Huns completely annihilated in Battle of Chalons?

The result of the Battle of Chalons was that great casualties inflicted among the allies of both sides, engagement was inconclusive and interpreted as strategic Roman victory...
However King Theodoric of the Visigoths died in battle and his body was discovered next day by his son Thorismund who was immediately proclaimed King by his troops... Thorismund wanted to attack Attila who was trapped in his camp surrounded by Aetius army in order to revenge Theodoric's death... Aetius persuaded him not to do that (he was afraid that if Huns were completely destroyed Visigoths would have break the Alliance with WRE...) and advised him to return to Spain to secure his throne before his brothers rebelled...
WI Thorismund attacked Attila before Aetius could stop him?
How the complete annihilation of Huns and Attila's death alters history for Western Roman Empire and its alliances?
P.S. To combine that with my previous thread WI a complete Hunnic annihilation allowed Aetius to go to Britain and restore Roman rule there?
 
Last edited:
no i think without the treat from the huns the franks and visigoths dont need the help of the romans anymore and rebel or another steppe people invades the roman empire.
 
The next threat from the steppes were IIRC the Magyars and Bulgars, several centuries later.

Assuming Attilla dies at Chalons and his empire splinters per OTL, Italy doesn't get attacked a year or two later and the papacy doesn't get the hype it got OTL due the Pope (allegedly) running Attilla off.

Prometean's point about an earlier crackup between the Romans and their Germanic allies is a better one. How soon after Attilla's death did the Romans have problems with the Goths and all?
 
How much damage did Attilla do to Italy during his campaign there?

A richer, more populous Italy might affect things further down the line. We might seem a Roman core state survive there, or perhaps a richer Ostrogothic state than can see the Byzantines off when they come knocking.
 
no i think without the treat from the huns the franks and visigoths dont need the help of the romans anymore and rebel or another steppe people invades the roman empire.

Rome at this point survived by switching alliances among the various tribes. They needed the Huns to fight against the Visigoths (or the Bulgars, Magyars, Franks, or whoever else was threatening them). Think like why the Coalition forces didn't annihilate Saddam Hussein in 1991 when they had the chance. They needed him to fight against Iran (until he became more trouble than he was worth).
 
If Huns completely destroyed and Visigoths fighting each other for a new King (since Thorismund's brothers might have raised a rebellion) Aetius would be free to reform the Western Roman Empire... even going to Britain and restoring Roman authority over the island... We can combine it with a previous thread i have posted and Aetius be proclaimed Emperor...
 
If Huns completely destroyed and Visigoths fighting each other for a new King (since Thorismund's brothers might have raised a rebellion) Aetius would be free to reform the Western Roman Empire... even going to Britain and restoring Roman authority over the island... We can combine it with a previous thread i have posted and Aetius be proclaimed Emperor...

Assuming the Visigoths are successful in attacking the Huns fortified position, more likely without the other allies support they will recklessly charge and be broken by the Huns, they will still suffer casualities and Thorismund will be in weaker position to claim his throne. With the Hunnic force destroyed and Attila dead, the balance of power has been destroyed and the fragile balancing act so painfully erected by Aetius collapses.

When power structures collapse the result is uncertainty and chaos. What it would certainly mean is Rome is not in control of the political situation as much as it was in OTL. This means increased instability when they desparately needed more stability in the international scene. It also means a weaker position in Roman society for Aetius. A dangerous frontier instead of a relatively stable one and no Hunnic allies to balance the supporters of the emperor or the armies of the Germanic kingdoms.

If the attack failed the Huns would escape but with a victory against the Visigoths instead of a negotiated retreat under Aetius' terms.

What this would mean is a new Visigothic king less sympathetic, perhaps even openly hostile, to Rome and a Hunnic horde less cowed and therefore less likely to overthrow Attlia. The legends about him dying from overexertion with a new bride are just that - propaganda. Attila was becoming more and more disenchanted with his ad hoc alliances with Aetius and would now be even less willing to cooprate with the Roman leadership against other barbarian tribes.

All in all a far less satisfactory position for Rome then in OTL.
 
MarkA,

So the gains of weakened Visigoths and a better-off Italy aren't enough to make up for a lack of Hunnic threat to keep the Germans in line?

Hmm...I was under the impression it was the Huns that had driven the other Germans onward. With them gone, is there less pressure on the eastern Germanic tribes, or have the dominos already been set in motion?
 
MarkA,

So the gains of weakened Visigoths and a better-off Italy aren't enough to make up for a lack of Hunnic threat to keep the Germans in line?

Hmm...I was under the impression it was the Huns that had driven the other Germans onward. With them gone, is there less pressure on the eastern Germanic tribes, or have the dominos already been set in motion?

No.

If Attlia is killed and his army destroyed, the Visigoths under Thorismund are more of a threat because there is no Hunnic power to be used as check against them. If Thorismund is victorious but his supporters are too few so another king is elected, that king is likely to be one of his brothers who were anti-Roman so the Empire is under more immediate threat with no potential allies available to balance the Visigoths.
 
No.

If Attlia is killed and his army destroyed, the Visigoths under Thorismund are more of a threat because there is no Hunnic power to be used as check against them. If Thorismund is victorious but his supporters are too few so another king is elected, that king is likely to be one of his brothers who were anti-Roman so the Empire is under more immediate threat with no potential allies available to balance the Visigoths.


Actually Thorismund couldnt be much of a threat (for the moment) since he had to return to Toulouse and secure his throne before his brothers raise a rebellion... If Aetius had held him in Northern Gaul long enough for his brothers to raise a rebellion Visigothic Kingdom would have sunk in civil war and anarchy and they would be an easy target for the Romans...
 
Actually Thorismund couldnt be much of a threat (for the moment) since he had to return to Toulouse and secure his throne before his brothers raise a rebellion... If Aetius had held him in Northern Gaul long enough for his brothers to raise a rebellion Visigothic Kingdom would have sunk in civil war and anarchy and they would be an easy target for the Romans...

Exactly. Aetius would NOT let him stay in OTL so why would he not do the same in your ATL? Aetius realised he desparately needed both the Visigoths and the Huns to be indebted to him and also neither too badly defeated in order to maintain the balance of power in Rome's favour.
 
Do not forget the Romans were second rate troops by this time. Neither the Visigoths nor the Huns would be easy for them to control.
 
Actually what i said (sorry if i didnt express myself clearly) is:
Thorismund attacks immediately Attila (who was entrapped in his camp) as soon as he realises the death of his father... Attila is killed in revenge for Theodoric's death and Huns are annihilated... While Aetius delays Thorismund long enough to create a chatic situation in the Visigothic Kingdom... (Dont forget that Thorismund was badly wounded so he had to return as soon as possible)... If Aetius used Roman diplomacy/espionage to spread further unrest to the Visigoths he could get rid of both Huns and Visigoths at the same time... since Huns would be completely destroyed and Visigoths would kill each other over who is going to be the King...
 
Actually what i said (sorry if i didnt express myself clearly) is:
Thorismund attacks immediately Attila (who was entrapped in his camp) as soon as he realises the death of his father... Attila is killed in revenge for Theodoric's death and Huns are annihilated... While Aetius delays Thorismund long enough to create a chatic situation in the Visigothic Kingdom... (Dont forget that Thorismund was badly wounded so he had to return as soon as possible)... If Aetius used Roman diplomacy/espionage to spread further unrest to the Visigoths he could get rid of both Huns and Visigoths at the same time... since Huns would be completely destroyed and Visigoths would kill each other over who is going to be the King...
Right. And Mark illustrated several difficulties that they'd have with all that.
 
Maybe the Visigothic Kingdom sunk into disarray and split in 2 (between Theodoric and Euric...) or in 3 if Thorismund gained enough support and maintained Toulouse...
 
Actually what i said (sorry if i didnt express myself clearly) is:
Thorismund attacks immediately Attila (who was entrapped in his camp) as soon as he realises the death of his father... Attila is killed in revenge for Theodoric's death and Huns are annihilated... While Aetius delays Thorismund long enough to create a chatic situation in the Visigothic Kingdom... (Dont forget that Thorismund was badly wounded so he had to return as soon as possible)... If Aetius used Roman diplomacy/espionage to spread further unrest to the Visigoths he could get rid of both Huns and Visigoths at the same time... since Huns would be completely destroyed and Visigoths would kill each other over who is going to be the King...

That level of intrigue and thorough knowledge of the situation is unlikely. Aetius would have to react very quickly - day after the battle? - to delay Thorsimund, and he'd have to know what effect that would have before he would do so, and somehow know that he wasn't going to make it worse by turning Thorismund as well as his brothers against himself. That kind of political planning is easy in hindsight, but on the ground I don't believe it.
 
I think tat if Aetius was targeting in spliting the Visigothic Kingdom instead of destroying it or use it as an ally he might have tried that... a divided Kingdom is not easy to stand... In case of a civil war between Thorismund's brothers he would have sided with Thorismund so he would be much more indebted to him...
 
Top