WI: Hunnic Empire survived to this day

Suppose for a moment that Attila had managed to gain control over a great deal of the Western Roman Empire (Italia, Gaul, Heveltica, Iberia, etc) and keep it. Now imagine he had a son with the administrative skills of Kublai Khan, who was able to unify the new Hunnish Empire, from a capital in Rome.

Just as the the Mongols in China were Sinoised, the Huns would eventually become Latinized. The ravages of the initial barbarian onslaught could be repaired, and the "Roman" Empire could re-establish itself in Brittania and North Africa.

The Huns would probably lose Eastern Europe to Germanians and Goths, and would spend a lot of time locked in warfare with the Byzantines.

That's another thought. With Persia to the east, and the Hunnish empire to the west, the Byzantines would be quite hard-pressed to defend themselves. Perhaps they will become involved in a two-front war against both sides, and then make a weary peace, only to be swallowed up by a surgent Arabian empire.

Of course, eventually the Hunnish dynasty would fall and Italians would come to power again. Soon enough Rome could become like a European China or Persia, having a revolution every couple of centuries but never fading as a cultural influence.

I read once that OTL the Huns in Italy were stopped by an epidemic among their horses.

Phaeton said:

Suppose for a moment that Attila had managed to gain control over a great deal of the Western Roman Empire (Italia, Gaul, Heveltica, Iberia, etc) and keep it. Now imagine he had a son with the administrative skills of Kublai Khan, who was able to unify the new Hunnish Empire, from a capital in Rome.
Just as the the Mongols in China were Sinoised, the Huns would eventually become Latinized. The ravages of the initial barbarian onslaught could be repaired, and the "Roman" Empire could re-establish itself in Brittania and North Africa. .

Click to expand...

We still have problems of economic decline, lower civic participation in government, shrinking of cities, plagues, etc., not to mention further invasions by the Avars and possibly civil war within the Hunnic empire (see below). The new western empire strikes me as likely to be a comparatively poor and ramshakle arrangement compared to the Roman empire at it's peak. Also, those recently settled Germans in Iberia, northern Gaul, etc. strike me as likely to be a rebellious bunch, not to mention the still "wild" Germans in the east. Trouble enough holding it all together without going after a money-loser province like Britain, and Byzantium will compete hard for north Africa.

Phaeton said:

The Huns would probably lose Eastern Europe to Germanians and Goths, and would spend a lot of time locked in warfare with the Byzantines.

Click to expand...

Didn't the original Hunnic empire established itself by smashing the Goths and other eastern Germans? I thought it is to a large extent due to the Hunnic invasion that the German-speaking areas of Europe in the early middle ages didn't extend east of the Elbe.

Quite possibly if the Huns in the west settle down and become citified, the Huns to the east break away, like the north central Asian Mongols after the Mongols in Iran and China became assimilated. Perhaps a slavic state arises unified by a Hunnic elite, like the Bulgars in the balkans, but on a larger scale.

Not sure how much the new western empire fights with Byzantium: after all, the eastern Huns/Slavs/other nomads are sort of blocking the path through the Balkans. See Holy Roman Empire again (Charlemagne and after) and it's relations with Byzantium.

Phaeton said:

That's another thought. With Persia to the east, and the Hunnish empire to the west, the Byzantines would be quite hard-pressed to defend themselves. Perhaps they will become involved in a two-front war against both sides, and then make a weary peace, only to be swallowed up by a surgent Arabian empire.

Click to expand...

As I said, not sure they will find that much to fight about, asides from North Africa. The logistics for reunifying the empire by force are not good. OTOH, one cannot underestimate human stupidity.

Probably Mohammed is butterflied away, but there is definitely a possibility of someone uniting the Arabs and doing some opportunistic conquering. Overpopulated, good fighters... Christian Arabs? Zoroastran Arabs? Jewish Arabs? Some new and interesting heresy? Or perhaps even still-pagan Arabs unified by their own "Ghengis Khan"...

(And they may be a problem for the Hunnic empire too, at least to the extent of making things unpleasant for them in north Africa.)

Phaeton said:

Of course, eventually the Hunnish dynasty would fall and Italians would come to power again. Soon enough Rome could become like a European China or Persia, having a revolution every couple of centuries but never fading as a cultural influence.

Click to expand...

Probably wouldn't last that long, given the Mongol example. The big question is whether the western Empire forcibly reunited by the Huns remains together as local elites reestablish themselves. I think there would be a distinct lack of agreement on who was best fitted to recieve the "mandate of heaven", to use the Chinese term...

Question: does anyone know whether the Huns had converted to Christianity by the time of Attilla? I don't think ol' Scourge-of-God himself was a Christian.

I don't think Attilla was a Christian either. The Huns came and left so quickly (relatively speaking) that I don't think they had time to become Christians, though with the Ostrogoths as vassals, they could easily have been influenced by Arian preachers (or Catholic/orthodox anti-Arian missionaries, assuming they existed this early).