Kripost said:
By the way, does anyone have any information on how Attila's army was organized? and also their coordination and communication abilities on the battlefield?
Very little is specifically known. Even in his own time, Attila was shrouded in legend and mystery, because this was an important way that he maintained his power. Since our firm knowledge comes from the Romans, specifics of organization are not many.
From allempires.com: "Like other steppe people, Hun warriors fought exclusively as cavalry, and their warriors relied on the mobility of their horses and the penetration power of their composite bows. Like other steppe people, the Huns were natural warriors, having shot a bow and ridden on a horse for his entire life. On the battlefield, the Huns would fire a shower of arrows, inflicting casualties in long range.
When the enemies try to close in they would gallop away while turning their bodies and firing their bows at the enemy. Many Europeans, barbarians especially, were unused to such hit and run tactics, and thus were at a disadvantage. The proficiency of Hun warriors made them a popular choice as mercenaries. The Hun mercenary force was decisive in victory of the East Romans over the West Romans in the battle of Sisca in 388.
Nobles usually wore armor, most likely scale armor, while regulars wore little or none. Shields and helmets were commonly issued to all warriors alike. Besides their famed composite bow, the Huns also occasionally carried swords, lances, and other irregular weapons such as lassos.
The Hun army has always been exaggerated in size to promote their ferocity. Accounts claim the size of Attilas army at Catalaunian plains being at 200,000. A more realistic and reasonable size would be around 30,000. Accounts also describe that the Huns eventually switched from being a cavalry army to an infantry army. The infantry Hun army was not because they had dismounted, but because of other barbarians infantry that the Huns incorporated into their army. At Catalaunian Plains, at least half of Attilas army was other barbarians, namely Germans and Ostrogoths. Finally, there is the matter of siegecraft. In a siege during Attilas Italian campaign, it was noted that the Huns themselves failed to storm the walls while the other barbarians in his army did. From this, we can imply that the Hun siegecraft was only as good as the other barbarians that they incorporated into their army. But the consistent success and the numerous cities that Attila did capture make this a point to ponder."
Attila ruled brutally- no one was allowed to show weakness or defection, at the risk of their life. All were loyal to him and the mythology he surrounded himself with, and he used promise of short-term gains to force his armies and allies into constant improvement. He rarely entered battles if he wasn't certain that he could win them, and used his constant victories and personal image to conquer nations and tribes with their own fear. Sun Tzu would have been impressed.
