In the literature devoted to the reconstruction of the weapons of the Huns, it is customary to write about it against the background of a wide time period. It seems to us that with this approach, the specifics are lost. This can be explained by the fact that we do not have the proper material for specific, definite periods.
Continuing the series of articles devoted to Byzantium, its allies and enemies in the 6th century, we are partly trying to fill this lacuna by describing the weapons and equipment of the Huns - nomadic tribes that lived in the territories adjacent to the borders of the Roman Empire.
I would also like to draw your attention to one more important aspect that causes heated debate in the unscientific literature about the ethnic basis of certain tribal nomad unions. As the comparative historical method shows, at the head of a nomadic tribal union is always a mono-ethnic group, the presence of other ethnic groups included in the union is always of a secondary, subordinate character. All nomadic groups of this period stand at different stages of the tribal system and represent a warrior people, welded together by an iron discipline associated with one goal - to survive and win. Excessive enrichment, property differentiation and "fat growth" instantly turn the dominant nomadic tribe into an object of attacks from poorer, but greedy for success groups and tribes. And this situation applies to both large nomadic unions (Avars, Pechenegs, Polovtsians) and “nomadic empires” (Turkic Khaganates, Khazars), only the symbiosis of nomadic societies with agricultural ones, and the settling of the former on the ground leads to the creation of states (Hungarians, Bulgarians, Volga Bulgars, Turks).
Introduction
Huns - tribes of Mongolian origin, in the I-II centuries. who began their journey from the borders of China to the West.
In the IV century. they invaded the steppes of Eastern Europe and defeated the "alliance of tribes", or the so-called. The "state" of Germanarich. The Huns created their own "union of tribes", which included many Germanic, Alanian and Sarmatian (Iranian) tribes, as well as the Slavic tribes of Eastern Europe. Hegemony in the union was at one, then at another tribal group of nomads.
They reached the peak of their power under Attila in the middle of the 5th century, when the Huns almost crushed the Western Roman Empire. After the death of the leader, the union collapsed, but in the 6th century the nomadic tribes remained a powerful military force. The Romans use units of the "barbarians" on their borders: from the Huns in the 6th century. consisted of the border detachments of Sacromantisi and Fossatisii (Sacromontisi, Fossatisii), as reported by Jordan.
The Huns, both federates and mercenaries, fought on the side of the empire in Italy and Africa, in the Caucasus, and on the other hand, they can be seen in the army of the Shahinshah of Iran. The fighting quality of these nomads was appreciated by the Romans and used by them.
In the battle at the Dara fortress (modern village of Oguz, Turkey) in the summer of 530, 1200 horsemen of the Huns played an important role in the victory over the Iranians.
The Huns, led by Sunika, Egazh, Simm and Askan, attacked the Persians from the right flank, breaking the formation of the most "immortals", and Simma personally killed the standard-bearer, the commander Varesman, and then the commander himself.
In the battle of Decimus in Africa on September 13, 533, the Hun federates played an important role, starting it and killing the general Gibamund, destroying his entire detachment. It is worth noting that the Romans forced the Huns to go to Africa.
And the commander Narses personally, using a feigned Hunnic flight, at the head of three hundred horsemen, lured and destroyed 900 francs.
In one night battle in the Caucasus, the Huns-Savirs on foot (!), Defeated the mercenaries of the Persians - the daylimits.
About the warriors-Huns, about their distinctive military features, wrote Procopius:
Among the Massagetae there was a man distinguished by exceptional courage and strength, but who commanded a small detachment. From his fathers and ancestors, he received the honorable right to be the first to attack enemies in all campaigns of the Huns.
During this period, the tribes of the Huns, or the so-called Huns, lived in vast areas from Panonia (Hungary) to the steppes of the North Caucasus, along the entire coast of the Black Sea. Therefore, obviously, they differed in clothing and weapons. If Ammianus Marcellinus in the IV century. portrayed them as "terrible savages" in clothing made of skins, with hairy bare legs in fur boots, then Mine, a member of the embassy to Attila, in the 5th century, draws a completely different image of the tribes subordinate to this leader.
Ethnic composition
It should be understood that for the Byzantine authors the "Huns" who lived in the steppes of Eastern Europe are somewhat alike. Although modern linguistic and partly archaeological data help to distinguish between different tribes of the "Hunnic circle" both temporally and ethnically. Moreover, many of them included both the Finno-Ugric and Indo-European tribes. And we know this from written sources.
Therefore, all arguments about the specifics in terms of ethnicity of certain tribes that lived in the steppes close to the borders of the Roman state are conjectural and cannot have a final decision.
I repeat, this is due to short reports from written sources, a few Byzantine authors, and the scarcity of archaeological data.
Let us dwell on those ethnic groups that were recorded by the Byzantine (Romeian) authors in the 6th century.
Akatsir - in the VI century. were in the Pontic steppes. In the 5th century they fought with the Persians, but, subordinate to Attila, migrated to Europe.
Bulgars, or Proto-Bulgarians, - a tribal union, which, most likely, lived on the territory of the Pontic steppes, east of the Akatsii. This, one might say, is not a "Hunnic" tribe. Presumably, they migrated to these regions during the fall of the hegemony of the “state” of Attila. The battles between the Romans and the Proto-Bulgarians began only at the end of the 5th century.
It should be noted that the so-called Proto-Bulgarians or Bulgars occupied a vast territory from the Danube to the Ciscaucasia, their history in these regions will be further developed here. In the 6th century, part of their horde will roam in the Danube region, and together with the Slavs, make trips to the Balkan Peninsula.
Kutrigurs, or kuturgurs, - a tribe, at the beginning of the VI century. living west of the Don. They received "gifts" from the empire, but, nevertheless, making campaigns within its borders. They were defeated by the Utigurs: some of them, with the support of the Gepids, moved in 550-551. in the Roman limits, some, later, fell under the rule of the Avars.
Utigurs - they are at the beginning of the 6th century. lived to the east of the Don, bribed by Justinian I in 551, defeated the Kuturgurs' nomad camps. Since the 60s, they fell under the rule of the Turks who came to these regions.
Alciagira (Altziagiri) roamed, according to Jordan, in the Crimea, near Kherson.
Savirs lived in the steppes of the North Caucasus, acted as mercenaries of the Romans and allies of the Persians.
Hunugurs a Hunnic tribe, close to or merging with the Savirs, perhaps the Finno-Ugric ethnic groups were part of this tribe.
It should be noted that the political situation in the steppe has always been extremely precarious: one tribe prevailed today, the other tomorrow. The settlement map of nomadic tribes was not static.
The appearance in the middle of the 6th century of a new tribal union, merciless steppe warriors, Avars, led to the fact that the remnants of the Hunnic nomadic tribes that lived here either joined the Avar union, or migrated to Byzantium and Iran, or, according to the custom of the steppe war, were destroyed.
Historical monuments practically did not convey to us the image of the Huns in the 6th century. The authors of this period do not describe their appearance, but enough weapons and other material evidence from the territories in which they lived have survived. But there are much fewer of them than in the 5th century. It can be assumed that the so-called. the Huns or nomads of the steppes bordering on Rome and Iran, with many similar weapons, belt sets, etc., had significant differences and features. Conventionally, they can be divided into nomads who are closer to Europe and have adopted or influenced the general barbaric European fashion since the time of Attila, such as, for example, a haircut in a circle, tunic shirts, pants tucked into soft shoes, etc. Such a feature in "fashion" can be seen already from the description of the Mine. At the same time, the nomads who lived to the east retained the imprint of the steppe fashion to a greater extent. Archaeological finds and the few surviving images help us trace this border, using more obvious Alans material: this is how the finds from the Crimea or the mosaics of Carthage depict Alans who "fell" under the German fashion, while the Alans of the Caucasus adhere to the "eastern" fashion. It can be clearly said that the evolution in the equipment of the Huns, since their description by Ammianus Marcellinus, is obvious. But, as noted by archaeologist VB Kovalevskaya: "The isolation of Hunnic antiquities is an attempt to solve a system of equations where the number of unknowns is too large."
Belt
We have already written about the special importance of belts in the armies of Rome and Byzantium. The same can be said about the belt sets in the nomadic environment, and if we know in detail about the meaning of belts among the nomads of the early Middle Ages from the works of S. A.
There are two opinions about heraldic belts. Some researchers believe that it was the Huns who brought them to the European steppes, others that this is a purely Roman military fashion, and this is evidenced by their almost complete absence in the Eurasian steppes until the middle of the 6th century, when they begin to spread after the contacts of new peoples with the Romans.
The belt set consisted of a main leather belt that wrapped around the warrior's waist and an auxiliary belt that descended from right to left, where the sword scabbard slid along it, along the piercing brace. From the main belt hung straps ending in tips, the pendants were hinged, and the tips of the straps were made of metal and decorated with various ornaments. The ornament could also have the meaning of "tamga", which could indicate the warrior's belonging to a clan or tribal group.
The number of dangling straps may have indicated the social status of the wearer. At the same time, the straps also had a utilitarian function; a knife, a handbag or a "purse" could be attached to them by means of buckles.
Onion
The most important weapon of the Huns, about the mastery of which historians wrote from the moment these tribes appeared on the borders of Europe:
They deserve to be recognized as excellent warriors, because from a distance they fight with arrows equipped with skillfully crafted bone tips.
But it should be noted that in the VI century. the Romans mastered this art just as well as the Huns: “The difference is that almost all the Romans and their allies, the Huns, are good archers from bows on horseback.”
The importance of the bow for the Hunnic tribes is evidenced by the fact that the bow was an attribute of their leaders, along with the sword. Such a bow was trimmed with gold foil and was of a symbolic nature: archaeologists discovered two such bows with gold plates. Moreover, the Huns also had quivers covered with foil made of non-ferrous metals.
It is customary to speak of a long-range bow of nomads with a length of about 1, 60 cm as a "revolution" in military affairs. Archaeologically, the “first” Hunnic bows of the 5th century are identical to the Sarmatian ones. A compound bow, at the initial stage, might not have bone plates. The lining, covering the ends of the bow, consists of four, later two, somewhat curved plates with a cutout at the end for attaching the bowstring; the middle bone onlays are wide and thin, with ends cut off at an angle. Compared with the 5th century, in the 6th century. the plates (in the Eastern European steppe) became more massive (finds of the 6th century from the city of Engels). Arrows found in archaeological sites: small triangular, large three-bladed and flat rhomboid with a ledge at the transition to the petiole, corresponding to the strength of the "Hunnic" bow. The weapon was carried as in a single set of the Greek toxopharethra type. Such warriors with a single "toxopharethra", where the bow and quiver are a single system, can be seen in the image of the Kenkol warriors of the 2nd-5th centuries. from Kyrgyzstan.
They were transferred separately. So we have such a quiver of the VI-VII centuries. from Kudyrge, Altai Territory. Manufacturing material - birch bark. Parameters: 65 cm in length, 10 cm - at the mouth, and at the base - 15 cm. Birch bark quivers could be covered with fabric or leather. The cover could be either hard, frame or soft, like the riders from the frescoes from the “blue” hall, room 41 from Penjikent.
It is important to note, and this is clearly shown to us by archaeological data, no matter how meager the living environment of the nomad was, special attention was paid to the decoration and equipment of weapons.
Weapons undoubtedly testified to the status of a warrior, but, above all, the status was determined by the place and courage of the warrior in the war: the warrior-rider sought to acquire a weapon that distinguished him from others.
Defensive and offensive weapons
Sword. This weapon, along with the bow, was symbolic for the Hunnic tribes. The Huns, as a warrior-people, worshiped swords as deities, about which the Mine wrote in the 5th century, and Jordan echoed him in the 6th century.
Along with swords, the Huns used, according to archeology, axes, spears, although we do not have written evidence of this, but Yeshu the Stylist wrote that the Huns also used clubs.
Even Ammianus Marcellinus wrote about the power of the Huns in the battle with swords. But in the VI century. Uldah the Hunn, who led the Roman and Hunnish troops near the city of Pizavra (Pesaro) in Italy, hacked the Alaman scouts with swords.
And if from the IV-V centuries. we have a sufficient number of finds of identical Hunnic weapons, then in the period under review, such weapons can be hypothetically attributed to the Hunnic.
In the steppe zone of Eastern Europe, we have, conditionally, two types of swords, differing in guard. Swords with a decorated crosshair in the style of cloisonné inlay were still encountered in the period under consideration, although the peak of "fashion" for them was in the 5th century. We have such swords of the late 5th - early 6th century. from the Black Sea coast of the Caucasus, and from Dmitrievka, Donetsk region of Ukraine. Some researchers believe that this sword should be attributed to the import from Byzantium, which, in our opinion, does not exclude the belonging of this weapon to the Huns.
Others were a sword with a diamond-shaped guard, like a weapon of the 6th century. from Artsybashevo, Ryazan region and from Kamut, Caucasus.
At the beginning of the century, we are dealing with a scabbard decorated in the same way as in the 5th century. They were made of wood or metal, covered with leather, cloth or foil of non-ferrous metals. The scabbard was decorated with semi-precious stones. The striking appearance of this weapon is just an imitation of wealth, since gold foil and semi-precious stones were used in its production. Until the first half of the VI century. swords are suspended on staples-threads or staples, to which they are attached vertically. Most often they were made of wood, but there were also metal.
From the middle of the VI century. the technology of making the scabbard has not changed, but they are less decorated. The main thing is that swords have a different way of attaching them to the waist belt; flat lateral protrusions in the form of the letter "p" with loops on the back side appeared on the scabbard for attaching to the straps coming from the belt. The sword was attached to the belt on two straps at an angle of 450, which probably made it easier to mount the horse. It can only be assumed that such an attachment appeared in the Asian steppe and penetrated into Iran. Such a mount is found on Sassanian swords from the Louvre and the Metropolitan. From there it penetrates into the steppes of Eastern Europe and further spreads throughout Europe. A Saxon with such an attachment was among the finds from the Lombard burial ground of Castel Trozino.
Although the authors of this period do not write anything about axes as a weapon of the Huns, and some researchers believe that the ax is only an infantry weapon, the ax from Khasaut (North Caucasus) refutes these arguments. It is a kind of prototype of a klevrets: on the one hand there is an ax, and on the other hand, a pointed end, which could also be used as a weapon for cutting through "armor".
As for the armor, then, as we wrote in the article "Protective equipment of the rider of the Byzantine army of the 6th century", most of the protection of this period can be attributed to lamenar armor, but ringed ones are also found. In the State Historical Museum there is a "sintered" chain mail of this time, found in Kerch.
The same can be said about the helmets of the steppe zone, most characteristic of the 6th century, this is a frame helmet of a peculiar design, found together with the chain mail described above, from the Bosporus. And also, a helmet stored in the Archaeological Museum of Cologne, found, presumably, in the south of Russia. As for the first, it is often associated with the Avars, since frame helmets, later, are found in their burial grounds and the burial grounds of their neighbors and allies, the Lombards (Kastel Trozino. Grave 87), but most likely, all the same Avars, "passing" these areas, could borrow this type of helmet from local nomadic tribes.
Lasso
This weapon or tool of labor of nomads, as can be seen from written sources, was used by the Huns in the 6th century. Malala and Theophanes the Byzantine wrote about this.
In 528, during the invasion of the Huns in the provinces of Scythia and Moesia, the local strategists coped with one detachment, but ran into another detachment of horsemen. The Huns used arcana against the stratigs: “Godila, drawing his sword, cut the noose and freed himself. Constantiol was thrown from his horse to the ground. And Askum was captured."
Appearance
As we wrote above, the appearance of the Huns has undergone significant changes: from the moment they appeared on the borders of the “civilized” world to the period under consideration. Here is what Jordan writes:
Perhaps they won not so much by war as by instilling the greatest horror with their terrible appearance; their image frightened with its blackness, resembling not a face, but, if I may say so, an ugly lump with holes instead of eyes. Their fierce appearance betrayed the cruelty of the spirit … They are small in stature, but they are quick with the agility of their movements and are extremely prone to riding; they are broad in the shoulders, dexterous in archery and are always proudly erect due to the strength of the neck.
It can be assumed that the Huns who lived on the borders of the empire dressed according to the general barbaric fashion, as in the reconstruction of the publishing house "Osprey", the artist Graham Sumner.
But the tribes that roamed the steppes of Eastern Europe and the Ciscaucasia most likely dressed in the traditional attire of a nomad, such as can be seen on a fresco from Afrasiab (Museum of History. Samarkand. Uzbekistan), that is, this is a dressing gown with a smell on the left, wide trousers and “boots.
In modern editions, it is customary to depict nomads with mustaches, the ends of which are lowered like those of the Cossacks. In fact, the few surviving monuments of this and those periods close to them show nomadic horsemen with mustaches, the ends of which, either bent upward, in the manner of the famous Chapaev mustache, or simply stick out, but do not fall.
Summing up the above, we note once again that we have touched upon a number of issues related to the tribes that lived on the borders of the Byzantine Empire in the steppes of the northern Black Sea region and Eastern Europe. In the literature they are called "Huns".
VI century - this is the period when we meet with them for the last time, further, they were either absorbed or included in the composition of new waves of nomads who came from the east (Avars) or received a new development within the framework of new nomadic formations (Proto-Bulgarians).
Sources and Literature:
Ammian. Marcellinus. Roman history / Translated from Latin by Y. A. Kulakovsky and A. I. Sonny. S-Pb., 2000.
Jordan. About the origin and deeds of the Getae. Translated by E. Ch. Skrzhinskaya. SPb., 1997.
Malala John "Chronograph" // Procopius of Caesarea War with the Persians. The war with the Vandals. Secret history. St. Petersburg, 1997.
Procopius of Caesarea War with the Goths / Translated by S. P. Kondratyev. T. I. M., 1996.
Procopius of Caesarea War with the Persians / Translation, article, comments by A. A. Chekalova. SPb., 1997.
The steppes of Eurasia in the Middle Ages. M., 1981.
Chronicle of Yeshu Stylist / Translation by N. V. Pigulevskaya // Pigulevskaya N. V. Syrian medieval historiography. S-Pb., 2011.
Aybabin A. I. Ethnic history of the early Byzantine Crimea. Simferopol. 1999.
Ambroz A. K. Daggers of the 5th century with two protrusions on the scabbard // CA. 1986. No. 3.
Ambroz A. K. M., 1981.
Kazansky M. M., Mastykova A. V. The North Caucasus and the Mediterranean in the 5th – 6th centuries. On the formation of the culture of the barbarian aristocracy // State Unitary Enterprise "Heritage" // ttp: //www.nasledie.org/v3/ru/? Action = view & id = 263263
Kovalevskaya V. B. The Caucasus and the Alans. M., 1984.
Sirotenko VT Written evidence of the Bulgars of the 4th-7th centuries. in the light of contemporary historical events // Slavic-Balkan Studies, M., 1972.
