alternatehistory.com

As most of you know the Roman Empire went through a crisis in the fifth century.

For those of you who don't know the details, after decades of barbarians running around, the 447 and 448 earthquakes devastated the city of Constantinopolis. Attila the Hun was able to conquer the city, whose fortifications were basically useless and whose civil order had collapsed. Over the next few years he established his rule over most of the East, and his son Ellac united most of the Roman Empire. Once again both halves were ruled by one Emperor like under Theodosius I, and Ellac even moved the capital to Rome a few years before his death.

What if instead of Roman rule being superseded by the Germans and Huns but the Empire being reunited, Attila the Hun didn't capitalize on the opportunity provided by the earthquakes? (His empire would collapse without Constantinople, right? I mean he only ruled subjugated barbarian tribes before that)

I think the Visigoths and Franks could have had independent, fairly powerful kingdoms.

The Eastern Empire might have endured, though it might be conquered by the Sassanids.

Would the Slavs, Magyars, Turks, Arabs, and the second wave of Germans still settle the Roman Empire and become one of the many foederati, at least until the 1067 AD collapse?

Any other ideas?
Top