AHC/WI Hunnic Empire remains unified?
- Thread starter Errnge
- Start date
Crazy Calvinist
Banned
Civilization might have some actual city hames for the Huns 
.
Seriously speaking, I'm sure that the Romans would have loved having that empire there...
.Seriously speaking, I'm sure that the Romans would have loved having that empire there...
I'm not sure how you get a permanent Hunnic state. It seems to have existed solely as a parasite of the Roman Empire, with few serious resources of its own to allow it to stand independently. Once the Eastern Romans stood up to the Huns they quickly moved off West to demand resources from that area, but even there they suffered defeats. Even assuming more successful Huns in the West, ultimately they're not going to be able to continue existing in the way they did- their supremacy over various other peoples in their confederacy was assured solely because of Roman gold.
You can get a longer lasting Hunnic state if it becomes smaller and more concentrated, I would say. One good idea is to somehow have Constantinople decide to keep paying the Huns subsidies, perhaps to keep out another power. Having Attila die a little later, and his empire pass on to just a single son can help with this, though I doubt even then the Huns will be much more powerful than the post-626 Avars were- that is, the dominant power in Pannonia, but not one that can threaten all of Europe at will.
You can get a longer lasting Hunnic state if it becomes smaller and more concentrated, I would say. One good idea is to somehow have Constantinople decide to keep paying the Huns subsidies, perhaps to keep out another power. Having Attila die a little later, and his empire pass on to just a single son can help with this, though I doubt even then the Huns will be much more powerful than the post-626 Avars were- that is, the dominant power in Pannonia, but not one that can threaten all of Europe at will.
I wonder if an empire of sort like this could be in what is now modern eastern europe, and-or western side of the ex-USSR area... Like Ukraine-poland range.
Not really. Too depopulated in our period, and too far from the Romans to make it worth their while subsidising the Huns, which is what Hunnic supremacy largely depended on. A successful Hunnic state is most likely going to be located in Pannonia, with Moldovia and Wallachia as somewhat less probable but still potential places.
I was thinking if they went for a 'calmer' lifestyle to a point, something akin to ancient turko-mongolian states of the east as Goturks. Much nomadism and all.
After all, there was similar nomads like Huns and Alains in their ranks..
But then, your answer is in my range of suggestions.
Still PERHAPS a bit more stable than the Hun state clichés of brutal crazy barbs'...
Probably, although whether that's enough for the OP I dunno.
Making a state last centuries is not easy, especially not in or bordering the steppes.
Romans needed the Huns to counterbalance the Visigoths. Of course a large unified Hunnic Empire would cause more trouble than solving problems so my guess is that Romans would try to preserve Hunns but not as a unified Empire.
Atilla was on the verge to take over both Rome and Constantinople.
So I expect that IF Hunnic empire stayed united, it would turn into united Roman empire pretty soon.
So I expect that IF Hunnic empire stayed united, it would turn into united Roman empire pretty soon.
Attila was a bit of a paper tiger, and Hunnic armies were often destroyed by Roman ones in outright combat.
In any case, Hunnic strength depended upon the Romans paying them subsidies, otherwise their whole empire would have just fallen apart quite quickly, as happened IOTL once Roman subsidies did dry up. If the Huns pushed too hard at Western Rome, they're going to end up destroying their sole source of income. As for the East, I find it dubious that even a Hunnic Empire that controls half of Europe can muster the resources of any state that controls Egypt.
So then the solution for the Romans would have likely been to not pay any kind of subsidy, AT ALL, to the Huns, even if they suffered a couple of early defeats, right ?
Although, this probably easier said than done, as the Romans were terrribly disunited. Just look at how Aetius used the Huns to get back to power after suffering a defeat at the hands of his political enemies.
Half breed by blood if memory serves, but that doesn't seem to have mattered.
I do not agree that Atilla was "paper tiger". He was strong leader, working in appropriate time. In case of more successful actions vs the 2 Romes, I see his "roman" friend Aetius as his supporter / general or s.t. like this. With guys like Aetius which WERE in hand, the interface between Atilla's Empire and turning into unified Roman empire ( covering most if not all of Europe ) would be smooth and seamless ( similary to what Mongols did in China ).
You're suggesting a Hunnic conquest of the complete Roman Empire in the fifth century is a serious possibility?