THE BLACK HUNS

 

When most people in the western hemisphere hear the name, Huns, they picture the group I have identified in this gallery as Black/Northern Huns, or they think of their most famous leader, Attila. Physically, the Black/Northern Huns are described as looking different than the Blue/Eastern Huns and their offshoots (the Red and White Huns)—the northerners are generally described as having Asiatic or Altaic features, and the easterners and southerners as having Caucasian or Europoid features. Among the prejudices we know of from the writings of ancient historians, perhaps the most prominent ones are political, social, and economic elitism. Basically, most ancient writers (poets and playwrites, as well as historians and annalists) catered to the tastes of the elites, and therefore one of the more difficult aspects of studying history today is that we have very little good historical information regarding the lower orders of any given pre-modern society. The elites of any given society tended to erect monuments to their own glory, and they patronized artists that did the same. If you were an artist (including writers) and wanted to make a living as such, you needed a patron or you would starve (literally). This was also generally true of the visual arts. Therefore, in the military sphere, we usually only hear about the accomplishments, accoutrements, panoply, and pageantry of emperors, kings, chieftains, and nobles/aristocrats of various stripes, and if those perceived to be of politically, socially, or economically inferior stock appear at all, they are usually treated tersely and often with disdain. In relation to the Huns, many modern historians have suggested that the differences in the physical descriptions of different groups may be due to the fact that Greek, Latin, Chinese, Persian, and Indian writers were only writing about the ruling clans—in other words, all the Hunnic groups had the same broad ethnic makeup (with subgroups of Aryan, Mongolic, Samoyedic, and Ugrian peoples), but the Black/Northern Huns may have been dominated by clans that were Mongolic, Samoyedic, and/or Ugrian, while the Blue/Eastern Huns may have been dominated by clans that were Aryan. And writers of the period only paid attention to the details regarding those they perceived to be the Hunnic elites. It's a reasonable theory. As I discuss on the gallery page, there is no archeological, genetic, or linguistic evidence that indicates any sharp differences in the material culture, language, or ethnic makeup of the various Hunnic groups that first developed in the first through the fourth centuries CE in a broad area of the Kazakh steppe that ran from the Ural River in the west to the Altay Mountains in the east, and also included the southeastern Zhetysu region of Kazakhstan (i.e., the steppes to the east of Lake Balkhash). After the Blue/Eastern Huns migrated into Transoxania-Ferghana and Bactria, they would have intermingled with other Aryan peoples (the Khwarazmians, Sogdians, Bactrians, Kushans, and Saka), and after the Red/Southern Huns broke off from the Xionite horde and migrated into Pakistan and northwestern India they would have further intermingled with the Indo-Aryan peoples, and it is obvious from the historical and numismatic evidence that the elites of the Blue and Red Huns both gravitated toward the Iranian elite culture of the regions in which they settled, which would have further reinforced the idea that their elites looked and acted like Aryans. I discuss the White/Western Huns in more detail on the White Hun page, but suffice it to say here that I favor the interpretation of the evidence that indicates that their hordes might have initially been composed of Aryan subgroups from the southwestern Kazakh steppe and what is today Turkmenistan (Dahae, Massagetae, and possibly Saka), but they seem to have been deeply influenced by the development of Hunnic culture to their north and east (or they simply chose to adopt it for its cultural caché), and after they took over the dominion of the Xionites they would of course have intermingled with the same elite groups (they probably already had an Iranian elite culture, however).

 

The group that I have herein identified as Black/Northern Huns seem to have coalesced in northern Kazakhstan (ca. 93-370 CE). Early Greek writers (Procopios, Eunapios, Olympiodoros, and Priscos) referred to the Huns as Ounnoi/Xounoi and Latin writers (Ammianus Marcellinus, Jordanes, Jerome, Cassiodorus, Hydatius, and Claudian) followed suit with Hunni/Chuni, but we do not know whether these writers were basing this on a known autonym (i.e., the name by which the Huns knew themselves) or if it was a descriptive term (there are a large number of etymological theories). As I mention on the gallery page, the Roman historian, Tacitus, traced their origins to northern Central Asia in the first century CE—which has been corroborated by modern archeology—but they do not get mentioned again until 370 CE, when a large group of Huns crossed the Ural River into Europe. At that time, a nomadic people called the Alans (see my Western Aryan Nomads gallery) inhabited the steppes between the Ural and Volga rivers, both of which flow into the Caspian Sea from the north, although it is believed that some groups of Alans may have lived to the east of the Caspian Sea on the Ust Urt Plateau of Kazakhstan, and to the west of the Caspian Sea as far south as the Kuma River. If this is so, it is possible that the easternmost Alans may have played a role in the ethnogenesis of the Black/Western Huns. At one time it was believed that the Alans were the first victims of the Hunnic invasion of Europe, but it seems that at least some of the Alans were allies of the Huns during the early stages of their westward migration (ca. 370-406 CE)—some modern historians have suggested that there may have been some sort of power struggle within the Alanic realm, and one side allied with the Huns to tip the scales in their favor. Be that as it may, there was a sizeable contingent of Alans that joined the Hunnic hordes as they headed westward, while others were driven westwards across the Pontic-Caspian steppe, and still others were driven southward onto the North Caucasian Plain (Circassia and Ossetia). This latter group eventually founded a kingdom in the foothills and adjacent steppelands of the eastern Caucasus Mountains—Alania (ca. 370-1239 CE). Those that fled westwards set off a chain of events that would be repeated several times as the Huns spread westwards—refugees would destabilize the socio-political polity to their west and spread fear of the Huns with their tales of Hunnic savagery, Hunnic hordes would invade and assimilate those they did not kill or drive westwards, and the process would be repeated after relatively short periods of consolidation. Initially, the Hunnic invasion/migration seems to have been piecemeal—there was no centralized leadership, different hordes had more-or-less independent chieftains that sometimes cooperated and sometimes competed (including the Alans), and as the Huns moved westward various groups settled down on chunks of territory they thought they could hold, while most continued to head westward. The success of these groups seems to have depended on their individual tactical and technological sophistication (discussed on the gallery page) and, frankly, the lack of cohesion within the Alanic, Germanic, and Sarmatian kingdoms they encountered. By the time they reached the Roman Empire, the Roman frontier system was overwhelmed by the unprecedented scale of the Germanic migrations that preceded the Huns (called the Völkerwanderung in German), although I think it is important to point out that the only sizeable Roman territory the Huns managed to occupy for any length of time was the Pannonian Basin (a large stretch of grassland that is part of modern Hungary, a nation that takes its name from the Huns).

 

As they continued west after their encounter with the Alans, the Huns also seem to have conquered or assimilated various groups of Sarmatians (Alpidzuri, Itimari, Tuncarsi, Akatziri, and Boisci)(the Sarmatians were another western Aryan nomad group like the Alans) that lived on the Pontic-Caspian steppe (ca. 375-? CE), before they went on to destroy the Gothic kingdoms of the Greuthungians (ca. 375-376 CE) in the Ukraine, and the Thervingians (ca. 376-378 CE) in Moldavia and eastern Romania (see my East Germanic Peoples gallery). A Hunnic chieftain named Balamber/Balamir/Balamur seems to have established his horde in what had been the Greuthungian Kingdom (ca. 376-? CE), and a powerful Hunnic chieftain named Uldin/Huldin established his horde in what had been the Thervingian Kingdom (ca. 378-412 CE). The Alans broke their alliance with the Huns shortly after the conquest of the Thervingian Kingdom (ca. 394-406 CE), migrated across southern Poland into Bohemia and Moravia (at that time inhabited by the Vandals, a group of East Germanic peoples) and then southern Germany (at that time inhabited by the Suebi and Buri, West Germanic peoples)—a fact that lends credence to the theory that at least some of the Alans were partners rather than subjects of the Huns. The Alans, Vandals, Suebi, and Buri then forced the Rhine frontier of Rome together (the Great Rhine Crossing of 406 CE), migrated through southern Gaul (France)(ca. 407-408 CE), crossed the Pyrenees Mountains (ca. 409 CE), and conquered much of Roman Hispania (Spain)(ca. 409-429 CE). Other unnamed Hunnic hordes apparently swept into Belarus and southern Poland, where they destroyed several Gothic kingdoms that are known primarily from archeology (as is their destruction at this time), although it is believed that the Gothic groups that forced the Roman Danube frontier in 421, 427, 455, 466, 470, and 471 CE were likely refugees from the Hunnic conquest of Belarus and southern Poland. The East Germanic Gepids, who at that time inhabited western Romania (Gepidia), seem to have fallen under Hunnic hegemony in about 405-406 CE. The Roman writer, Jordanes, wrote that Thorismund, king of the Goths and subject of Uldin, defeated the Gepids in a great battle in 405 CE and thereby brought the Gepids under Uldin's dominion, but some modern historians have questioned this account. First of all, Jordanes was a Romanized Goth in the court of the Ostrogoths in Italy in the mid-sixth century CE, his historical work strives always to portray the Goths in the best possible light, and he had an avowed dislike for the Gepids. Even he admitted, however, that Thorismund died in the battle, and there is no evidence of Gepid refugees fleeing into the Roman Empire en masse, as had the Goths. Therefore, it seems likely that the Goth-Gepid battle in 405 may have been a stalemate, and that the Gepids were thereby able to submit to Uldin on better terms than they might have had if they had lost outright. Certainly, the Gepids rose fast in the esteem of the Huns and became one of the Hunnic Empire's most important subject groups by the time of Attila (Jordanes was forced to admit that Attila prized the advice of Ardaric, king of the Gepids, above all others). Uldin was succeeded by Charaton (412-422 CE), whose primary claim to fame is the conquest of the Pannonian Plain—a large grassland that straddled both sides of the Roman Danube frontier (modern Hungary). The Pannonian Plain proved to be the perfect staging area for Hunnic hordes, providing wide grasslands for their horse herds and giving easy access to the Balkans (to the southeast), Germany (to the northwest), and Italy (to the southwest).

 

It is after the reign of Charaton that we see emerge a dual kingship in the western Hunnic realm with the brothers, Octar (422-430 CE) and Rugila/Ruga/Ruas (422-435 CE), named as kings—this was a division of the realm of Uldin and Charaton, although we do not know what relationship Octar and Rugila bore to either Uldin or Charaton (or the relationship of Uldin and Charaton, if any). Octar is believed to have ruled the hordes west and north of the Carpathian Mountains (the Pannonian, Transylvanian, Wallachian, and Polish plains), while Rugila commanded the hordes east of the Carpathians (the Baragan and Eastern Plains of Romania, the Moldavian Plateau, and probably Ukraine). Rugila invaded the East Roman Empire in 422 CE. He ravaged the Balkans as far south as the walls of Constantinople before the Romans agreed to pay him 330 pounds of gold per year if he agreed to withdraw north of the Danube (he agreed). When Octar died in 430 CE—he was probably killed fighting the Burgundians, an East Germanic people that inhabited southern Germany following the egress of the Suebi and Buri—Rugila temporarily reunited the two realms under his rule until his own death five years later of unknown causes. Following Rugila's death, the nascent Hunnic Empire was once again divided into two realms, each commanded by a nephew of Rugila—Bleda (435-442 CE) east of the Carpathians, and Attila (435-453 CE) west and north of the Carpathians. In 435 CE, Bleda and Attila convinced the East Roman Empire to increase the annual tribute paid to the Huns since the time of Rugila (ca. 422 CE)—the Treaty of Margus stipulated 700 pounds of gold per annum. In 437 CE, Attila allied himself with the West Roman general, Aetius, and together they annihilated the Burgundian Kingdom (the surviving Burgundians were resettled in Roman territory as federates). It is believed that Attila wished to avenge the death of Octar at the hands of Gundahar, king of the Burgundians. The brutality of the Huns impressed the neighboring Germanic peoples greatly (in a time when everyone was pretty brutal)—according to several later Germanic and Scandinavian sagas developed from earlier oral legends (e.g., the Nibelungenlied and Völsunga saga), Attila had the skull of the Burgundian king, Gundahar/Gunther, used in the making of a drinking goblet that he liked to use while negotiating with other rivals. The alliance of Attila and Aetius lasted until about 444 CE—Hunnic mercenaries served in Aetius' armies in Gaul against the Bagaudae (Gallo-Roman rebels) and the Visigoths. In 440 CE, Attila launched an attack across the Danube against the East Roman Empire, razing a number of important cities (Margus, Viminacium, Singidunum, and Sirmium). He claimed the invasion was in retaliation for the desecration of Hunnic graves by the bishop of Margus, a city in the Roman province of Moesia Superior. This invasion was mysteriously called off, and Attila retreated north of the Danube (ca. 442/443 CE). Some historians believe Attila's army was struck with disease, others that the Romans agreed to pay him off, but I think the answer probably lies with Attila's dynastic ambitions. Bleda died sometime between 442 and 447 CE, and Attila became sole ruler of the Huns thereafter. Legend has it that Attila killed Bleda while the two were hunting together, but the correlation of the dates seems suggestive (i.e., Attila left off his campaign against the East Roman Empire around the same time Bleda is believed to have died). It seems to me likely that Bleda may have died in 442 CE, whether or not at the hands of Attila, and Attila ended his campaign against the East Roman Empire so that he could seize Bleda's realm. Attila is first mentioned as king of all the Huns in 447 CE, but it is entirely possible that that is because he was consolidating his rule over the Hunnic hordes between 442/443 and 447 CE. When he re-emerges in the historical record as sole king (ca. 447 CE), it is in response to a surcease in the tribute first levied by Rugila in 422 CE, the sum having been increased under the terms of the Treaty of Margus—following Attila's abortive campaign against the East Romans (ca. 440-442/443 CE), it seems the Romans had had the effrontery to believe they should stop paying tribute (the tribute that supposedly dissuaded the Huns from attacking them). Attila launched another invasion of the Balkans (ca. 447-450 CE), this time with large auxiliary contingents of Gepids (led by king Ardaric) and Goths (led by king Valamer). The Romans attempted to open a second front against the Huns by encouraging the Sarmatian tribe of the Akatziri in eastern Ukraine to rebel against Attila's rule (their chieftain, Buridach, was plied with gifts). Attila sent one of his sons, Ellak, to subdue the Akatziri, and upon his successful completion of this task (ca. 448-449 CE), he was placed in charge of the hordes on the steppes north of the Black Sea (it does not seem like Attila's realm extended beyond the Don River). During his second Balkan invasion, Attila again reached the walls of Constantinople, and although he was unable to storm the imperial capital, the East Romans negotiated another increase in tribute in return for Attila's withdrawal north of the Danube.

 

The tribute was never forthcoming, but Attila changed his strategy vis-à-vis the Roman Empire. Attila's alliance with the West Roman general, Aetius, had become strained—Attila had provided one of the leaders of the Bagaudae (a rebel movement of Gallo-Roman peasants) refuge at his court (ca. 448 CE)(a man named Eudoxius), Aetius and Attila had backed opposing claimants to the throne of the Rhineland Frank Kingdom (ca. 450 CE)(Aetius had backed the king of the Salian Franks, Merovech, an ally of Rome, in his bid to unite the Rhineland and Salian Frank kingdoms, and Attila backed Childeric, who lost his bid and was forced to flee to Attila's court), and legend has it that the sister (Justa Grata Honoria) of the West Roman emperor, Valentinian III (425-455 CE), had offered Attila her hand in marriage if he would rescue her from her brother (she had undermined her brother's authority at court, and he had betrothed her to a minor Roman nobleman to get her away from court). In the spring of 451 CE, Attila attacked the territory of the Rhineland Franks (which lay along the eastern banks of the Rhine River), this time with a huge number of East Germanic auxiliaries (Gepids, Rugians, Scirians, and Goths). Attila made an alliance with the West Germanic Thuringians, whose territory lay in central Germany (the Harz Mountains region), to the east of the Rhineland Franks. The Thuringians invaded Frankish territory from the east, Attila's army from the south. The Rhineland Franks quickly capitulated, Attila placed Childeric on the throne, and when he crossed the Rhine into Gaul he was also accompanied by contingents of Thuringians and Rhineland Franks. At the time of Attila's invasion of Gaul, the Salian Franks had established a kingdom in northern Gaul around the area of the Rhine delta (king Merovech), the Visigoths also had established a kingdom in southern Gaul centered on the Garonne River (at that time ruled by Theoderic I), the Burgundians had reestablished their kingdom on the Roman side of the Rhine frontier in southeastern Gaul (modern Savoy)(at that time ruled by Gundioc), and there was an Alanic kingdom (at that time ruled by Sangiban) that lay to the west of the Burgundian Kingdom in the Loire Valley, centered on the city of Valentia/Valence. These kings were all nominally West Roman federates (i.e., treaty-bound allies of the empire)—Aetius had backed Merovech against Childeric for the rulership of the Rhineland Franks because he hoped that the united Frankish Kingdom this created would form a federate buffer state along the northern half of Rome's Rhine frontier, protecting Gaul from attacks by West Germanic groups like the Thuringians, Langobardians, and Warinians/Varinians, as well as the North Germanic Saxons, Angles, and Jutes. Attila sent a detachment of unknown composition north into the territory of the Salian Franks, apparently to keep them busy while he took his main army into central Gaul, sacking Mogontianum (modern Mainz), Treverorum (Trier), Medoimatrici (Metz), and Durocortorum (Rheims). He bypassed Lutetia/Paris—as legend has it, a Christian nun named Genevieve convinced the city's inhabitants to pray for deliverance—and marched on the Alanic city of Aurelianum (Orleans), where he was rejoined by his northern detachment (after raiding the Salian Franks, they had marched down the west coast of Gaul, sacking Tornacum/Tournai, Camaracum/Cambrai, Ambianum/Amiens, and Caesaromagus/Beauvais). By June of 451, Aetius had mustered a coalition army of Gallo-Roman troops (led by Avitus, the Praetorian Prefect of Gaul), Visigoths, and Burgundians at the city of Arelate/Arles in southern Gaul. They moved north to relieve the siege of Aurelianum, Attila was forced to withdraw as they approached, and the Alans joined Aetius in his pursuit of Attila—Attila apparently believed he did not have the strength to fight Aetius' coalition army, but despite his efforts to use his light cavalry (mostly Huns) to delay his pursuers, Aetius caught up with Attila near the city of Catalaunium (modern Châlons-en-Champagne) near the Rhine (Attila was apparently preparing to retreat across the Rhine into the Kingdom of the Rhineland Franks). This was also near the Salian Frank kingdom, and Merovech was able to join Aetius with a Frankish contingent. The battle, known variously as the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains (or Fields), the Battle of Campus Mauriacus ("the Field of Mars"), and/or the Battle of Châlons/Troyes/Maurica, seems to have been a Roman victory, although it proved far from decisive. On the first day of the battle (20 June), the Visigothic king (Theoderic) was slain while commanding his forces on the right wing of Aetius' army, but his son (Thorismund) took command, defeated the Amaling Goths and drove them from the field, then attacked Attila's command unit and reserve force. The commander of Attila's reserve, the Hunnic chieftain Laudaricus, was slain, and Attila was forced to flee to his camp. However, in the center, the Alans and Salian Franks had faired less well against Attila's son, Ellac/Ellak, who seems to have held off the charge of Sangiban's Alanic heavy cavalry, then as Thorismund's right wing Visigothic units pursued Attila to his camp, Ellak was able to outflank Sangiban and Merovech and force them to retire to their own camp. Ellak then rode back to the Hunnic camp and helped Attila to drive off the Visigoths (Thorismund was injured in this part of the battle). On the Roman left wing, Aetius and Avitus commanded the Gallo-Roman troops and Gundioc the Burgundian contingent—they were opposed by the Gepids (led by their king, Ardaric) and the remainder of Attila's Germanic allies (the Rhineland Franks under Childeric, and the Rugians and Scirians under their own leaders). The left wing battle seems to have been a stalemate, although when Childeric realized the dire straits that the rest of Attila's army had fallen into, he withdrew to the camp as well. On the second day of the battle (21 June), Aetius and his allies besieged Attila and his allies in their camp. Apparently, Thorismund and Merovech wanted to try to storm the Hunnic camp (which seems to have been fortified, probably by a wagon laager), but Aetius convinced them to let Attila withdraw across the Rhine (22 June). Latin sources for the battle accused Aetius of letting Attila go because he wanted to be able to use the chastened Huns in the future as a foil against the growing power of his own allies—the Franks, Burgundians, and Visigoths—and that he wanted to plunder the battlefield for himself (not only did he supposedly convince Thorismund and Merovech to let Attila go, but he was said to have urged them to return quickly to their homelands, Thorismund to secure his position as king, and Merovech to try to make good his claim to the Rhineland Frank Kingdom). This has always rung untrue to me. First of all, it makes Thorismund and Merovech look like easily manipulated, unsubtle barbarians—a popular theme among late Roman writers—and second of all, it portrays Aetius as a schemer who let Attila get away for his own gain (indeed, this was the charge later laid against him at the imperial court, and most of the Roman historians that wrote about the Battle of the Catalaunian Fields were in the employ of men that benefitted greatly from the later downfall of Aetius, ca. 454 CE).

 

Attila not only retreated safely across the Rhine, but he soon launched an invasion of Italy from Pannonia (ca. 452 CE), this time utilizing Goth, Scirian, Rugian, and Herul auxiliaries. He razed the city of Aquileia, sacked the cities of Medoacus/Padua, Mantua, Vicentia/Vicenza, Verona, Brixia/Brescia, Bergomum/Bergamo, and Mediolanum/Milan, and then beseiged Rome (the imperial capital was at that time at Ravenna, but Rome still had significant symbolic value)—Pope Leo I (400-461 CE) led the delegation that seems to have convinced Attila to lift the siege of Rome and return to Pannonia, but there is some evidence that Attila's army may actually have been struck by disease and dysentery. Nevertheless, Aetius' failure to stop Attila was the final nail in his political coffin, and the victor of the Catalaunian Fields was assassinated in 454 CE along with the emperor he served (Valentinian III). It is at this time that Attila was given the sobriquet, Flagellum Dei (Latin, "Scourge of God"), by Roman Catholic prelates (the scourge was a kind of barbed whip used at the time to punish criminals, and the reference suggested that Attila had been sent by God to punish the Romans for their iniquity). Attila returned to Pannonia and was apparently planning another invasion of the Balkans (in order to force the East Romans to start paying him tribute again) when he died (March 453 CE). The legend of his death is that he had taken another wife—the East Germanic princess, Ildico (we do not know to which East Germanic people she belonged)—probably to cement an alliance for the upcoming campaign, and at the wedding celebration his nose began to bleed, he collapsed, and then he died. Modern historical forensics experts believe that he suffered from a condition called esophageal varices, a condition common to abusers of alcohol that can cause rupture of the esophagus and fatal internal hemmorhaging. As it turned out, the Hunnic Empire (ca. 422-469 CE) proved short-lived, and it broke up following the failed attempts of Attila’s heirs (his three eldest sons)—Ellac/Ellak (453-454 CE), Dengizich (454-469 CE), and Ernak (469-? CE)—to hold the empire together. Ellak initially took over, but a rebellion led by the Gepid king, Ardaric, that also included the Hun's Rugian, Herul, Scirian, and Suebic subjects, defeated and killed Ellak at the Battle of Nedao (454 CE) in Pannonia. Dengizich took command of the Hunnic survivors from Nedao and its aftermath, although he was forced to abandon Pannonia and Gepidia and to establish his court east of the Carpathians. He invaded the Balkans (ca. 467-469 CE) with a large force of Sarmatian and Gothic auxiliaries, hoping to force the East Roman Emperor, Leo I (457-474 CE), to resume paying the Hunnic tribute, but Dengizich was defeated and killed by the Roman general, Anagastes (466-470 CE). This left Ernak in command of the Hunnic hordes that retreated back across the Danube into eastern Romania. However, Ernak seems to have withdrawn the bulk of his hordes from eastern Romania in 469 CE in order to repel an invasion of the eastern regions of the Hunnic Empire on the Pontic-Caspian steppe (see below). He disappears from history thereafter, making it difficult to affix a date to the end of the Hunnic Empire—some groups of Huns remained in eastern Romania and on the Polish Plain, and these may still have owed some sort of fealty to Ernak, an allegiance that may have been maintained by Ernak's potential successors in the Ukraine (see below). These Hunnic groups are believed to have been absorbed into the hordes of the Avars when they invaded Europe (ca. 557-822 CE).