Hun Wank?

What if Ailla hadn't died under mysterious circumstances in 453? Is it possible he could have lived a few more decades, solidified the Hunnic Empire and established a strong dynasty so one long lived heir succeeded him?

What would have been the results of this WI? Could there have been a strong Empire of the North into the 6th Century and even longer? What effects would this have on the Eastern Roman Empire and on the West?
 
Atilla not dying earlier would mean that the Hunnic state is stabilized for now, although I once asked if it was plausible for Atilla to become the Eastern Roman Emperor.
 
The Hunnic "Empire" looked more as a tribal federation than an actual antic state : even the germano-roman kingdoms were more structurated.
In fact, it could be better defined as a tribal federation with its raiding targets, abandoned after some times because too ravaged for looting something worth of mention.

Attila didn't showed OTL any sign of reform or stabilizating will : raiding and enjoying the loot seems to have been enough form him. But even if he suddenly change his mind for some reason, it wuldn't be enough to reverse the tendency.

Attila dying later would simply mean his demesne being dissolved later. Admittedly the butterfly could lead to a son of Attila managing to keep a territory and stabilizating it.
 
The Hunnic "Empire" looked more as a tribal federation than an actual antic state : even the germano-roman kingdoms were more structurated.
In fact, it could be better defined as a tribal federation with its raiding targets, abandoned after some times because too ravaged for looting something worth of mention.

Attila didn't showed OTL any sign of reform or stabilizating will : raiding and enjoying the loot seems to have been enough form him. But even if he suddenly change his mind for some reason, it wuldn't be enough to reverse the tendency.

Attila dying later would simply mean his demesne being dissolved later. Admittedly the butterfly could lead to a son of Attila managing to keep a territory and stabilizating it.

Of course a strong Empire of the North in the 6th Century wouldn't be a centralized state. But what the WI is about is whether the kind of tribal federation Attila created, where the Huns dominate and the other tribes recognize and accept that, could continue.
 
Of course a strong Empire of the North in the 6th Century wouldn't be a centralized state. But what the WI is about is whether the kind of tribal federation Attila created, where the Huns dominate and the other tribes recognize and accept that, could continue.

No.

1)It was at the rupture point where the "ethnic" Huns represented maybe 25% of the raiding bands. Ostrogoths, Alans, Franks, etc had their own leaders.
Once the bully-in-chief died, they felt not really tied by any loyalty.

2)The rule of Attilla came from the fact he assured to the Huns (in political meaning) regular loot and redistributed enough. The issue was he probably reached the maximum he could : already he was defeated in Gaul, and somewhat in Italy.
When the other people constituents of the Empire saw that the germanic people that settled provincial regions of Rome had a clearly more stable and more enjoyable position, raiding margins of the empire became less attractive.

3)The nature of Attila's rule was personal. Once died, the sucessor(s) had to begin again and rework the "political" ties.

Now, maybe one of Attila sucessors COULD, because of butterflies, do better than OTL and create a more stable kingdom at the marges of Roman Empire (as did the Gepides by exemple), in Pannonia if they could do well enough.
That's probably the best way to have a surviving Hunnic state, at least for more than 50 years.
 
Top