Were The Romans Justified In Calling The Huns Barbaric?

To what extent were the Romans justified in calling the Huns barbaric?
The Huns were a fearsome society, conquering land and allying with and fighting against the Romans at separate times in their history. They were successful in defeating the Romans in numerous battles and Attila is one of the most recognisable names from history. Despite this, they are still considered to be a barbaric society by many in the modern era and most in the ancient era. The criteria to judge whether a society can be called a civilisation are that the society has advanced cities, specialised workers, complex institutions, record keeping and advanced technology. Although the Romans wouldn’t have had a concept of civilisation, as the word emerged in France in the
early 17th century, they would have had some idea of superiority over other societies based on how they compare to the Roman society which fit the civilisation criteria. One of the societies that may have been considered inferior to the Romans were the Huns.
The Huns were a nomadic society and spent most of their lives on horseback.
They had no cities or even towns, preferring to roam and avoiding houses entirely as suggested by Ammianus Marcellinus; ‘They never shelter themselves under roofed houses, but avoid them’ . The Huns did not plough land. They did raise animals, however, they were not kept in one place or domesticated, instead driving them forward to the next destination. The Huns also had no developed form of government or religion. Before Attila took control of the tribes the Huns would conduct councils on horseback ‘contended with the irregular government of their nobles’ . This source shows that the Huns did have nobles, hinting at social classes and specialised workers, however, the social classes were flexible and the jobs for workers, limited. Anyone showing leadership could be brought into the noble class and any slaves kept by the Huns could marry into the families that owned them. Those appointed to be judges within their society were men who had proved themselves in experience and skill through war. The Huns did have spiritual practises, plunging a sword into the ground and performing ceremonies around it and using twigs to predict the future but nothing so complex as the Roman gods and religion. While the Huns did show evidence of some practise similar to those of the Romans, they appeared nowhere near as complex. The Huns also lacked the large cities, marking them as ‘civilised’ and this along with the fluidity and lack of stability in government, social classing, specialised workers, and religion would have easily allowed the Romans to mark them as
uncivilised.
Another mark of a civilised society was the ability to keep records and create advanced technology. The Huns had no such ability and the evidence to their existence comes through archaeological discoveries and records of other societies, like the Romans. Rather than educating their people to read and write, the Huns education consisted of archery and horseback riding and developing their skills. The women and the men were taught how to fight, the men responsible for war and the women responsible for defending their territories while also raising children and provide for their families. This lack of written history from the Huns themselves has two effects on the culture. It leaves the image of the Huns up to the historians who did write about them, mainly the Romans or people who never interacted with them, and also gives further evidence to the dispute over the Huns label of barbaric. As the Huns had no permanent settlements and didn’t farm, the need to create advanced technology never emerged. Other cultures like the Romans created new technology to provide for themselves and simplify their practises but the lack of change and need in the Huns lifestyle prevented any such inventions. The Huns were fearsome archers and riders and although the conquered huge swaths of land, the never progressed beyond their bows and horses. These skills also proved to be a disadvantage in close quarters in which they would ‘fight with the sword, without any regard for their own safety; ... they entangle them with twisted cords, so that, their hands being fettered, they lose all power of either riding or walking’ . This lack of ingenuity and ability to create advanced technology, alongside their lack of literacy, is yet another set of indicators of the Huns as an uncivilised society.
The Romans referring to the Huns as barbaric is justified in a numerous amount of ways. The Huns fulfil next to none of the modern criteria for a civilised society, the Huns were an unpredictable society, able to work with and against the Romans with the changing of the wind, and the Romans viewed anyone outside their standard and ways of living inferior. The Huns also defeated the Romans in many battles, adding fear to the list of reasons for the Romans to label the Huns as barbaric and inferior. As the Romans are known throughout history for their advanced strategy, architecture, government system and many other clever and ‘superior’ achievements as opposed to many other societies at the time, Comparing this to how little the Huns are known for, apart from the prowess in battle, it is obvious how the Romans could have held themselves above the nomadic society. Given the Huns nomadic culture and inability to fulfil the criteria for a civilised society, it is clear that the Romans were very justified in calling the Huns barbaric.