7 ms·
>The violence of the Hunnic elites that was so dramatically recorded in late Roman written sources could thus have been a consequence of climatic fluctuations i
by jaclaz 4y ago
>The violence of the Hunnic elites that was so dramatically recorded in late Roman written sources could thus have been a consequence of climatic fluctuations in the first half of the 5th c.
Or possibly the descriptions were largely fabricated by the Romans in their writings, that the article itself specifies as being largely non-contemporary.
- Simon_O_Rourke 4y agoI think it's safe to assume they were properly violent, however maligned they may have been by Roman sources.
- jaclaz 4y agoSurely, rarely invaders (successful ones) have not been violent, historically. But I don't think that the Goths, the Gauls and the Romans were that much less violent in fights. And if the cause is the draught, then it should have raised the violence in all the populations affected in the area, not only the Huns.
- 082349872349872 4y agoOne violence advantage pastoral peoples have over settled is that they are accustomed to herding, and driving said herds to slaughter; we have several thousands of years of history that tell us it is relatively common for h sapiens to take a skill once learned for dealing with 4 legged animals and apply it to 2 legged. (another example: cartoon feudalism is the notion that dominance relations in a herd are also the proper organising metaphor for human society)
- chrisco255 4y agoThere's evidence of brutal violence between human tribes going far back into hunter-gatherer days as well. Even our closest primate cousins, the chimps, engage in brutal violence between each other: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War
- jessaustin 4y agoThat's true, but it operates at a different level than parent is talking about. Romans and Huns were both human, so they both had a capacity for violence. Performance improves with practice, however. Parent contends that the inherent (inter-species) violence of pastoral life functioned as practice for the Huns' violent conflict with Rome. That isn't totally convincing, given that Rome at that time had dominated pastoral cultures for hundreds of years. It's possible that Rome had become more vulnerable, and the Huns just had good timing.
- 082349872349872 4y agoGood point, although I'll note that Romans were known for their infantry, and their armies tended to recruit non-Roman (pastoral?) auxiliaries for cavalry.
- krisoft 4y ago> Parent contends that the inherent (inter-species) violence of pastoral life functioned as practice for the Huns' violent conflict with Rome. But the Romans also butchered animals at massive scales. Why would there be more inter-species violence in pastoral life than in settled life?
- 082349872349872 4y agoButchering an animal that has been led to slaughter is distinct from driving a herd. In the former, an animal is led by rope/nose ring/etc. fairly directly. In the latter, the drover uses action from a distance[0] to indirectly control the direction and speed of a group[1] of animals. I contend that the skills practised[2] doing the latter are, far more than those practised doing the former, conducive to violently routing[3] a group of humans. Sources: discussions w/ ranchers, circus trainers, prison guards [0] changes in posture, etc. [1] who, depending upon excitement level, may be actively seeking to evade control [2] especially experience with manipulating the fight/flight bubble [3] mainly as in rout, not route
- 4y ago