo s čolnov in se z nihanjem sekir in mečev zaletavajo naravnost v najbližje mesto, bolj priljubljena fantazija.

Napadi so bili najverjetneje skrbno načrtovani in izvedeni tako v primeru manjših napadalcev kot velike vojske Vikingov.

Ko sta danska kralja Sweyn Forkbeard in Cnut Veliki napadla Anglijo v začetku 11. stoletja, je bila njihova vojska na tisoče mož in na stotine ladij.

Take vojske so morale zahtevati močno poveljniško hierarhijo, kjer je kralj vodil vrhovni poveljstvo.

Vikingi so bili spretni bojevniki

Poleg tega je bila večina Vikingov spretnih bojevnikov. Živeli so v nasilnih časih in idealizirali bojevniško kulturo.

Zahtevano je bilo, da so vsi moški Vikingi opravili usposabljanje za orožje, da so lahko med napadi branili svoje vasi.

Torej, ko so šli v napad, ni bila le skupina bradatih kmetov, ki so hodili po njej, dobro izobraženi vojaki, ki so se znali obvladati sami.

In niso se bali smrti.

& ldquo Glede na sago o norveškem kralju Magnusu Bosonogem, ki je med racijo na Irskem umrl mlad, je dejal: & lsquoKralji so za čast, ne za dolgo življenje, & rsquo, kar je precej dobra ponazoritev miselnosti vikinških bojevnikov. Čast je bilo pogumno umreti na bojišču & ndash, čast pa je bila pomembnejša od vsega, «pravi Roesdahl.

Vikingi so se naselili in vikinška doba se je končala

Kraljevine Europe & rsquos so se počasi prilagajale načinom vojskovanja Vikingov in jim uspele odreči njihovo ključno prednost: mobilnost.

To je bilo na primer doseženo z izgradnjo utrjenih mostov na rekah. To je blokiralo dolge ladje, medtem ko so branilci lahko poslali dež puščic in kamenja na Vikinge spodaj.

Sčasoma so se velike skupine Vikingov naselile po Evropi in osvojile zemljo ali po podpisu mirovnih pogodb z lokalnimi vladarji in včasih obljubile, da bodo zaščitile deželo pred drugimi Vikingi.

Eden takih primerov je Normandija, ki jo je danski ali norveški vikinški poglavar Rollo podelil v zameno za prisego na zvestobo Karlu Preprostemu, kralju Zahodne Francije (898–922 n. Št.).

Pra-pra-vnuk Rolla & rsquosa je bil William Osvajalec, ki je nadaljeval z osvajanjem Anglije in vzpostavitvijo normanske vladavine leta 1066 n.

Vikingi so terorizirali Evropo približno 250 let, potem pa se niso več vrnili.


Kakšen je bil vpliv Atile Huna na rimsko cesarstvo?

Hun Atila je eden najbolj zloglasnih osvajalcev in bojevnikov v zgodovini. Vladal je veliki nomadski konfederaciji, znani kot Huni. Atila je kot edini ali kot sovladar vladal velikemu imperiju, ki je bil osredotočen na prostrane ravnice srednje Evrope in je vključeval velik del sodobne Ukrajine.

Atilino ime je povezano z zadnjimi dnevi zahodnega rimskega cesarstva in se pogosto domneva, da je imel pomembno vlogo pri propadu Rima. Atilini vdori v rimsko cesarstvo so oslabili zahodno in vzhodno rimsko cesarstvo. Zahodno cesarstvo je bilo takšno, da je germanskim plemenom omogočilo, da so sčasoma prevzeli zahodne regije nekdanjega rimskega cesarstva.

Kdo so bili Huni?

Nihče v resnici ne pozna izvora Hunov. Veliki britanski zgodovinar Gibbon je verjel, da so enaki plemenom Xiongnu, ki so jih v tretjem stoletju našega štetja porazile cesarske kitajske vojske. [1] Nato so bili Xiongnu prisiljeni preseliti, da bi poiskali nove pašnike za svoje velike črede ovac in konj. En vir domneva, da so jih napadi drugih nomadov gnali zahodneje. Sodobni zgodovinarji verjamejo, da njihov izvor izvira iz Srednje Azije, po možnosti v sodobni državi Kazahstan. [2] Zdi se verjetno, da Huni niso bili določena in homogena skupina. Morda so bili amalgam številnih različnih plemen in ljudstev.

To je bilo običajno v Srednji Aziji, kjer so različne skupine plemen oblikovale velike konfederacije, ki jih je običajno vodil veliki vojskovođa. Od zgodnjega 4. stoletja so Huni pritisnili v sodobno ukrajinsko Stepo, ki je pred njimi vodila Gote in druga plemena. Prisiljene neznane številke so poiskale zatočišče v rimskem cesarstvu, to pa je destabiliziralo cesarstvo. [3] Temeljno področje delovanja Hunov je bilo na sodobnem Madžarskem in od tu so prevladovali v okoliških plemenih in ljudstvih. Terorizirali so in prisilili mnoge ljudi, da ubogajo njihovo voljo, in kmalu so začeli služiti kot najemniki v rimskih vojskah. [4] Huni so bili večinoma nomadsko ljudstvo in so vse leto živeli v taboriščih, tudi pozimi. Bili so izkušeni konjeniki, ki so jih že od malih nog naučili jahati in bili so izjemni lokostrelci. Uporabili so sestavljeni lok za hitro in natančno streljanje puščic. Zaradi vse večjega stika z drugimi ljudmi in zlasti njihove interakcije z Rimljani so Huni postajali vse manj nomadski. [5]

Obstajajo dokazi, da so Huni zgradili velike vasi in zdi se verjetno, da je imel Atila prestolnico. Huni so se vse bolj razlikovali od tistih, ki so jih osvojili. Popoln vpliv teh sprememb na Hune ni znan [6]. Kljub temu, da jih imenujejo horde, število hunskih bojevnikov verjetno ni bilo veliko. Sodobni zgodovinarji menijo, da je bilo največ približno dvajset tisoč tisoč hunskih bojevnikov. Vojska Humov je bila napihnjena zaradi njihovih prispevkov podložnikov ali njihovih zaveznikov. Uspeh Hunov je bil tudi posledica dejstva, da je bilo Rimsko cesarstvo razdeljeno. [7] Na zahodu in vzhodu cesarstva sta vladala dva različna cesarja, ki sta si pogosto tekmeca in drug drugemu sumljiva. Oba dela cesarstva sta redko sodelovala in postala sta zelo različni družbi.

Kdaj je Hun vladal Atila?

Atila je bil nečak hunskega kralja Rugile. Ko je leta 433 pred smrtjo umrl v kampanji proti cesarju v Carigradu, je vodstvo prešlo na Atilo in njegovega brata Bleda. Oba brata sta bila skupna vladarja in sta spremenila odnos svojih ljudi z Rimljani. Pred svojo vladavino so bili Huni pogosto najeti kot plačanci za varovanje rimskih meja. Leta 439 ADS sta oba brata podpisala pogodbo z Rimljani. [8] Ta pogodba je povzročila, da je Vzhodno rimsko cesarstvo Hunom plačalo denar za zaščito, da bi zagotovili, da niso napadli njegovih ozemelj. Ta plačila Rimljanov so se v takšni ali drugačni obliki nadaljevala vse do smrti Atile. Atila in njegov brat sta se po nesrečni invaziji na Perzijo odločila kršiti pogoje pogodbe. Huni so z domnevnim oskvrnitvijo nekaterih hunskih grobov s strani kristjanov vdrli na ozemlja Vzhodnega rimskega cesarstva.

Atila in njegov brat sta opustošila velik del Balkana in uničila velika mesta, kot je Naissus. [9] Obleganja so se naučili od Rimljanov. Naslednje desetletje so Huni redno vdrli na Balkan, obogateli so iz plena in vzeli številne sužnje. Bleda je nekje leta 445 našega štetja umrl, obstaja sum, da je Atila ubil svojega brata. Atila je bil pameten človek in je uporabil religijo, da je ohranil nadzor nad svojim ljudstvom. Trdil je, da ima božanski "vojni meč", ki naj bi dokazoval, da mu je usojeno vladati svetu. [10] Leta 446 AD je Atila svojo pozornost usmeril na zahodne pokrajine. To je bilo zato, ker je verjel, da bi lahko v Rimu dosegel lahkotno zmago nad oslabljenim zahodnim cesarjem. Sestra cesarja Valentinijana III. Mu je dala izgovor za vdor na zahod. [11] Prisiljena je bila, da se poroči z plemičem, zato je prosil Atilo, naj jo reši.

Kun Hunov je njene prošnje jemal kot ponudbo za poroko in to je bilo njegovo opravičilo za vdor v zahodnoevropski imperij. Atila je napadel provinco Galijo in opustošil je več mest. Rimljani se niso mogli spopasti s Huni in njihovo taktiko udarcev in begov. Briljantni rimski general Aetius, ki ga je Gibbon imenoval "zadnji od Rimljanov", je ustvaril protihunsko koalicijo. [12] Prepričal je številna germanska plemena, da se pridružijo tej zvezi, vključno z Vizigoti in Vandali. Atilina vojska je prodrla globoko v Galijo in soočila se je z množično vojsko pod vodstvom Aecija. V bitki za katalonska polja ali bitki pri Chalonu (451 n. Št.) V, kar je bilo opisano kot ena najbolj krvavih bitk v zgodovini, je bila vojska Atile ustavljena. Hunska horda je bila ustavljena, a še zdaleč niso bili poraženi. Leto po bitki pri katalonskih poljih so Huni napadli Italijo. Povzročili so množično uničenje in oropali veliko oglejsko mesto, da je »izginilo iz zgodovine«. [13]

Huni so povzročili ogromno opustošenje in celotno prebivalstvo se je preselilo, mnoga mesta pa so bila opuščena. Vendar so se Huni ustavili pri reki Po in niso nadaljevali v Rim [14]. Legenda pravi, da je papež Leo prepričal Atilo, naj ne napada Rima. Resnični razlogi, zakaj Atila ni napadel Rima, so bili lakota in njegova vojska je primanjkovala zalog. [15] Atila in njegova vojska sta se vrnila v svoje ogrske domovine. Kmalu zatem je Atila umrl po pojedini za praznovanje zakona. Hunsko cesarstvo je bilo razdeljeno in kmalu so podložniki premagali Hune in njihova moč je bila za vedno zlomljena.

Kako je Atila uničil gospodarstvo rimskega cesarstva?

Huni so plenili Rimljane. Atila in njegov brat sta spremenila strategijo Hunov. Niso bili več pripravljeni služiti kot najemniki. Namesto tega so zahtevali davek in druga plačila, običajno v obliki zlata in srebra. Stalni poklon je bil resen odtok za Rimljane. Prisiljeni so bili dvigniti davke, kar je povzročilo resno gospodarsko krizo. Poleg tega je cesarstvo zapustilo toliko zlata, da je privedlo do zmanjšanja gospodarske aktivnosti, saj v obtoku ni bilo dovolj kovancev. [16] Zahod ni mogel plačati subvencij Atili, zato so sprejeli obupne ukrepe, kot sta povečanje obdavčitve in kovanje kovancev. To je povzročilo inflacijo, kar je povzročilo veliko stisko v zahodnih provincah. [17]

Napadi in vdori Hunov so bili uničujoči. Niso samo oropali mest in regij, ampak so se tudi veselili uničenja. Tako kot mnogi drugi nomadi prej in pozneje so sovražili sedečo kulturo in z veseljem uničevali njeno obliko in njene strukture. To je pomenilo, da so bili Huni za razliko od drugih plemen, ki so vdrli v cesarstvo, edinstveni po stopnji uničenja, ki so ga povzročili Rimskemu cesarstvu. Balkan so opustošili Huni, ki je pozneje postal puščava, razen nekaterih enklav v Grčiji in na obalah. Območje v resnici ni bilo pod nadzorom cesarja v Carigradu in na njem so se naselila številna germanska in druga plemena. [18]

Minilo je približno 200 let, preden je bil Balkan spet pod nadzorom Carigrada in tudi takrat si ni nikoli več opomogel. Vpliv Atile na Francijo je bil uničujoč. Atilov napad na Italijo pa je imel za Italijo globoke posledice. Pred invazijo je območje okrevalo po invaziji Gotov in poznejši pljački Rima. Invazija Hunov je opustošila severno Italijo in območje je trajalo generacije, da si je opomoglo. Urbana središča območja so bila uničena, regija pa razseljena. [19]. Mnogi begunci so se poiskali zatočišča na oddaljenih območjih. Nekateri begunci so našli svetišče na nekaterih otočkih v Jadranu in iz teh majhnih naselij je v zgodnjem srednjem veku nastalo veliko mesto Benetke. [20] Atilov vdor je oslabil Italijo, osrednje območje zahodnega cesarstva, kar je usodno oslabilo Rimljane na zahodu.

Kakšno vlogo je imel Atila ob padcu Zahodnega rimskega cesarstva?

Sorodni članki DailyHistory.org

Padec Zahodnega cesarstva je ponavadi iz leta 476 n.š., ko je znanstveni vojskovodja Odoacer odstavil zadnjega rimskega cesarja. To je bila cela generacija po napadu Atile na Italijo. Vendar je imel hunski kralj zelo pomembno vlogo pri propadu in končnem padcu Zahodnega rimskega cesarstva. [21] Finančne zahteve Hunov so povzročile vrsto fiskalnih kriz za cesarja. To ima posledice za zahodno cesarstvo, ki je bilo za razliko od vzhodnega dela cesarstva v resnem gospodarskem upadu. To in obseg opustošenja, ki so ga povzročili napadi Atile, so povzročili naraščajočo gospodarsko krizo do leta 450 našega štetja. Trdili so, da je bil gospodarski vpliv hunskih kampanj glavni dejavnik padca Rima.

To pa zato, ker rimski cesar ni mogel več odkupiti številnih barbarskih plemen, ki so zasedla dele cesarstva. Goti in druga plemena so namesto prejemanja plačil začeli zahtevati zemljo v zameno za svojo še naprej poslušnost cesarju, predvsem pa so se opustili napada na ostanke nekoč mogočne rimske vojske. Potem si rimska vojska ni mogla več privoščiti najema plačancev, ki so bili večinoma Nemci za obrambo države. Dejansko so bili uporniški plačanci življenjsko dejstvo v času umiranja rimskega cesarstva. Odoacer je prevzel Italijo, potem ko je vodil eno takšno uporništvo. [22] Gospodarska kriza, ki je bila deloma posledica Atile in njegovih strategij, je bila ključna pri spodkopavanju zmožnosti rimske države, da se brani in varuje svoje obrobne pokrajine. [23]

Zaključek

Hun Atila je bil ena najpomembnejših osebnosti v času umiranja Zahodnega rimskega cesarstva. Bil je eden izmed nizov barbarskih voditeljev, ki so povzročili toliko škode tkivu zahodnega rimskega cesarstva. Družbeni in gospodarski vpliv napadov njegove vojske, za katere se zdi, da so bili v izjemnih razmerah, je močno oslabil tako vzhodno kot zahodno cesarstvo. Zahodni del cesarstva je bil šibkejši in se ni mogel spopasti z Atilo, njegovimi napadi in finančnimi zahtevki. Zahodni Rimljani niso imeli niti vojaških niti ekonomskih sredstev za obrambo pred Huni. Atila je namerno ciljal na zahod, ker ve, da je bil šibkejši. Ni ga osvojil, vendar ga je pustil v gospodarski in družbeni krizi, kar je tako spodkopalo državo na zahodu, da je bil njen padec neizogiben.


Ostrogoti

Ostrogoti ali vzhodni Goti so živeli na območju blizu Črnega morja (današnja Romunija, Ukrajina in Rusija).

Tako kot Goti drugje so tudi Ostrogoti pogosto vdrli na rimsko ozemlje, dokler Huni z njihovega vzhoda niso vdrli na njihova ozemlja. Toda po smrti Atile so se Ostrogoti lahko prosto razširili v rimske dežele.

Pod vodstvom Teodoriha Velikega so Ostrogoti uspešno obvladovali vladarje italijanskega polotoka in razširili svoja ozemlja od Črnega morja do Italije in zahodneje.

Toda po vrsti vojaških pohodov proti bizantinskemu cesarju Justinijanu in drugim tekmecem so Ostrogoti v veliki meri izginili iz zgodovine.


Hunnu: Starodavno mongolsko cesarstvo, na zahodu znano kot Huni

Kot je zapisano v zahodnih klasičnih virih, so se Huni v Evropi in na njenem ozemlju nenadoma pojavili okoli leta 370 n. Na primer:

Rimljani so se za Hune zavedli, ko so se v pontskih stepah, prostrani deželi, ki se razteza od severne obale Črnega morja do Kaspijskega morja, zavihteli Huni. Zaradi tega vdora je bilo na tisoče Gotov prisiljenih preseliti v Spodnjo Donavo, da bi leta 376 po Krimu prosili za azil v Rimskem cesarstvu. Huni so v zelo kratkem času osvojili Alane, pa tudi večino zahodnih Gotov in vzhodnih Gotov. Potem je bilo ogromno Alanov in Gotov prisiljenih pobegniti v Rimsko cesarstvo.

Invazija Hunov je prinesla daljnosežne zgodovinske posledice za razvoj Evrope, saj je spodbudila veliko selitev, ki je bila glavni dejavnik propada Zahodnega rimskega cesarstva in je postavila temelje novih nacionalnih držav v Evropska celina v srednjem veku.

Leta 395 so Huni začeli svoje prve obsežne napade na Vzhodno rimsko cesarstvo. Huni so napadli Trakijo, zasedli Armenijo in oropali Kapadokijo. Vstopili so v dele Sirije, ogrozili Antiohijo in šli skozi provinco Evfrat.

Hkrati so Huni vdrli tudi v močan Sasanijski imperij (zadnje perzijsko cesarstvo pred vzponom islamov). Ta invazija je bila sprva uspešna in se je hitro razširila na prestolnico Ctesiphon. Toda v enem od perzijskih protinapadov so bili izgubljeni in poraženi.

Zanimivo je, da Huni niso napadli zahodnega rimskega cesarstva. Izkazalo se je, da so Huni delovali kot zavezniki z Zahodnim rimskim cesarstvom v boju proti germanskim plemenom do sredine 5. stoletja. Zato je leta 433 našega štetja nekatere dele Panonije (sodobna Madžarska, Avstrija in Srbija) Huni odstopil Flavius ​​Aetius, magister militum Zahodnega rimskega cesarstva.

V tem času se je v Hunskem cesarstvu pojavila izredno pestra sestava germanskih in negermanskih ljudstev, vključno z Bolgari, Ostrogoti, Geruli, Hepidi, Sarmati itd. Vsa osvojena plemena so bila obdavčena z davki in prisiljena sodelovati v vojaških akcijah.

Leta 451 našega štetja so Huni vdrli v zahodno rimsko provinco Galijo, kjer so se borili proti združeni vojski Rimljanov in Vizigotov v bitki pri Katalonskih poljih, leta 452 pa so napadli Italijo. Po Atillovi smrti leta 453 n. Š. So Huni prenehali biti velika grožnja Rimu in so po bitki pri Nedau predali del cesarstva.

Sosedje na jugu, vzhodu in zahodu beležijo potomce Hunov ali naslednikov s podobnimi imeni, ki so od 4. do 6. stoletja zasedli nekatere dele Vzhodne Evrope in Srednje Azije. Nekatere različice imen Hunov so zabeležene tudi na Kavkazu do začetka 8. stoletja.

Kdo pa so bili ti Huni, od kod so prišli in kako so izgledali?

Starodavni opisi Hunov so enotni, kar daje velik poudarek njihovemu čudnemu videzu iz rimske perspektive. Pisatelji in zgodovinarji omenjajo, da so imeli Huni majhne oči in ploski nos. Rimski pisatelj Priscus opisuje Atilo očividca: “Kratke postave, s širokimi prsmi in veliko glavo, oči so bile majhne, ​​brada je bila tanka in posuta s sivo barvo, imel je ploski nos in porjavelo kožo dokaz o njegovem izvoru. ”

Mnogi znanstveniki menijo, da so te rasne značilnosti neprijeten prikaz vzhodnih Azijcev (“Mongoloid ”). Avstrijski zgodovinar Maenchen-Helfen trdi, da so mnogi Huni imeli mongoloidne rasne značilnosti, nekateri arheološki izsledki Hunov pa kažejo, da vsebujejo rasno mešano skupino z vzhodnoazijskimi značilnostmi. To je razumljivo, saj je bilo v uniji Hunov veliko različnih ljudi iz Evrazije.

Rimski zgodovinar Ammianus Marcellinus (330–400) poroča, da Huni niso imeli zgradb, so pa imeli šotore in vozove. Maenchen-Helfen meni, da so imeli Huni verjetno “tente iz klobučevine in ovčje kože ” kot mongolski tradicionalni ger. Priscus je nekoč omenil Atilin šotor. Tudi Jordanes, vzhodnorimski birokrat za pridobivanje gotike iz 6. stoletja, poroča, da je Atila postavil v svileni šotor.

Hune so tradicionalno opisovali kot pastirske nomade, ki živijo od pastirstva in se selijo s pašnikov na pašnike, da bi pasli svoje živali. Postopek je enak pri pastirjih v sodobni Mongoliji.

Kot nomadi so Huni veliko časa jahali na konjih, saj je Ammian opisal, da so bili Huni skoraj prilepljeni na konje. Rimski viri označujejo hunske konje za tako grde. Natančne vzreje hunskih konj ni mogoče določiti, čeprav imajo relativno dobro utemeljene rimske opise. Toda verjetno je bila to pasma sodobnih mongolskih premajhnih konj.

Obstajajo tudi fragmentarne rimske reference, da so Huni častili nebo, sonce in luno. Od antičnih časov so bili totem Mongolov podobe lune in sonca, ki so v grbu in zastavi sodobne Mongolije.

Rimski pisatelji, in sicer Zosimus in Agathias, so zapisali, da se je hunska vojska opirala na svoje visoke sposobnosti gibanja in “a pameten občutek pri izbiri pravega časa za napad in umik ”. Pomembna strategija, ki so jo uporabili Huni, je bil pretvarjan umik - pretvarjanje, da beži, nato obračanje in napad na neurejenega sovražnika. Neverjetno je, da so enako taktiko uporabljali najboljši poveljniki Chinggis (Genghis) Khan v mongolskem cesarstvu v 13. stoletju.

Kar se tiče orožja Hunov, so uporabljali dolgoletne loke. Loki so bili kratki in primerni za streljanje s konja. Loki so imeli vzvratno krivino, tako da je bila z manjšo velikostjo dosežena večja smrtonosna sila loka. Loki, ki so jih uporabljali Huni, so bili po Rimljanih najmodernejše in najučinkovitejše orožje antike - med Rimljani so veljali za zelo dragoceno trofejo. Flavius ​​Aetius, rimski poveljnik, ki je 20 let živel kot talec med Huni, je uporabil skitski lok v službi v rimski vojski.

Ali ni v opisih Hunov in Mongolov preveč naključij? Ni nič nenavadnega.

Sodobni zgodovinarji, ki štejejo od francoskega učenjaka Josepha de Guignesa v 18. stoletju, povezujejo Hune, ki so se pojavili na mejah Evrope v 4. stoletju, in Hunnuje, ki so med 3. stoletjem napadli Kitajsko z ozemlja današnje Mongolije. Pred našim štetjem in 2. stoletju našega štetja.

Zgodovinarji so ugotovili, da je bil po hudem udarcu, ki ga je država Južnih Mongolov, imenovana Syanbi Xianbei, podprla kitajska dinastija Han, razdeljen na dva dela. In severni del je začel najdaljšo pot proti zahodu.

To so bili Huni, ki so Evropejce prvič seznanili s stremeni in progresivno mobilno taktiko konjeniških vojn.


Spet tokrat: Civ vs History Analysis Day 7: THE HUNS

HUN JE ENO DOBRO OGLEDAL BIZANTIJSKO ZLATO. REKLI jim je, da res lepo LJUBI. Obrnite te vsote bitk na stran in jih prilepite naravnost, njihove sladkarije!

HUN BODO POKRENALI SMAGETO NA VSE VAŠE LATINSKE MORE!

VZHODNI JABROMIS, ZAHODNI JABROMIS, JUŽNI JABROMIS, SEVERNI JABROMIS, TO NI 'T POMEMBNO.

TO GOVORI O ZGODOVINI HUNOV, ČE 'IŠČATE STRATEGIJO, POJDITE TUKAJ JABROMI: http://www.reddit.com/r/aoe2/comments/1czdhj/halfweekly_civ_discussion_the_huns/

HUNSKA ZGODOVINA, MAYNE

Huni so na prvi pogled najbolj enodimenzionalni državljan v igri, kar zadeva reprezentacijo. To so Huni, nomadsko ljudstvo, ki je z vzhoda v Evropo vdrlo nekje v 4. stoletju in je trajalo le do 5. Po tem so jih prevzeli valovi drugih napadalcev z vzhoda.

Huns je Ensemble Studios izbral za civilizacijo širitvenega paketa, ker so bili osvajalci. Ansambel ni 't želel, da bi bila širitev The Conquerors samo renesančna razširitev. Z vključitvijo Hunov so zgodovino AoE2 razširili na zelo pozne rimske čase. In to je smiselno, ker se izraz & quotDark Ages & quot in izraz & quotMiddles Ages & quot & quot; nimata 't jasno zacet in nimata 't jasnega konca (zato so ostale 4 razširitvene civile naredile tako, kot so). Za vključitev Hunov je morala ES izključiti druge vzhodnoevropske državljane, na primer Slovane in Madžare. Forgotten Empires, razširitev oboževalcev, ki jo je ustvaril AOCZone, je oblikovala, razvila in preizkusila lastne slovanske in madžarske državljane. Kakorkoli že, na hitro nekaj o Hunih.

The Huns occupy a very interesting place in history like the other Central Asian civilizations in history because they were both in Europe and in Asia, and may have helped to jump start many events on both continents. Actually, it is difficult to say that they were in China this viewpoint is controversial and without much evidence. Because the Huns didn't have a written language and they were nomads, they left behind very few traces of their existence. We know that they were a horse people of the Steppes. We just don't know if they were an Iranian people like the Scythians, or if they were a Turkic people like the Turks.

The group of Huns themselves probably weren't homogenous they were most likely a confederation of various races, and they showed signs of this by incorporating the Germanic tribes of the Ostrogoths, Gepids, Alamanni, Scirii, Rugians, etc. The Huns had their own language, and we only know from a few simple words and the names of their Kings that they might have spoken a Turkic language. One of Attila's sons was named Dengizich, and his name had roots in a Turkic name from which the very infamous name "Ghengis" came. The Huns spoke the Goth language as a "lingua franca," a common language between themselves, their subjects, and allies.

As you might already know, the Huns drove many Germanic tribes ahead of them. The Goths, for instance, occupied the area we now know as Ukraine, and the Huns came from that direction and attacked them, causing them to flee to the Roman Empire's borders. You could almost say that the Huns, if they didn't start them, accelerated the "barbarian invasions" into the Roman Empire.

Some scholars associate the Huns with the Xiognu, a confederacy of Steppe peoples who fought with China early on in the millenium, and the collapse of their political state caused many of them to ride westward. The word "Hun," or at least it's equivalent, is invoked by the White Huns , an Iranian people who invaded India about a decade after the collapse of the Hunnic Empire in Europe.

I like to think that the Huns represent a whole swath of Eurasian Steppe peoples, most definitely the western ones who came into Europe, and that they are secretly the Hungarians. They have a combination of fully upgraded Paladins and Cavalry Archers, after all, as well as Hussars. They also have access to Walls and Towers, something the Goths don't have.

The Huns are related to the Turks and Mongols, they fought with the Byzantines, Persians, Franks, Goths, people similar to the Vikings, Britons, and Teutons, and may have fought with the Chinese.

HUNS AND THEY BONUSES HOME BOI

Don't need Houses, but start with -100 Wood

The main bonus that makes the Huns who the Huns are. It's a truly nomadic bonus. Ne quite historically accurate for the semi-nomadic Huns, but about as close as it's going to get without being completely unintuitive a real semi-nomad bonus would be moveable Houses or something, and that has lots of potential to be stupid and annoying for the player and their enemies. This is also made a little egregrious because the Huns still have veritable cities with Archery Ranges, Stables, etc. The Asian Steppe Peoples used big, portable tents called Yurts (and you can see them in AoE2). These Yurts would have walls and ceilings made of straw or hide pieced together to form a sheet, and then wooden logs would form the support columns and beams for the sheets. It was a simple matter of folding the sheets up and bringing down the logs and then putting them in a horse drawn wagon and moving, then doing the reverse when you needed to camp. Hunnic armies, however, would cross very large swaths of territory without stopping to camp. Hun riders had multiple horses, and would switch mounts when one of them would get tired. Theyɽ cut their horses and drink their blood while on the ride, and theyɽ put meat between the horse's back and the saddle, and riding for a couple of hours would pulverize and tenderize the meat until it was edible.

Cavalry Archers cost -25%/30% starting in Castle Age

The majority of Hunnic armies were Cavalry Archers, and in fact they are credited with transmitting the stirrup to Europe. I'll explain the stirrup thing a little later. Cavalry Archers in medieval times were overpowered. They couldn't be caught due to their riders wearing very light armor, all the while firing arrows from a range. Steppe horses were especially uncatcheable since they were faster and stronger than horses elsewhere. The nomadic lifestyle of a Hun or a Turk resulted in smaller stature, even moreso for back then. A steppe rider was smaller and easier for their horses to carry! The Huns used a composite bow, probably among the first to be used in large numbers in Europe. Composite bows are made of a combination of wood, animal bone, and animal hide, with fats and tree sap used to glue the materials together. The result is a bow that is very, very resilient and allows for a very strong draw, thus a very high velocity arrow. Hun Cavalry Archers become comparable to foot archers in cost, so you pretty much have no reason to use Crossbowmen or Arbalests. This is accurate since the vast majority of Hun armies were mounted.

I'm not sure why the Huns get this bonus. They were really good at sacking and destroying cities, but they weren't really all that high tech, and they didn't have Trebs. Of course, the Treb is supposed to be a common siege weapon for all civs, so taking it away from a civ would be kind of bad but giving a civ a bonus for something they didn't use is really weird. The Huns definitely used Roman siege weapons they had a Battering Ram when they attacked Utus in the Balkans, and catapults and ballista when they could procure them intact.

TEAM BONUS: Stables work +20% faster

Another cavalry bonus. This ensures that a Hun player will use both the Cavalry Archers AND their Stable units. The Huns in particular used lots of light cavalry, armed with lances. The invention of the stirrup meant that a horseman could sit in his horse and hold a lance while galloping at full charge. When he runs into an enemy, the stirrup means he won't just fall off his horse and die. The Huns were credited for transferring the stirrup from Asia to Europe, and thus they could be credited for the dominance of heavy cavalry during the middle ages.

HOLLA HOLLA THE THE HUN TECH TREE PLAYA

When the developers created the Tarkan, they probably imagined a unit that would walk into enemy cities, destroy key fortifications, and run out. The reality is not so great. In actual gameplay, the Tarkan attack a bit slower than other units: something like 1 per 2.14 seconds. Most other units do 1 every 2 seconds or less. Because of the slow attack, a group of Tarkans end up doing the same damage to most buildings as an equal number Knights, but they falter in combat due to their lower attack and speed. One thing that they ARE good at is destroying Castles, and they do so significantly faster than Knights. Don't try to use them on Bombard Towers though. Let's analyze them historically. If you look closely, the Tarkans are primed for raiding. They are armed with torches (which would explain their lack of battle prowess, it's kind of hard to fight man to man with a torch), they have high HPs and pierce armor, which allows them to shrug off arrow fire from buildings. They are as fast as Knights, which is still pretty quick, so they can sometimes dodge those same arrows. This actually ends up giving them an interesting parallel to their fellow barbarian unique unit, the Gothic Huskarls Huskarls have extremely high piece armor instead of extremely high HP, and as infantry, they have an attack bonus versus buildings (Gothic infantry in general also have +1 bonus vs buildings). The word "Tarkan" is a title like Duke or Lord. You can find the word Tarkan or Tarqan or Tarjahan used by various Turco-Mongolic tribes to denote a regional governor or a general. The Tarkan in AoE2 is supposedly light cavalry, but they are actualy just as fast as Knights and have almost as high HP, so that kind of goes out the window. If I had designed the game, I would have made the Tarkan similar to a Hussar, but with maybe less HP and higher Attack. Incidentally, the Forgotten Empires mod/expansion has what is essentially a higher Attack powered Hussar as the Unique Unit of the Magyars.


The Weapons of the Huns —The Lasso of Fear

Because the nature of fear is so grounded in human history, it has always been the primary motivator for ruthless rulers to command the masses. But from a strategic perspective, this is where the Huns excelled at. As a barbaric tribe that waged wars and killed many people through the many battles, they waged fear across the Vzhodno rimsko cesarstvo. They were a force to be trifled with. The Huns used various weapons to equip themselves when readying themselves for a battle.

One such equipment was the engravement of facial scars to look more fierce to the enemy. Od psychological standpoint, this technique is perhaps one of the smartest ploys incorporated to raise the bar for their ferocious force. Human beings have always felt agitated when coming across people with facial scars. Why wouldn’t we as its deeply rooted in our cultural norms? Would you think of messing with someone who had a knife wound to the face, with a striking glare in his eyes?

It was a customary practice to mark their faces by cutting scars with a knife for Hun warriors.

Of course, naturally, we would be afraid of such a person. As it would consciously alert us to not mess with them. Because they have taken a knife to the face and still stand to tell the tale about it. This was one of the ploys Hun’s forces took into consideration. Even though they were fearless, but marking themselves gave them a necessary advantage coupled with their barbaric chants when riding their horses into battle. When they killed the soldiers, marching into war. This naturally gave them the edge to pioneer their enemies into submission.

Among other notorious weapons was the Lasso. The Huns were known to be masters of using the lasso to capture their prey. Initially, one warrior would track the enemy and use the lasso to grab the captive, dragging them aside. Whereas another warrior would catch up and then proceed to kill them. This strategy was so productive during front-row battles. It contributed towards adding more fear into the hearts of the enemy who abandoned their posts to avoid being caught and mercilessly killed by the Hun warriors.

However, the most significant asset of the Hun warriors was not their scars or the lasso. It was but their ability to ride the horse, yeehaw. Horses were their best possession as they used them to look after their large herds of cattle and sheep. This trained them in their daily lives to become warriors of the craft. The Hun warriors were primarily horseback warriors, using their spears and bows to attack their enemies. Equipped with their offensive nature which made them tactile. This gave them a competitive advantage over their enemies who were fighting on foot to a compromising defeat.


Creating an enemy

Alaric came to Rome not as an foreign aggressor, but as Cullen Murphy explains in his recent review for Atlantik on the book Alaric the Goth: An Outsider's History of the Fall of Rome by Douglas Boin, but as a Latin-speaking Christian who had served in the Roman army, saving the day at the Battle of Frigidus in 394 where he lost 10,000 men. However, Rome didn't recognize the Goth's sacrifice, so he plundered Greece until Emperor Arcadius granted him the title of General of Illyricum, a position soon eliminated in a reshuffle.

So Alaric had good reason to feel aggrieved, but the rest of the Goths did as well. Twenty years previously, the Goths entered Roman territory as refugees before the ferocity of Attila the Hun. The Romans granted them land to cultivate for the Roman people while also acquiring an agreement to call on the Goths for military support. Vendar pa po mnenju Kremenčev, the Roman officers in charge of the Goths were corrupt and began selling them dog meat instead of their agreed upon provisions. This caused the Goths to rebel and kill the Eastern Emperor at the Battle of Adrianople in 372, thus placing the Empire as a whole in a place of weakness.


Resilience and grit

A number of examples all prove the one simple case that the Romans didn’t know how to lose dolgoročno. You can look at the defeats at a tactical level of battles such as Cannae against Hannibal, you can look at various engagements in the eastern Mediterranean, or examples like Teutoburg Forest where Varus lost his three legions – but the Romans always came back.

What most opponents of Rome, particularly the Principate of Rome (from the age of Augustus through to the Diocletian reformation in the late 3rd century), didn’t tend to realise was that even if they won a tactical victory, the Romans themselves had one objective in these engagements and they pursued it relentlessly until they won.

It’s no better illustrated than if you look at the late Republican engagements against the Hellenistic world. There, you have these Hellenistic armies of Macedon and the Seleucid Empire fighting the Romans and realising at certain stages during battles that they may have lost and trying to surrender.

But the Romans kept on killing them because they had this relentless obsession with achieving their goals. So basically, the bottom line is the Romans always came back. If you beat them once they still came back.

Pyrrhus achieved two victories against the Romans and at one time was very close to making Rome submit. But the Romans came back and in the end emerged victorious in the war.


Postscript : Attila the Ukrainian : History’s famed barbarian may have been the head of a Slavic tribe based on the Dnieper River.

Attila the Hun is back. After resting peacefully in the history books for 1,500 years, the barbarian warlord, dubbed “the Scourge of God” after he plundered 5th-Century Europe, is again at the center of a battle.

This time, the conflict is academic. The weapons are obscure citations in Byzantine texts. And the prize, if one could call him that, is Attila himself--and a new, prouder sense of Ukrainian identity.

Attila the Hun commanded a tribe of fierce horsemen whose savagery and military prowess won them fame and fear throughout Europe. In 451, they attacked the frontier of the Roman Empire. And they might even have taken Rome itself had the Pope not interceded with Attila to spare it.

Almost any encyclopedia will tell you that these barbarians who made the Romans shake in their sandals were Asian nomads who set out from Mongolia sometime in the 4th Century and, under Attila’s rule, set up their capital in territory that eventually became Hungary.

But now Hryhory Vasylenko, a historian at Kiev State University, has concluded that the encyclopedias are wrong. The Huns, he claims, were neither Asians nor nomads. They were a Slavic tribe called Polanians. And they were not based in Hungary, either. Byzantine accounts of diplomatic journeys to Attila’s capital show that the king of the Huns built his city on the Dnieper River, in present-day Ukraine, according to Vasylenko.

The search for Attila’s pedigree is about a lot more than historiography. It’s Ukrainian self-identity that’s at issue.

Ukrainian historians point out that during the 350 years that Ukraine was a Russian colony, it was not permitted to have a history of its own--a deprivation that today’s independent Ukraine is determined to correct.

That the Huns spent time in Ukraine, known then as “Scythia,” is beyond question. With the Antes, a federation of Slavic tribes led by the Polanians, they chased the Goths out of Scythia in 376. Then, for good measure, they pillaged a few of the Greek city-states that dotted the Black Sea coast.

But Vasylenko’s implication that the Scourge of God’s name should be changed to “Attila the Slav” is sure to raise eyebrows in academic circles, as will his theory that Attila was not just any Slav. Supposedly, he was Kij, the fabled Polanian prince who legend says founded Kiev in the 5th Century.

What’s more, Vasylenko believes that Attila-Kij was the victim of a bad historical rap, devised by Byzantine historians to disparage their enemy. Far from being a savage who drank from his slain enemies’ skulls, Vasylenko’s Attila was noble, fair and wise, a talented diplomat and one of Ukraine’s first freedom fighters, waging war against the Roman Empire to avenge injustice against his people.

Actually, Attila the Hun’s rehabilitation is just one of the controversial historical assertions percolating through Ukrainian popular culture as scholars, enthusiastic amateurs and even a few crackpots search through the millennia for their past.

The Tripillians, a neolithic agricultural society that flourished on the west bank of the Dnieper River 5,000 years ago, hold a special fascinationtoday.

The Tripillians hold many claims to fame, including the world’s first two-story houses and painted pottery that UCLA archeologist Marija Gimbutas praised for its “remarkable artistic maturity.”

But Ukrainian archeologist Yuri Shylov has more ambitious assertions. In direct challenge to the widely held view that writing was invented around 3100 BC in the Mesopotamian city-state of Sumer, Shylov claims that the Tripillians did it first. Unfortunately, he can’t prove it.

The evidence--clay tablets with cuneiform-type markings discovered in Tripillian excavations--disappeared from an archeological archive in the 1970s.

While proof of Tripillian literacy would be an academic bombshell, some of the historical revisions coming out of independent Ukraine have potentially explosive political implications.

“Russia stole Ukraine’s history,” charged Omejlan Pritsak, a retired Harvard University history professor now working in Kiev. Now that Ukraine is independent, it wants its history back.

The history is that of Kievan Rus, the medieval empire centered in the capital founded by Vasylenko’s Attila-Kij. At its zenith in the 10th and 11th centuries, Kiev was an international center of trade, scholarship and religion. It ruled a tribal federation that stretched from the Carpathian mountains to the Volga, and from the Black Sea to the Baltic.

But in 1240, Mongols sacked the city and most of Kievan Rus fell under the Golden Horde.

That much is not very controversial. What happened afterward is. Two hundred years later, a small principality called Muscovy (later Moscow) chased the Mongols out and proclaimed itself the successor to Kievan Rus. Only Muscovy did not even exist during Kiev’s heyday, and the tribes that lived there were not Slavs. They were Finno-Ugric.

To explain away that fact, Russian historians decided that the Slavic inhabitants of Kievan Rus all migrated north under pressure from the Mongols. They became the modern Russian nation. As for the Ukrainians, they came from somewhere else (no one bothered much to find out where) and settled on the territory around Kiev centuries later.

According to Ukrainian historian Vitaly Shevchuk, Muscovy’s claim to Rus created a pretext for expanding its empire by “gathering together the Rus lands” that had fragmented after the Mongol invasion. It also created the myth of the Russian “elder brother,” whose prerogative was telling his Slavic “little brother” (Ukraine) what to do, Shevchuk said in an interview published by a Kiev newspaper.

Thus, when Muscovy absorbed Ukraine in 1654, the Russians called the result a “reunion.” Three hundred years later, the Soviets celebrated the occasion by building a giant “Arch of the Reunion” on the hills above the Dnieper. But now the Ukrainians are calling that so-called reunion “annexation,” and while newspapers regularly publish schemes for demolishing the arch, scholars like Shevchuk and Pritsak are poking holes in Russia’s version of history and its claim to Kievan Rus.

Saying that Kievan Rus is a part of Russian history, argues Pritsak, would be like American historians “saying that Shakespeare was an American” because many colonists came from England.

That view faces an uphill battle when every encyclopedia traces Russia’s history back to Kiev. Nevertheless, Pritsak, who was instrumental in founding Harvard’s Institute of Ukrainian Studies, believes that his Western colleagues will soon come to accept the Ukrainian version of history.

But persuading Russians, most of whom remain convinced that Rus is synonymous with Russia, could be a matter of strategic significance.

If reactionaries come to power in Moscow, Ukraine could again be the victim of a campaign to “gather together the Rus lands” that fragmented with the Soviet Union’s collapse. Unless, of course, a new Attila-Kij appears to lead the anti-imperial battle.


Death of Valens

Two-thirds of the Eastern army were killed, according to Ammianus, putting an end to 16 divisions. Valens was among the casualties. While, like most of the details of the battle, the details of Valens' demise are not known with any certainty, it is thought that Valens was either killed towards the end of the battle or wounded, escaped to a nearby farm, and there was burned to death by Gothic marauders. A supposed survivor brought the story to the Romans.

So momentous and disastrous was the Battle of Adrianople that Ammianus Marcellinus called it "the beginning of evils for the Roman empire then and thereafter."

It is worth noting that this catastrophic Roman defeat occurred in the Eastern Empire. Despite this fact, and the fact that among the precipitating factors for the fall of Rome, barbarian invasions must rank very high, the fall of Rome, barely a century later, in A.D. 476, did not occur within the Eastern Empire.

The next emperor in the East was Theodosius I who conducted clean up operations for 3 years before concluding a peace treaty with the Goths. See Accession of Theodosius the Great.



Komentarji:

  1. Daniele

    It's not quite what I need.

  2. Crowley

    Vidim, hvala za vašo pomoč pri tej zadevi.

  3. Kekinos

    Dobro opravljeno, to izjemno idejo je treba povedati.

  4. Readman

    In kje na tebi logika?

  5. Necage

    is cleaned

  6. Huxly

    Imaš odlično idejo

  7. Mazuramar

    Čestitam, zdi se mi briljantna misel



Napišite sporočilo