From the book
The "Lost" Ten Tribes of Israel...Found!
by Steven M. Collins
Israel’s Migrations #2
Many of the Saka (Sacae) migrating to Europe became known as Saxons. However, one tribe retained the Indo-Scythian term "Jat" as they migrated into Europe, becoming known as the "Jutes." Since the Jats were closely linked to the Sacae in Asia, we would expect to find them closely linked to the Saxons after they migrate into Europe. Note that the consonants of Jats and Jutes are identical: "Jat" and "Jute."
As can be seen, the Indo-Europeans who migrated from Asia into Europe in the aftermath of Parthia's fall included many different nations and tribes. Another such tribe were the Alans (or Alani), who were first recorded in Asia near the Caspian Sea in the first century A.D.,68 and later penetrated toward the region of the Caucasus and the Danube River. They have been called "half-caste Scyths," and many Alani followed the Vandals into Europe.69 Collier's Encyclopedia observes that the Alani for a time established a kingdom of their own in Portugal.70
To sum up, prior to the fall of the Parthian Empire, we find many Semitic tribes living within its borders and in the Scythian regions of South Russia. Many of these tribes (the Sacae, Saka or Saxa), Kermans (Germanii), Jats, and Alani migrated out of Asia into Europe via the Caucasus and the Black Sea region of the Getae (or Gauthei) after Parthia's fall. In Europe, many of these migrating tribes were called the Saxons, Germans, Jutes, Alani and Goths. The Asian origin of these tribes is readily apparent.
Now let us examine the historical record of how these migrating tribes from Asia conquered Europe and the Roman Empire. As the reader will see, this period of history appears in a much different light when told from the Gothic, instead of the Roman, viewpoint.
Soon after Parthia fell in 226 A.D., the Goths near the Black Sea became incredibly numerous and were compelled to expand their territory in the direction of Europe. Clearly, the sudden increase in the number of Goths was due to masses of Parthian refugees spilling into their region. Thomas Burns, in A History of the Ostrogoths, notes that:
"Around the middle of the third century...the
struggle for hegemony on the lower Danube produced the first lasting Gothic coalition...an early... Dacian confederacy, including some Goths, was gradually replaced by an alliance dominated by Goths.”71
Burns also notes that Gothic power had grown so strong by 238 A.D. that the Romans began making cash payments to the Goths. He describes the Roman action as follows:
"Although the Goths lived at some distance from the Roman frontier and had only infrequent contact with it, their leaders were important enough to receive annual gifts as early as 238 [A.D.J, when Tullius Menophilus...attempted to detach the Goths from the Carpic alliance in separate negotiations with the Goths alone."72
These cash gifts were essentially tribute monies designed to deter Gothic attack. Apparently, the Romans did not deem the Goths sufficiently numerous or threatening to justify these payments until 238 A.D., just twelve years after the fall of Parthia. Another historian records that Rome began cash payments to the Goths as soon as "about twenty years [prior to]...245 A.D."73 This would bring the onset of Rome's payments to the Goths back to the timeframe of 226 A.D., the very year the Parthian Empire fell! This supports the contention that the ranks of the Goths had been suddenly increased by masses of anti-Roman, Parthian refugees.
Roman concerns about the growing threat in Gothic territory led to an attempt to "buy off' the Goths with money. Why did Rome take that action instead of using their vaunted military might against these "barbarians?" Prior to 226-238 A.D., the Romans had seen no need to pay "tribute money" to the Goths to deter an invasion.
Rome likely understood that the Goths had been reinforced by Parthian refugees. Rome was aware of Parthia's fall and the rise of Sassanian Persia. Roman reluctance to fight a mass of Parthians robbed of their empire was understandable. Rome had been defeated by the Parthians in a gruesomely bloody, three-day clash at Nisibis (see chapter eight) in 217 A.D. Some of the "Goths" were Parthian veterans of the battle of Nisibis. This event was still a fresh memory on both sides, and Rome very likely had no eagerness to renew hostilities with angry Parthians. It is significant that Rome tried to "buy off the newly-powerful Goths on their border. After losing the battle of Nisibis, Rome had obtained peace by offering the Parthians a very large sum of money (tribute). The payment of tribute money to Parthians had gained peace in 217 A.D., so based on precedent, Rome likely felt this action would again buy peace. The Romans were not in the habit of giving tribute money to just anyone (doing so implied inferiority), so Rome's payment of tribute money to the Goths as a first option implies their perception of an unusually severe danger.
At first it worked. The displaced Parthians were in no mood for war either, and needed time to regather their strength and consolidate it with that of the native Goths. The merger of their populations went remarkably smoothly, given their common culture and ethnic heritage. The native Goths were descended from the "Gauthei," members of the ten tribes of Israel who had lived in that region since the fall of Samaria in 721 B.C. Other Israelites who had settled in the Caucasus were known as "Iberians," while many of the Parthian and Sacae tribes seeking refuge among the Goths were also descended from the ten tribes of Israel. Since this merger took place in the land of the Goths, and the people were all related to one another, the Romans simply called them all "Goths." Yet the Goths were also so closely related to the "Germanic" people who migrating into Europe north of the "Goths" that Thomas Burns describes the Goths as a "Germanic society" and a "Germanic coalition."74
The alliance of people which the Goths came to dominate was an "anti-Roman coalition."75 Since Parthian refugees were swelling the Gothic ranks, it is logical that their alliance would have an antipathy toward Rome (their historic rivals). Also, Roman treachery under Caracullus had led to a severe loss of Parthian military strength, even though the Parthians were victorious. Parthian military losses allowed the Persians to revolt and drive them out of their old empire. Therefore, the Parthian refugees could blame Rome for the loss of their empire. They could further reason that if their empire and homelands were lost due to Roman perfidy, then they should obtain new homelands at the expense of Rome! Rome likely saw this danger and tried to forestall it with more "pay-offs."
When Rome quit paying money to the Goths, the Goths invaded the Roman Empire to seize land for themselves. Between 248 and 251 A.D., the Goths "ravaged Roman soil, especially Dacia and Moesia."76 Burns states that there were "at least four distinct Gothic groups roving the countryside in search of easy prey and supplies...[and that] the Goths had to disperse in order to find food." People who are comfortable and well-fed do not hazard their lives in a needless war. Launching a war to find the means of survival is typical of refugee populations, and there were so many Goths that they had to "disperse to find food."77 People who are comfortable and well-fed do not hazard their lives in warfare. Launching a war to find the means of survival is typical of a refugee population which was so large it had to "disperse to find food."
Allowing some time to pass (from Parthia's fall in 226 A.D. until 248 A.D. when the Goths attacked Roman territory) gave the Parthian/Scythian refugees time to raise and train a generation of males to replenish their military ranks. Parthian ranks had been badly depleted by the bloody victory over Rome at Nisibis in 217 A.D. and a series of defeats (ending in 226 A.D.) at the hands of the Persians. Allowing 20-30 years to pass from those debilitating battles allowed time for a generation of young males to grow old enough for a new war with Rome.
In this same time period a native Gothic king died in 250 A.D., and was succeeded by a new king (Cniva) who was not a relative of the old king.78 This new king led the Goths in an invasion of Roman territory and warfare against Roman armies. From where had this new king originated? To be accepted as king over a coalition of many Gothic tribes, he had to have a firm claim to royal status and leadership rights. Since history records that Parthian princes (Arsacids) had fled northwest out of Parthia along with their people, and since the Parthians had been uniquely loyal to the Arsacids for centuries, and since the Goths were now dominated by Parthian refugees, it is logical that the "new king" who led these Goths against Rome was a Parthian Arsacid. (Parthian refugees could easily rally around an Arsacid leader, who would be motivated to provide vengeful leadership against Rome. The Romans had desecrated the graves of the Parthian Arsacid kings as recently as 216 A.D. during Caracullus' invasion of Parthia. An Arsacid would, therefore, likely be thirsting for a chance to spill Roman blood. Indeed, a lot of Roman blood was about to be spilled.
In 249-251 A.D., the Roman emperor Decius led a Roman army to oppose the Goths. In 251 A.D., he and his army were ambushed by an army of Goths, resulting in the death of Decius and the routing of his Roman army.79 The new Gothic king had proven skillful in fighting Roman armies. Since the Roman army had fought under the leadership of its emperor, it was particularly motivated to do its best. That the Goths utterly defeated a disciplined Roman army led by the emperor himself is evidence that the Goths were not merely ragged barbarians in search of a meal. If the Goths were simply a horde of undisciplined nomads from the steppes, they would have been thoroughly outmatched by the Romans. Their defeat of a formidable Roman army indicates that the Goths had a strong military tradition of their own. This trait would be expected of an army led by Parthian refugees since Parthia had a long military tradition of its own, a tradition based on centuries of fighting Roman armies.
In drawing the Romans into an unexpected trap, the Goths repeated the Parthian tactic used to destroy the Roman army of Crassus in the first century B.C.
One final point on this battle. The body of the Roman Emperor, Decius "was never found."80 Just prior to the battle of Nisibis in 217 A.D., the Romans had desecrated the graves of Parthia's emperors, scattering their bones. In 251 A.D, the vengeful Parthian refugees (now called Goths) had the body of a Roman Emperor in their possession. The reason Decius' body was never found is that the Goths probably scattered it in so many pieces that there were no pieces large enough to find!
One other event confirms this Gothic army was motivated by a desire for bitter vengeance. The Goths also besieged and conquered Philippopolis, a large Roman city (located in modern Bulgaria), massacring "a hundred thousand persons...[and taking] a vast quantity of plunder."81 This action further indicates a blood feud and the motive of revenge. There is no historic basis for a blood feud between the Romans and the native Goths of the Black Sea, but there was ample justification for this type of revenge on the part of Parthian refugees with an Arsacid king.
Besides desecrating the graves of Parthian Emperors in 217 A.D., the Romans had also treacherously and mercilessly massacred the citizens of Ctesiphon, Parthia's western capital. Indeed, since that event occurred about thirty-four years previous to the Goth's massacre of Philippopolis, some of the "Goths" (Parthian refugees) could have personally remembered the slaughter of Parthian civilians at Ctesiphon. This explains a clear motive for the Goths to mercilessly kill the inhabitants of the first large, Roman city they conquered. Their deaths avenged the Roman murder of innocents at Ctesiphon, illustrating the veracity of the biblical proverb: "What you sow, you shall reap." Rome had sowed death, destruction, and massacre in the Parthian Empire when the Parthians had gullibly trusted Rome's "peace initiative." It was now Rome's turn to reap what it had sown, and its bitter harvest had only begun.
It is important to realize that Gothic invasions of the Roman Empire were not an accident of history. Since many of the Goths were Parthian refugees, the Gothic-Roman wars were simply a continuation of the long rivalry of the Roman and Parthian Empires which had been interrupted by the fall of Parthia and the migration of its people from Asia toward Europe. Now the battle became a true death struggle as the two peoples were beginning to fight for the same territory. While the final outcome was generations away, Rome would ultimately lose this conflict.
The massive Roman defeat in 251 A.D. opened the door to a tidal wave of Gothic attacks against previously "safe" Roman territory. The massacre of Philippopolis was only the beginning, as the Goths devastated Roman lands for years. Bradley observes that: 'T3uring...fifteen years [253-268 A.D.] the history of the Goths is a frightful story of cruel massacres, and of the destruction and plunder of wealthy and beautiful cities."82 In fact, this was historic justice. What Rome had previously done to many Parthian cities (and the cities of many other nations) was now being done to Roman cities. This indicates two things: that the invaders were motivated by intense hatred of Rome, and that they wanted to depopulate the land of its native inhabitants in order to obtain a homeland for their own nation.
After occupying Dacia and Moesia (roughly modern Romania and Bulgaria), the Goths split into three separate invasion forces. One group occupied the Crimea and sailed across the Black Sea to conquer Trebizond, a second force conquered much of Bithynia (in modern Turkey), and the third army invaded Greece, conquering Athens, Ephesus and other cities. This third force was transported by a great fleet of 500 ships.83 That these invading Goths possessed technical skills to construct and sail a huge fleet further indicates that they came from a sophisticated background. Illiterate nomads from the inner recesses of Asian steppes would not possess such skills. Indeed, they would likely never have seen an ocean or a fleet of ships! However, Parthian and Scythian refugees, whose domains had bordered the Persian Gulf, the Indian Ocean, and the Black Sea would have possessed such skills. Indeed, Scythian mariners from the Black Sea would have been familiar with the sea-routes to Greece as the Scythians had long traded with the Greeks via this same maritime route.
In Ephesus the invading Goths "burnt the magnificent temple of 'Diana of the Ephesians,' one of the seven wonders of the ancient world."84 This is the very temple which had been the site of an incident in the life of the Apostle Paul in the first century A.D. (Acts 19). While the Goths massacred whole cities in the Balkans, and destroyed the temple of Diana in Ephesus, they did not burn Athens when they occupied it, and spared "many noble buildings and works of art."85 Why did the Goths spare Athens? One likely reason is that the Athenians and the Black Sea Scythians had historically been trading partners (see chapter six), so residual good will softened the Goths' wrath as they entered Athens.
A Greek named Dexippus described Athenian resistance to this Gothic invasion in a literary work entitled the "Scythica."86 This is significant since it confirms that while the Romans called these invaders "Goths," the Greeks still called them "Scythians." The Encyclopaedia Britannica lists the Greek spelling of Scythica as beginning with the consonants "S-k," and states: the Scythica was "a history of the wars of Rome with the Goths (or Scythians) in the third century." 87
The Greeks still recognized the Goths as being Saka (or Sacae) Scythians. In other words, these Goths were still bearing the name of Isaac, a Hebrew forebear of the ten tribes of Israel, as were the Saxons (or Sachse) who were invading northwest Europe. Genesis 21:12 and 48:16 prophesied that Isaac's descendants would be known by his name. The ten tribes of Israel, even after a millennium in Asia, were still bearing the name of Isaac as they invaded Europe.
The Goths' success could have been greater, but their individual tribes were not cohesive. They fought among themselves, and one tribe even switched sides and joined the Romans. In the confusion many Goths withdrew from Greece, returning to the area of the Danube River. However, another force of Goths invaded another part of Rome's empire (Asia Minor). Bradley describes it as follows:
"Through the Black Sea and the Hellespont sailed a vast fleet, conveying an army numbering 300,000 warriors, accompanied by their wives and children."88
That this army brought their wives and children along confirms that they were a nation of refugees in search of a new homeland. Only a refugee army deprived of its homeland would bring its families along to a war. With family members counted, this mass of refugees could have easily numbered over a million people. That they were transported by a naval fleet is a testimony to their technical skills, as it would take thousands of vessels to accomplish the task. Emboldened by previous Gothic victories over the Romans, they expected more of the same. They would be bitterly disappointed. This mass of Goths were defeated by the Romans in a series of battles in the interior of modern Turkey. The Goths lost 50,000 men in a single battle, thousands more were sold into slavery or impressed into the Roman army, and the survivors retreated to the Balkans.89
Goths were generally recorded as being tall, blue-eyed blondes with fair complexions.90 Clearly, they were members of the white (Caucasian) race. While the term "Caucasian" is not a scientific name for the white races, the term accurately reflects the historic fact that many tribes of white nations migrated through the Caucasus Mountains as they moved from Asia to Europe in search of new homelands. However, one major white tribe remained in Asia for a while. These holdouts were the Ephthalites (or "Nephthalites"), who remained in Asia in considerable force until at least the sixth century A.D. While the Ephthalites were called Huns, they were referred to as the "White Huns" because they were fair-skinned people of the white race,91 not Tartars as were the other Huns.92
In chapter eight, it was documented that the Nephthalites were undoubtedly the Israelite tribe of Naphthali which went into Asia in 741 B.C. as captives of the Assyrians. Since the tribe of Naphthali did not go into captivity in a piecemeal fashion, but rather in one complete mass (II Kings 15:29), they retained their original Israelite tribal name longer than the other tribes.
The Ephthalites waged war on the Sassanian Persians (which was natural since the Ephthalites were kinsmen of the Parthians and Scythians). As late as 484 A.D., the Ephthalites defeated the Persians and extended their control into India, establishing a capital at Sakala (which bore the name of Isaac).93 The Encyclopaedia Britannica cites the Greek writer, Procopius, as stating the Ephthalite Huns were "far more civilized than the Huns of Attila."94
Ephthalite power in Asia was not broken until 557 A.D. when they were beaten by the Persians and Turks. Perhaps some were absorbed by nearby tribes, but the Ephthalites, as a whole, simply disappeared from Asia. Where did they go? They were likely pushed toward Europe, arriving in a later migration. This would make the tribe of Naphthali one of the first to go into Asia and the last to leave it. We will attempt to identify their modem descendants in chapter eleven.
Returning to the Goths, they seemed content to coexist with the Romans for a time, building a large empire of their own under an Ostrogoth king known as Ermanaric. The Encyclopaedia Britannica states his empire ranged "from the Danube to the Baltic and from the Don to the Theiss."95 This would include the region of Eastern Europe from the Baltic to the Black Sea and from Hungary into southern Russia. He reigned during 350-376 A.D., but his "empire" was shortlived as it was overwhelmed by invading Huns from the east.
While Ermanaric's brief empire was huge, it did not include all the Goths. Ermanaric ruled the Ostrogoths, while Bradley observes that "During this time [Ermanaric's rule], the Visigoths appear to have been practically independent, divided into separate tribes ruled by their own 'judges.'"96 The Visigoths' custom of having tribal chieftains serve as "judges," is reminiscent of the pre-dynastic period in ancient Israel when the tribes of Israel were ruled by tribal elders and when the Israelites' leaders were called "judges."
Bradley also adds the following concerning the customs for selecting Gothic kings:
"Down to this time, the Gothic kings seem to have been chosen by free elections from any of the noble families... "97
In other words, the Goths selected their kings according to the Parthian tradition! As seen in an earlier chapter, Parthian kings were elected from a family of nobles who were all Arsacids. The king could be elected from any of the Arsacid nobles. That the Goths had continued Parthia's custom of electing a king from eligible nobles further supports their identification as Parthian refugees. This also would illustrate that God was still enforcing his covenant with David that his descendants would always have members ruling over "the House of Israel" (the ten tribes of Israel) wherever they went.
In the fourth century A.D. many Goths became Christians due to the efforts of a Gothic missionary named Wulfila, who even developed a Gothic Bible.98 Wulfila was a member of the Arian branch of Christianity, and the fact that the Goths became Arian Christians eventually led to more strife and warfare with the Romans (whose Christians regarded Arian Christians as heretics).
In 410 A.D., the Visigoths under Alaric conquered and occupied the city of Rome. Many people have the impression that the Roman Empire at this time was the last redoubt of western civilization, and that Rome's conquerors were all uncivilized "barbarians." As we shall see, this version of history has resulted from uncritically incorporating Roman propaganda into history books. The truth is considerably different.
Alaric was a Visigoth noble from a "princely family"99 who had originally served in Rome's army leading Goths in Rome's service. When a new Roman emperor abrogated the pay agreements of a previous emperor, these Goths rebelled and Alaric became their king. Alaric conquered most of Greece, and the Goths again spared Athens which paid them tribute money and gave Alaric a banquet! Alaric was even made a military governor by the emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire at Constantinople. Alaric invaded Italy in 400 A.D., but was repulsed two years later when his Christian Goths were observing Easter Sunday and falsely assumed that the Romans would not attack on that day.
The Romans then made (and quickly broke) a treaty with Alaric. The Romans then expelled (as heretics) some 30,000 Goths who were Arian Christians from the Roman army while Roman mobs massacred the wives and children of these Arian Goths.100 This heinous crime by the Romans compelled the 30,000 Goths expelled from the Roman army to join Alaric's army. Alaric besieged Rome but left after Rome paid him 5,000 pounds of gold, 30,000 pounds of silver and other costly items. While Alaric's army was on Roman soil, it behaved with incredible restraint, given the Roman slaughter of the families of 30,000 Goths. It is recorded:
"He [Alaric] was careful to restrain his followers from committing any acts of rapine, and those Goths who were guilty of insulting Roman citizens were severely punished."101
Who were the real "barbarians?" The murderous Romans or the supremely-restrained Goths? However, after more political intrigue and unfulfilled Roman promises, Alaric returned to Rome and finally conquered it. Many histories leave the impression that the "sack of Rome" by the Visigoths was a brutal, unprovoked aggression on the part of the Goths and other "barbarians." As the above shows, Alaric's Gothic occupation of Rome was provoked by Roman crimes and treaty-breaking.
In spite of the fact that the Romans had recently massacred the innocent families of 30,000 Arian Christians, Alaric did not permit a general massacre of the Roman citizens. His occupation is described in the two following accounts.
"Alaric remembered that he was a Christian, and he tried to use his victory mercifully. He told his soldiers that the plunder of the city was theirs, but that no man was to be killed who was not in arms; even of the soldiers, all were to be spared who took refuge in the churches...all the churches and their property were to be held sacred...some of the Roman writers speak with wonder of the moderation of the Goths."102
"The Goths showed themselves not absolutely ruthless conquerors, and there is no reason to attribute any extensive destruction of the buildings of the city to Alaric and his army. Contemporary ecclesiastics recorded with wonder many instances of their clemency: the Christian churches saved from ravage; protection granted to vast multitudes both of pagans and Christians who took refuge therein..."103
Since warfare was involved, some death and destruction undoubtedly resulted. Clearly, there must have been widespread obedience to Alaric's orders for Roman records to comment on their clemency. This is remarkable given the fact that Alaric's army contained 30,000 soldiers whose families had been cruelly murdered by the supposedly-Christian Romans. Alaric was a Christian who actually obeyed the biblical teaching of mercy and forgiveness. Since history is full of examples of "Christians" doing the most unchristian things to others, Alaric's actions are exemplary. The above accounts reveal that Alaric respected the tradition of "sanctuary" in churches, and that "multitudes" of Romans were still pagan. Again, who were the real "barbarians?" The merciful, Christian Goths or the murderous, treaty-breaking Romans?
The historian, Henry Bradley, also noted:
"That the Gothic people had many noble qualities was frequently acknowledged even by their enemies...They were brave, generous, patient under hardship and privation, and chaste and affectionate in their family relations....[TJhere is nothing in their history more remarkable than the humanity and justice which they exercised towards the nations whom they conquered; and there are many instances on record in which Romans were glad to seek under the milder sway of the Goths a refuge from the oppressions of their own rulers...The Roman clergy...were often constrained to own that these barbarians obeyed the precepts of the gospel far better than did their own countrymen."104
This commentary that the Goths were noted for a tolerant and enlightened rule over subject people is significant as they were exhibiting the Parthian style of rulership. The Parthians were long noted for having policies of tolerant rule over their subjects, allowing freedom of religion, etc. This chapter has provided considerable evidence that the Goths were descended from Parthians who fled in the direction of Europe when their empire fell. The fact that the Goths practiced the Parthian style of tolerant rulership further supports the belief that the Goths were the offspring of the Parthians.
The Parthian trait of religious tolerance was also a Gothic trait. Alaric's mercy toward Rome's Christians and pagans is not an isolated example. Theodoric, a king of the Ostrogoths who conquered the Romans after Alaric, adopted merciful policies toward the Romans and sheltered religious refugees. It has been noted that "religious tolerance was a cornerstone in the restoration of Roman society and the acceptance of Ostrogothic rule."105
The Ostrogoths also perpetuated the Parthian custom of extending favor toward the Jews. Far from imposing Christianity on the Jews, Theodoric reportedly stated to the Jews that "we cannot impose religion, and no one can be made to believe in spite of himself."106 The tolerant Gothic policies even resulted in Jews volunteering to fight alongside the Goths.107
Theodoric the Ostrogoth ruled Italy from 493-526 A.D., and the Encyclopaedia Rritannica describes his rule as follows:
"The thirty-three years' reign of Theodoric was a time of unexampled happiness for Italy. Unbroken peace reigned...The venality of the Roman officials and the turbulence of the Gothic nobles were sternly repressed. Marshes were drained, harbours formed, the burden of taxes lightened, and the state of agriculture so much improved that Italy...became a corn-exporting country...Theodoric, though adhering to the Arian creed of his forefathers, was during the greater part of his reign conspicuously impartial in religious matters."108
Does Theodoric the Ostrogoth sound like a "barbarian?" Hardly! On the contrary, this Gothic king civilized the Romans. The Goths were not "barbarians" running amok, but rather enlightened rulers who brought "unexampled happiness" and "unbroken peace" to Italy! Roman chaos was replaced by tranquility during the reign of a Christian Gothic king. That he devoted himself to improving the nation he conquered shows a remarkable attitude indeed!
Before Theodoric was born, however, two important events occurred. In 428 A.D. Arsacid rule in Armenia finally ended. Armenia had been a redoubt of the old Parthian dynasty ever since the fall of Parthia. The end of Arsacid rule in Armenia meant there were more refugees in need of homelands. The second event was the Huns' invasion of Europe.
Attila the Hun led a mass of Asiatic Huns and subject tribes deep into Europe, but was stopped in 451 A.D. at the battle of Chalons (in modern France). The force which stopped him was a mixed force of nations and tribes, led by a general named Aetius. Aetius led "an army of Romans (that is, of Romanized Germans) and Visigoths."109 It is also recorded that some Alans fought on both sides in this battle, and that Franks and Saxons fought on the side of Aetius.110
In one of history's most important battles, the allied forces under Aetius repulsed Attila's Huns. Although these allies are referred to as a "Roman army," there were few, if any, ethnic Romans in the allied army. Aetius himself was born in Moesia (a non-Roman region near Dacia) and may have had a Gothic or German lineage. m The Germans, Goths, Alans, and Saxons who battled Attila were the descendants of the Kermans, Parthians, Alani and Sacae who migrated into Europe from Scythian and Parthian territory (in other words, this was primarily an army composed of the descendants of yr the ten tribes of Israel).
To be continued