Attila the Hun was considered more of a barbarian then an actual human being during his time. He was a brutal human being in battle that many believed he had no feelings or remorse towards his enemies. His brutality and carelessness can be seen both as good and bad. Good in the sense where his carelessness made him great in battle`1. Bad in the sense where he was barbaric and feared by others. Attila the Hun lived from 406-453 CE. He was the leader of the Hunnic Empire and was known best for trying to conquer the Roman Empire. “In 445 CE Attilla the Hun had co-ruled the confederation of the Huns with his brother Bleda left to them by the death of their uncle Rula, assassinated Bleda and assumed the sole reign of power of the Hun” 1. Seeing that he was capable of assassinating his own brother, regardless of any animosity they could have had is clear evidence that he was heartless. Killing his own flesh and blood meant more if he could rule as one. However his ruthlessness is what aided him during battle. If we combine Attila the Huns barbaric tactics with his greed for money upon the Romans we can only expect destruction, war and fear. So why were Attila the Hun’s methods so affective against the Roman Empire? Some of his methods that helped him against the Romans were his massive weaponry, his army and lastly how he used fear as a battle tactic. Attila the Hun had a massive array of weapons. He had weapons for close range, mid range, long range and his special weapon. His close range weapon was the Sword of Mars. It was believed that this sword was very powerful. “The story goes that a shepherd found a trail of blood so he followed it and came upon a sword. He then took the sword to Attila. Attila thought he had been appointed ruler of the whole world.”2 The Sword of Mars helped Attila on foot as well on horseback. Many believed that the sword contained great power. It is even said that after obtaining this sword Attila the Hun soon began to win his battles. The mid range weapon that Attila used was the Lasso. “It was said that the Lasso was the least affective of all the weapons because it was difficult for the Huns to get a noose around the neck of the enemy.”3 It could be said that the lasso is clearly the least effective of his weapons. Only useful during close range which could lead to a great disadvantage. However if successful the lasso would wrap around the throat of his enemies, drag them by horseback until his enemies suffered from a broken neck or suffocated from the lack of oxygen. The long range weapon was the Hunnic Composite Bow. The bow was said to be better than a regular bow. “The main advantage of the composite bow is that it delivers greater power for the same length as a simple bow, so a shorter composite bow has the same power as a much longer simple bow.”4 The bow was used on horseback as well because it could reach long distances and kill an enemy from afar. The bow was curved shape and is said to be made this way for better range and greater strength and velocity. In my opinion this is the best possible weapon in the disposal of the Hun army. It had many advantages that could be determined as a leading cause of death during battle which serves beneficiary for the Huns because it can kill their enemy from afar and never having to be in close range for this weapon to work. Multiple enemies can be killed with such an effective bow, also taking into consideration that the bow itself is very light and quite efficient it’s the deadliest weapon an army could possess for victory. Lastly Attila the Hun’s special weapon was the Scythian Axe. “This Axe is said to have great cutting power although the bit is dull.”5 The Axe had its advantages and disadvantages. The Axe was useful when Attila used it to chop off the head of his enemies. The disadvantage was that the Axe would only work on foot because it was heavy and nearly impossible to use while on horseback. But when effective the weight of the ax and