Editing Huns (section)

== Empire and rule ==
=== Government ===
Hunnic governmental structure has long been debated. Peter Heather argues that the Huns were a disorganized confederation in which leaders acted completely independently and that eventually established a ranking hierarchy, much like Germanic societies.{{sfnm|1a1=Heather|1y=1995|1p=11 |2a1=Heather|2y=2005|2p=325}} Denis Sinor similarly notes that, with the exception of the historically uncertain [[Balamber]], no Hun leaders are named in the sources until [[Uldin]], indicating their relative unimportance.{{sfn|Sinor|1990|p=181}} Thompson argues that permanent kingship only developed with the Huns' invasion of Europe and the near-constant warfare that followed.{{sfn|Thompson|1996|pp=67–68}} Regarding the organization of Hunnic rule under Attila, [[Peter Benjamin Golden|Peter Golden]] comments "it can hardly be called a state, much less an empire".{{sfn|Golden|1992|p=92}} Golden speaks instead of a "Hunnic confederacy".{{sfn|Golden|1992|p=90, 92}} Kim, however, argues that the Huns were far more organized and centralized, with some basis in organization of the Xiongnu state.{{sfn|Kim|2015|pp=81–89}} Walter Pohl notes the correspondences of Hunnic government to those of other steppe empires, but nevertheless argues that the Huns do not appear to have been a unified group when they arrived in Europe.{{sfn|Pohl|2015|pp=258–259}}

[[Ammianus]] wrote that the Huns of his day had no kings, but rather that each group of Huns instead had a group of leading men (''primates'') for times of war .{{sfn|Ammianus|1939|p=383 [31.2.]}} E.A. Thompson supposes that, even in war, the leading men had little actual power.{{sfn|Thompson|1996|p=50}} He further argues that they most likely did not acquire their position purely hereditarily.{{sfn|Thompson|1996|p=51}} Heather, however, argues that Ammianus merely meant that the Huns didn't have a single ruler; he notes that Olympiodorus mentions the Huns having several kings, with one being the "first of the kings".{{sfn|Heather|1995|p=11}} Ammianus also mentions that the Huns made their decisions in a general council (''omnes in commune'') while seated on horseback.{{sfn|Golden|1992|p=88}} He makes no mention of the Huns being organized into tribes, but [[Priscus]] and other writers do, naming some of them.{{sfn|Thompson|1996|p=48}}

The first Hunnic ruler known by name is [[Uldin]]. Thompson takes Uldin's sudden disappearance after he was unsuccessful at war as a sign that the Hunnic kingship was "democratic" at this time rather than a permanent institution.{{sfn|Thompson|1996|p=64}} Kim, however, argues that Uldin is actually a title and that he was likely merely a subking.{{sfn|Kim|2015|p=77}} Priscus calls Attila "king" or "emperor" ({{lang|grc|βασιλέυς}}), but it is unknown what native title he was translating.{{sfn|Maenchen-Helfen|1973|p=190}} With the exception of the sole rule of Attila, the Huns often had two rulers; Attila himself later appointed his son Ellac as co-king.{{sfnm|1a1=Kim|1y=2015|1pp=86–87 |2a1=Wolfram|2y=1997|2p=143}} Heather argues that by the time of the report of Olympiodorus, the Huns at some point developed a system of ranked kings, including a senior king by the time of [[Charaton]].{{sfn|Heather|2005|p=325}}

Priscus also speaks of "picked men" or {{Transliteration|grc|logades}} ({{lang|grc|λογάδες}}) forming part of Attila's government, naming five of them.{{sfn|Maenchen-Helfen|1973|pp=192–193}} Some of the "picked men" seem to have been chosen because of birth, others for reasons of merit.{{sfn|Thompson|1996|pp=179–181}} Thompson argued that these "picked men" "were the hinge upon which the entire administration of the Hun empire turned":{{sfn|Thompson|1996|p=183}} he argues for their existence in the government of Uldin, and that each had command over detachments of the Hunnic army and ruled over specific portions of the Hunnic empire, where they were responsible also for collecting tribute and provisions.{{sfn|Thompson|1996|pp=181–183}} Maenchen-Helfen, however, argues that the word {{Transliteration|grc|logades}} denotes simply prominent individuals and not a fixed rank with fixed duties.{{sfn|Maenchen-Helfen|1973|pp=194–195}} Kim affirms the importance of the {{Transliteration|grc|logades}} for Hunnic administration, but notes that there were differences of rank between them, and suggests that it was more likely lower ranking officials who gathered taxes and tribute.{{sfn|Kim|2015|pp=83–84}} He suggests that various Roman defectors to the Huns may have worked in a sort of imperial bureaucracy.{{sfn|Kim|2015|p=85}} Unlike the [[Iranian Huns]], who quickly began to mint their own coinage, the European Huns did not strike their own coins.{{sfn|Kulikowski|2019|p=77}}

===Extent of Hunnic territory===
The extent of Hunnish control in Barbarian Europe is poorly understood, as it is not much covered in Roman sources.{{sfn|Rodzińska-Nowak|2020|p=406}} It is generally assumed that they established an empire that stretched as far West as the Rhine and perhaps as far north as the Baltic, though it is difficult to establish its boundaries with certainty.{{sfn|Kelly|2015|pp=196-197}} Some scholars, such as Otto Maenchen-Helfen and Peter Golden, believe that the extant of Attila's empire has been exaggerated and he probably only controlled Pannonia and some adjacent areas.{{sfn|Golden|1992|p=91}}

In the 390s, the majority of the Huns were probably based around the [[Volga]] and [[Don (river)|Don]] on the Pontic Steppe.{{sfn|Kelly|2015|p=203}} But by the 420s, the Huns were based on [[Great Hungarian Plain]], the only large grassland near the Roman empire capable of supporting large numbers of horses.{{sfn|Kelly|2015|p=195}} However, Aleksander Paroń believes that they likely continued to control the Pontic Steppe north of the Black Sea.{{sfn|Paroń|2021|p=71}} They had conquered the Hungarian Plain in stages. The precise date that they conquered the north bank of the Danube is unclear.{{sfn|Kulcsár|Istvánovits|2019|p=167}} Maenchen-Helfen argued that they may have already taken control of it in the 370s.{{sfn|Maenchen-Helfen|1973|p=43}} The dates when they gained control of the Roman territory south of the Middle Danube, [[Pannonia Valeria]] and the other provinces of [[Pannonia]], is likewise disputed, but probably in 406/407 and 431/433 respectively.{{sfn|Kulcsár|Istvánovits|2019|p=167}} Otherwise, the Huns made no attempt to conquer or settle on Roman territory.{{sfn|Kelly|2015|p=195}} Following Attila's death, the Huns were driven out of Pannonia and some appear to have returned to the Pontic Steppe, while one group settled in [[Scythia Minor (Dobruja)|Dobruja]].{{sfn|Golden|1992|p=92}}

One of the only written sources for the size of Attila's domain is given by the Roman historian Priscus.{{sfn|Wołoszyn|2020|p=118}} Priscus refers to Attila ruling as far as the islands in the "ocean" ({{lang|grc|Ὠκεανός|italics=yes}}), but it is unclear if this meant the Baltic Sea or the world-encircling Ocean that the Greeks and Romans believed in. In either case, the description of Attila ruling as far as the islands in the "ocean" may be hyperbole.{{sfn|Wołoszyn|2020|pp=118-119}} Archaeology is often used to argue for an area having been under Hunnic control; however, nomadic peoples often control territories beyond their immediate settlement.{{sfn|Wołoszyn|2020|p=121}} A large number of major finds from [[Silesia]] and [[Lesser Poland]], north of the Carpathian Mountains, have been attributed to the time of Attila and associated with the nomadic milieu of the Huns.{{sfn|Rodzińska-Nowak|2020|p=371}} While scholars have speculated about direct Hunnic control and settlement here, it is entirely unclear what kind of relationship the population of these regions had to the Huns.{{sfn|Rodzińska-Nowak|2020|pp=408-409}}

===Subject peoples===
The Huns ruled over numerous other groups, including [[Goths]], [[Gepids]], [[Sarmatians]], [[Heruli]], [[Alans]], [[Rugii]], [[Suevi]], and [[Sciri]], alongside other groups where they occasionally asserted control.{{sfn|Heather|2015|p=221}} Peter Heather suggests that some of these groups were resettled along the Danube by the Huns.{{sfn|Heather|2015|p=222}} Subject peoples of the Huns were led by their own kings.{{sfn|Pohl|1999|p=502}} Those recognized as ethnic Huns appear to have had more rights and status, as evidenced by the account of Priscus.{{sfn|Heather|2015|pp=224-225}}

=== Warfare ===
One of the principal sources of information on Hunnic warfare is [[Ammianus Marcellinus]], who includes an extended description of the Huns' methods of war:

<blockquote>They also sometimes fight when provoked, and then they enter the battle drawn up in wedge-shaped masses, while their medley of voices makes a savage noise. And as they are lightly equipped for swift motion, and unexpected in action, they purposely divide suddenly into scattered bands and attack, rushing about in disorder here and there, dealing terrific slaughter; and because of their extraordinary rapidity of movement they are never seen to attack a rampart or pillage an enemy's camp. And on this account you would not hesitate to call them the most terrible of all warriors, because they fight from a distance with missiles having sharp bone, instead of their usual points, joined to the shafts with wonderful skill; then they gallop over the intervening spaces and fight hand to hand with swords, regardless of their own lives; and while the enemy are guarding against wounds from the sabre-thrusts, they throw strips of cloth plaited into nooses over their opponents and so entangle them that they fetter their limbs and take from them the power of riding or walking.{{sfn|Ammianus|1939|p=385 [31.2.8–9]}}</blockquote>

Based on Ammianus' description, [[Maenchen-Helfen]] argues that the Huns' tactics did not differ markedly from those used by other nomadic horse archers.{{sfn|Maenchen-Helfen|1973|p=203}} He argues that the "wedge-shaped masses" (''cunei'') mentioned by Ammianus were likely divisions organized by tribal clans and families, whose leaders may have been called a ''cur''. This title would then have been inherited as it was passed down the clan.{{sfn|Maenchen-Helfen|1973|pp=202–203}} Like Ammianus, the sixth-century writer [[Zosimus (historian)|Zosimus]] also emphasizes the Huns' almost exclusive use of horse archers and their extreme swiftness and mobility.{{sfn|Heather|2005|p=155}} These qualities differed from other nomadic warriors in Europe at this time: the [[Sarmatians]], for instance, relied on heavily armored [[cataphracts]] armed with lances.{{sfn|Heather|2005|pp=155–156}} The Huns' use of terrible war cries are also found in other sources.{{sfn|Maenchen-Helfen|1973|p=202}} However, a number of Ammianus's claims have been challenged by modern scholars.{{sfn|Kim|2013|pp=17–19}} In particular, while Ammianus claims that the Huns knew no metalworking, Maenchen-Helfen argues that a people so primitive could never have been successful in war against the Romans.{{sfn|Maenchen-Helfen|1973|p=12}}

Hunnic armies relied on their high mobility and "a shrewd sense of when to attack and when to withdraw".{{sfn|Kelly|2015|p=204}} An important strategy used by the Huns was a feigned retreat—pretending to flee and then turning and attacking the disordered enemy. This is mentioned by the writers Zosimus and [[Agathias]].{{sfn|Maenchen-Helfen|1973|p=203}} They were, however, not always effective in pitched battle, suffering defeat at the [[Battle of Toulouse (439)|Battle of Toulouse]] in 439, barely winning at the [[Battle of the Utus]] in 447, likely losing or stalemating at the [[Battle of the Catalaunian Plains]] in 451, and losing at the [[Battle of Nedao]] (454?).{{sfn|Kelly|2015|p=205}} Christopher Kelly argues that Attila sought to avoid "as far as possible, [...] large-scale engagement with the Roman army".{{sfn|Kelly|2015|p=205}} War and the threat of war were frequently-used tools to extort Rome; the Huns often relied on local traitors to avoid losses.{{sfn|Golden|2002|p=153}} Accounts of battles note that the Huns fortified their camps by using portable fences or creating a circle of wagons.{{sfn|Golden|2002|pp=137–138}}

The Huns' nomadic lifestyle encouraged features such as excellent horsemanship, while the Huns trained for war by frequent hunting.{{sfn|Golden|2002|pp=131–132}} Several scholars have suggested that the Huns had trouble maintaining their horse cavalry and nomadic lifestyle after settling on the Hungarian Plain, and that this in turn led to a marked decrease in their effectiveness as fighters.{{sfnm|1a1=Golden|1y=1992|1p=91 |2a1=Sinor|2y=1990|2p=204}}

The Huns are almost always noted as fighting alongside non-Hunnic, Germanic or Iranian subject peoples or, in earlier times, allies.{{sfn|Heather|2005|pp=329–330}} As Heather notes, "the Huns' military machine increased, and increased very quickly, by incorporating ever larger numbers of the Germani of central and eastern Europe".{{sfn|Heather|2005|p=332}} At the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains, Attila is noted by Jordanes to have placed his subject peoples in the wings of the army, while the Huns held the center.{{sfn|Golden|2002|pp=133–134}}

[[Peter Heather]] notes that the Huns were able to successfully besiege walled cities and fortresses in their campaign of 441: they were thus capable of building [[siege engine]]s.{{sfn|Heather|2005|pp=301–302}} Heather makes note of multiple possible routes for acquisition of this knowledge, suggesting that it could have been brought back from service under [[Flavius Aetius|Aetius]], acquired from captured Roman engineers, or developed through the need to pressure the wealthy silk road city states, and carried over into Europe.{{sfn|Heather|2005|p=303}}