5 ms·

I think it's safe to assume they were properly violent, however maligned they may have been by Roman sources.

jaclaz 4y ago
Surely, 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 ago
One 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 ago
  There'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 ago
    That'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 ago
      Good 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 ago
        Butchering 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
        jessaustin 4y ago
        I have cattle, and I generally consider that when violence occurs, I've made a mistake. I prefer to arrange facilities and practices so that cattle rarely feel fear, since they can be controlled almost completely by habit, annoyance, and gluttony. Of course, the Huns didn't have barbed wire or any other modern convenience, but they probably had a much higher herder-to-animal ratio than I have. I'm sure they were fabulous horsemen and experienced in killing mammals, but no cattle herd will prosper if it is regularly subjected to terror. I expect that other domesticated species such as sheep and goats would similar; horses certainly are. Not everyone agrees with my philosophy! Farm stores sell lots of electric "cattle prod" devices.
  - shagmin 4y ago
    I don't have a particular citation or anything for this. But a general point I've gathered from learning history is prior to the age of gun powder, there's always been this tension between nomadic pastoralist societies and farming societies. Pastoralist societies lived in environments that conditioned them better for war (and a zero-sum mindset) but bad at setting up long lasting institutions. They often had better nutrition, didn't need to rely on supply trains, they often lived a significant portion of their life on horseback, etc.,. Huns, Tamerlane, Ghengis Khan, Cossacks, Golden Horde, Turks, Magyars, Avars, Khazars, Cumans, etc., some of them settled down. Kingdoms had to deal with these groups in different ways than they did their conventional rivals, but most of the time they were small and unorganized enough to where they were only a threat for small groups they can easily pick off.

Surely, 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 ago

One 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 ago
There'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 ago
  That'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 ago
    Good 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 ago
      Butchering 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
      - jessaustin 4y ago
        I have cattle, and I generally consider that when violence occurs, I've made a mistake. I prefer to arrange facilities and practices so that cattle rarely feel fear, since they can be controlled almost completely by habit, annoyance, and gluttony. Of course, the Huns didn't have barbed wire or any other modern convenience, but they probably had a much higher herder-to-animal ratio than I have. I'm sure they were fabulous horsemen and experienced in killing mammals, but no cattle herd will prosper if it is regularly subjected to terror. I expect that other domesticated species such as sheep and goats would similar; horses certainly are. Not everyone agrees with my philosophy! Farm stores sell lots of electric "cattle prod" devices.
- shagmin 4y ago
  I don't have a particular citation or anything for this. But a general point I've gathered from learning history is prior to the age of gun powder, there's always been this tension between nomadic pastoralist societies and farming societies. Pastoralist societies lived in environments that conditioned them better for war (and a zero-sum mindset) but bad at setting up long lasting institutions. They often had better nutrition, didn't need to rely on supply trains, they often lived a significant portion of their life on horseback, etc.,. Huns, Tamerlane, Ghengis Khan, Cossacks, Golden Horde, Turks, Magyars, Avars, Khazars, Cumans, etc., some of them settled down. Kingdoms had to deal with these groups in different ways than they did their conventional rivals, but most of the time they were small and unorganized enough to where they were only a threat for small groups they can easily pick off.