How many different scenarios can you come up with for a different fall of the Roman Empire? What defines different? That's up to you. Sooner fall, later fall, more peaceful breakup, internal revolution, more barbarian invasions, fewer barbarian invasions, hell, no barbarians at all! Let's see what we can come up with...
Alternate Fall of the Roman Empire...
- Thread starter Thermopylae
- Start date
Thermopylae said:
That depends on when we can consider it fallen. Do you mean an alternate decline? There were so many things that were working against the romans.
But one ATL I find a little interesting is, if Attila the Hun had actually conquered Rome, he came pretty close... Pretty close indeed.
One scenario I always thought was interesting is that say Atilla conquers Rome, claims his dowery as per the Emperor's sisters' will, accepts the authority of the Pope (i.e. becomes Christian), and is coronated as the Emperor of Rome. Attila establishes a new dynasty, and his clout with the Germanic tribes makes it so that the new Empire's borders are completely secure. Of course, Attila had so many sons, so that would make it interesting when Atilla dies.
HueyLong said:
Atilla was different. He wanted to be an ally of Rome, or rather, he wanted to be Rome's equal. He saw Honoria's dowry as a means to that, and would have gladly accepted the path of peace rather than war to achieve that. Honorius thought outherwise...
Rome had deformed emperors before. Not to mention by this time in Roman history most "Romans" were more like nominal Romans, many having much barbarian blood coursing through their veins. And by this time in the Empire's history I believe that the Roman people cared little for who ruled them, and many might have seen the coronation of Atilla as a sort of "fresh start" for Rome.
HueyLong
Banned
But, Romans and Germans and Celts were a little more similiar than Huns and Romans.
Turkic compared to Indo-European.
And Rome did not have an emperor deformed for the express purpose of frightening others. They didn't have an Emperor who styled himself the Scourge of God (or was styled). They did have an emperor who was hated as a demon and butcher and a bringer of the Apocalypse, but he wasn't well liked, and did not rule well.
I think Emperor Attila is kinda far-fetched, thats all.
Turkic compared to Indo-European.
And Rome did not have an emperor deformed for the express purpose of frightening others. They didn't have an Emperor who styled himself the Scourge of God (or was styled). They did have an emperor who was hated as a demon and butcher and a bringer of the Apocalypse, but he wasn't well liked, and did not rule well.
I think Emperor Attila is kinda far-fetched, thats all.
His terror came only when he went to war with Rome. Suppose Honoria's dowry was, through the use of assasination, upheld?
Or, suppose Atilla converts to Chritianity and accepts the power of the Pope way back early on before even the invasion of the Eastern Empire, in an effort to secure relations with high authorities within the Empire, as a diplomatic move?
Or, suppose Atilla converts to Chritianity and accepts the power of the Pope way back early on before even the invasion of the Eastern Empire, in an effort to secure relations with high authorities within the Empire, as a diplomatic move?
Atilla could not be the Roman Emperor. He was completely inelligble, as were all the other barbarians. Why do you think the Ostrogoths never proclaimed themselves Emperor? There was no legal basis for it. It would be as absurd as Charlemagne taking Rome and declaring himself Pope. It just wouldn't work.
What Atilla would do is to install someone whom he could control as Emperor, and rule as Odoacer did.
What Atilla would do is to install someone whom he could control as Emperor, and rule as Odoacer did.
Max Sinister
Banned
Hmm, but what exactly legitimated a Roman Emperor then? He had to be a Roman citizen and take power?
Would the son of Attila and Honoria be seen as elligible? Maybe he could act as regent of his own son!!
DominusNovus said:
Atilla could have become an Emperor for two reasons - unlike the Ostrogoths, he would not have been Arian (which was the reason for Germanic puppet-masters during the "shadow Emperors" period - most were of heretical denomination of Christianity, and thus ineligible), and if he was able to convert to proper Catholicism, I think the Romans were pragmatic enough to give him the crown. After all, they would reason, what has the Theodosian line done for them - and if Atilla and Honoria have a son, he would be technically a legitimate heir to the Empire - AFAIK Valentinian III was childless? And if he gets the Pope on his side, and manages to get full Papal support (given that Leo the Great was, AFAIK, quite influential in the day) on one side, and frightening military machine under his control on the other side - I doubt any would dare to oppose him, not even the Eastern Empire.
Who needs legitimacy when you have a huge army, and a country begging for a strong leadership.
If Attila isn´t cruel and starts slaughtering people along with raising taxes ferociously, why shouldn´t he be able to take control.
It would take though a few generations before the Huns would have restored order. But eventually, they, like the Turks, could have become bureaucrats.
It´s simple, the second generation of rulers, just needs to learn how to read.
If Attila isn´t cruel and starts slaughtering people along with raising taxes ferociously, why shouldn´t he be able to take control.
It would take though a few generations before the Huns would have restored order. But eventually, they, like the Turks, could have become bureaucrats.
It´s simple, the second generation of rulers, just needs to learn how to read.
So basically with secure borders and strong leadership, how long do y'all think this empire would last? Certainly past 476. The Germanic tribes dare not invade Rome or the client states, lest they be completely destroyed. Hell maybe the Hunnic dynasty rulers would try to conquer Rome for the sake of slaves and plunder in an effort to revitalize the economy of the empire.
And if you think the Hunnic people themselves would be restless, think again. The Huns could adopt Marian-style reforms and basically grant land to all their soldiers, and the Hunnic dynasty could use all the fertile empty land in the Hungary area as land given to Roman soldiers after twenty years' loyal service. (IIRC, that was a problem in the late-Roman empire. Land was either scarce for Roman soldiers, or in an area too beset by unrest/invasion)
So is all the above viable? Could the Roman Empire have been saved had they only had Atilla as their Emperor? Emperor Atilla I?
Depending on y'all's responses I may just start a timeline of this... My first TL...hmm...
And if you think the Hunnic people themselves would be restless, think again. The Huns could adopt Marian-style reforms and basically grant land to all their soldiers, and the Hunnic dynasty could use all the fertile empty land in the Hungary area as land given to Roman soldiers after twenty years' loyal service. (IIRC, that was a problem in the late-Roman empire. Land was either scarce for Roman soldiers, or in an area too beset by unrest/invasion)
So is all the above viable? Could the Roman Empire have been saved had they only had Atilla as their Emperor? Emperor Atilla I?
Depending on y'all's responses I may just start a timeline of this... My first TL...hmm...
Thermopylae said:
I'd say the biggest issue would be succession - if Atilla can somehow ensure that his chosen successor inherits without a civil war, AND if either Atilla becomes Emperor early on, or if he lives for another decade (not implausible with no Italian campaign - but then again, his days might have been numbered either way), it can work. I'd say go for it, if you can address the above issue(s) adequately.
Succession may be a problem... As I said, Atilla had many sons... How best to kill them off without pissing off the people back in the Hunnic kingdom or Rome...
Maybe if the successor had split his time being raised in Rome and in the Hunnic Kingdom, both sides would see the successor as one of them...
Maybe if the successor had split his time being raised in Rome and in the Hunnic Kingdom, both sides would see the successor as one of them...