MovieChat Forums > Attila (2001) Discussion > Huh? Parthians?

Huh? Parthians?

posted 17 years ago by Megatherion
4 replies | jump to latest

Now, it's no news that most films based on certain historical figures, especially Hollywood, will most likely feature anachronisms and historical inaccuracies, but why in the name of all that is good is the Parthian Empire featured at all? By the time of Attila, the foremost Eastern superpower would have been Sassanid Persia (Who supplaunted the Parthians during the early 3rd century when Artabanus IV was killed at the battle of Hormozdjan), but worse, the two supposed kings are inaccurate, as are the names (What...? Omar? Ridiculous. Parthians were Iranians, not Arabs) and the utterly inaccurate garb (What is that? A fur? The guy seemed quite flee-bitten)

Worse, he is shown to almost showcasing a servile attitude towards Attila. Fact is that "Parthia" (In the factual case, Sassanid Persia) defeated the Black Huns (Not to be confused with the Ephtalites, also known as the White Huns or the Hûna who did not have any relation to the Huns, or the supposed Xiong-Nu of Attila) of Bleda and Attila, in Armenia. It is ridiculous that the research in a million-dollar would be so shamefully poor. The Parthian Empire was a superpower, the only power to rival Rome to the east, and the Sassanids almost came to a point of destroying the Romans during the campaigns of Shâhîn and Shahrbarâz (Who was an Ephtalite). The Huns did meet the Persians, but often as enemies in mercenary service for the Byzantines (Sunicas and his Hunnic cavalry auxiliaries in service of Belisarius did meet the Persians at Daras where Belisarius was victorious but also in Callinicum where Belisarius lost against the Persian cataphracts of Azarethes) and by then the Sassanids were known to have cavalry well experienced in dealing with steppe armies (The Sassanids crushed not only the Kûshans, but also the White Huns and the Gökturk realm during the campaign of Pers-Armenian general Smbat Bagratuni). Attila and Bleda too were sorely defeated. The Parthians themselves, prior to the Sassanids fielded perhaps the finest heavy cavalry of the known world, distinguishing themselves at Carrhae 53 BCE. The Parthians did at times have co-regency, but usually during campaigning times, not in the context of the movie (Well, there is no context since the Parthians were supplaunted by the Sassanids long before Attila). Settled Iranians despised nomads, and Iranian kings were especially known from Roman and Byzantine sources to have been remarkably arrogant. Well, golly gee...

Typical Hollywood ignorance. The Eastern Romans and subsequently also the Byzantines paid large sums of money to the Sassanids to maintain fortifications in the Caucasus to stave off future nomadic incursions. The Armenians themselves were pivotal in driving off the Huns from the foothills of Hayasdan. Now, no one likes the various Pan-Turanists who scourge IMDB, but there is reason why Attila at the very least could have been depicted by an Altaic person. The Xiong-Nu theories are after all more valid than the tripe about the Huns being "Scythian". They were not. Sarmatians, and in particular the Alan (Aorsi) were almost exterminated by the Huns, who pushed from the eastern reaches. Scythians are Indo-European and most importantly even Indo-Iranians. Huns were not Indo-Iranians, nor even Indo-European. The only "Huns" that are in origin disputes are the Kidarites/Khionites/Ephtalites/White Huns.

I wish I was paid for doing research for Hollywood movies. At least I'd get things right -_-

[–] x_dsp 17 years ago

you are absolutely right everyone else is so friggin' dumb

[–] redgreen95 17 years ago

While research on the Huns, their origin and make-up, is inconclusive it is generally accepted that at the time of Attila's conquests they integrated local tribes, such as Scythians, Alans and Germans into their force. The difficulty stems from the fact that since they were expansionist nomads they were 'all over' the place and had no problems assimilating other tribes willing to join them. Furthermore we only have accounts written by "outsiders" who for all they knew might not be able to distinguish between a marauding nomad and an 'ethnic hun' (whatever that may have been).

Interesting discussion none the less, I hope that researchers will shed more light one this and handle it unbiased. Unfortunately Hollywood movies don't really help with that, but at least they create awareness and get people interested.

[–] Megatherion 17 years ago

Well, you have taken time to compose an intelligent response, but at the time of the Black Hun migrations westward, they had much rather displaced the Sauromataë (Sarmatians, and as they also represent the continuation of the Skythai or the Scythians, they too are by association included) than integrated them into Hunnic society. For this, the Goths and many other Eastern Germanic tribes are historically more suitable.

Alans on the other hand like so many other Sarmatian tribes were almost on the verge of extinction at the hands of the Hunnic onslaught, and as such we see Aorsi migrating from Alanna in the Northern Caspian reaches to Caucasia in areas such as Cis-Caucasia, and Caucasian Iberia and Albania. The Ossetians, whom call themselves "Îrôn" is a clear ethnical designation, and they are considered an Iranian people, much to differ from the proposed Altaic origins of the Black Huns. So I could only partially agree with you. However the Black Huns were known for their brutal nomadic diplomacy which at best was "black-or-white" in mentality; Like other nomads they were remarkably tolerant, but towards their opponents the more vicious echelon of Hunnic warfare is evident.

The Byzantines, most notably under their "Reconquista" under the patronage of Belisarius and Narses, found it incredibly difficult to discipline their Hunnic contingents. They had up to three cavalry commanders, most notably Sunicas, Aigan and Ascan and even then many other cavalry auxiliaries, such as the Herulii feared the Black Huns, and their barbarity has been in particular subject for description in the largely fictious series on Belisarius (Released in the public domain by BAEN library).

The Scythians on the other hand were in steep decline once the Classical Age passed into the Hellenistic period, and would only survive into history as the allies of Mithradates VI of Pontus and as the cavalry and archer core of the Bosphoritai (Bosphorans of modern Crimean peninsula) armies. Past that, we only hear of the Sakaë (Indo-Scythian to the far east, no doubt the most sophisticated of the "Scythians" who managed to form the basis behind the Kûshân Empire with the Tocharians/Yuezhi as well as the Western Kshatrapas)and the Sauromataë, in which the Roxolani tribe was the most war-like of the tribes.

My largest complaint with this movie is however the representation of the Parthians. They happen to be my utmost favourite of the four Iranian dynasties of Ancient Iran. Attila became the Khan of the Huns by 434 CE and that is more than two centuries later than the death of the last Parthian emperor. Two centuries, friend. That is a sloppy and lazy showcase in a multi-million dollar movie. A few thousands of dollars to spend upon historical accuracy would have helped this movie with the image of credibility that it badly needed. For the enthusiast, a few clicks on even the Internet would have sufficed, I mean the movie was released 2001. This movie has no excuse to rely on, unlike "300".

[–] phillycaesar 11 years ago

This movie was chock full of historical inaccuracies and anachronisms. Americans and their Hollywood are simply happily and proudly ignorant of history.