WI Attila the Hun had Not Died in 453?

[Errnge]

Attila the Hun, Scourge of God, was arguably one of the greatest threats to the Roman Empire ever, and certainly was THE threat during the middle of the 5th century. His realm spread along Rome's northern borders in Germania, Pannonia, Dacia, and the Steppe. How far north his realm stretched is unknown precisely, but most consider the Baltic Sea to be the Northern Border of his Hunnic Empire.

So, in 453, after raiding and ravaging Northern Italy, and likely planning an invasion of the ERE after Marcian stopped paying tribute in 450, he died at a wedding, presumably from a nose-bleed. Maybe poison, but that doesn't really matter.

What if he just hadn't drunk so much, and didn't die that night. More interestingly, what if Attila the Hun had lived at least 20 more years? In the immediate future, how does this affect the WRE, ERE, and Sassanian Empire? What would be the reverberating affects of continued pressure and violence by a unified barbarian force under Attila's leadership?

 

[coldblood11]

Attila the Hun, Scourge of God, was arguably one of the greatest threats to the Roman Empire ever, and certainly was THE threat during the middle of the 5th century. His realm spread along Rome's northern borders in Germania, Pannonia, Dacia, and the Steppe. How far north his realm stretched is unknown precisely, but most consider the Baltic Sea to be the Northern Border of his Hunnic Empire.

So, in 453, after raiding and ravaging Northern Italy, and likely planning an invasion of the ERE after Marcian stopped paying tribute in 450, he died at a wedding, presumably from a nose-bleed. Maybe poison, but that doesn't really matter.

What if he just hadn't drunk so much, and didn't die that night. More interestingly, what if Attila the Hun had lived at least 20 more years? In the immediate future, how does this affect the WRE, ERE, and Sassanian Empire? What would be the reverberating affects of continued pressure and violence by a unified barbarian force under Attila's leadership?

The Western Roman Empire would have probably split just like it happened IOTL, Attila or not.

If the Hun would have survived, then I think the whole Balkan Peninsula and modern-day Romania would end up being much more culturally influenced by the Magyars, as well as linguistically, which would cause tensions within the Byzantine Empire, but not to the point of breaking the empire. The Turks would deal the second crippling blow, be it earlier or later.

I really have no idea about what the Sassanids would experience.

 

[Errnge]

The Western Roman Empire would have probably split just like it happened IOTL, Attila or not.

If the Hun would have survived, then I think the whole Balkan Peninsula and modern-day Romania would end up being much more culturally influenced by the Magyars, as well as linguistically, which would cause tensions within the Byzantine Empire, but not to the point of breaking the empire. The Turks would deal the second crippling blow, be it earlier or later.

I really have no idea about what the Sassanids would experience.

It would have crumbled, sure. But earlier perhaps? Maybe even later? Certainly not the same as OTL, because the Ostrogoths would be under the Hunnic heel, as well as the Franks.

And the Huns weren't the same as the Magyars. The Magyars migrated into Europe centuries after the Huns. Their migration might very well be butterflied away in total.

And could all of this be an opportunity for Sassanian advances into Eastern Roman territory?

 

[SlyDessertFox]

The Hunnic Empire surviving is the best thing that can happen to the Romans. No, seriously. It's collapse triggered a massive power vacuum on the northern frontiers, and when all hell broke loose, many of the tribes looked for refuge or plunder across the ERE and WRE's border. Also, as the Romans learned, it's much easier to deal with one power, who you can buy off, then to have numerous independent tribes on your border. Attila, ironically enough, was a source of stability on the Roman frontier.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

as well as the Franks.

Depends on which Franks. Frankish tribes were strong Roman allies on the Roman side of the Rhine until Clovis (being allied to the Domain of Soissons after the WRE fell). The others were nominally under Attila's thumb.

 

[Mongo]

The Hunnic Empire surviving is the best thing that can happen to the Romans. No, seriously. It's collapse triggered a massive power vacuum on the northern frontiers, and when all hell broke loose, many of the tribes looked for refuge or plunder across the ERE and WRE's border. Also, as the Romans learned, it's much easier to deal with one power, who you can buy off, then to have numerous independent tribes on your border. Attila, ironically enough, was a source of stability on the Roman frontier.

This. As I understand it, when the Hunnic Empire collapsed, there was a massive (albeit nearly undocumented) free-for-all in central Europe, with a steady stream of formerly subject tribes deciding they had enough, and looking for safer and more lucrative lands on the other side of the Roman border, either on their own or in newly created confederations of several tribes.

We know about the destruction that took place in ex-Roman territories at the time, but what happened in the former Hunnic Empire must have been just as bad.

 

[Imperator Maximilianius]

This. As I understand it, when the Hunnic Empire collapsed, there was a massive (albeit nearly undocumented) free-for-all in central Europe, with a steady stream of formerly subject tribes deciding they had enough, and looking for safer and more lucrative lands on the other side of the Roman border, either on their own or in newly created confederations of several tribes.

We know about the destruction that took place in ex-Roman territories at the time, but what happened in the former Hunnic Empire must have been just as bad.

Exactly. A lot of the tribes that tore Rome apart would have been either under the Hunnic Empire's control or cut off from Western Europe.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

This. As I understand it, when the Hunnic Empire collapsed, there was a massive (albeit nearly undocumented) free-for-all in central Europe, with a steady stream of formerly subject tribes deciding they had enough, and looking for safer and more lucrative lands on the other side of the Roman border, either on their own or in newly created confederations of several tribes.

We know about the destruction that took place in ex-Roman territories at the time, but what happened in the former Hunnic Empire must have been just as bad.

Exactly. A lot of the tribes that tore Rome apart would have been either under the Hunnic Empire's control or cut off from Western Europe.

Indeed. Though that isn't to say the Western Roman Empire is in the clear. They still need to take back North Africa. That said, Attila surviving also has another bonus for the Romans-it makes it more likely Aetius survives. Aetius survived as long as he did for two reasons:

1. At first he could always threaten to call upon Hunnic allies if his position was ever in danger, which was deterrent enough
2. He was the one guy in the west who understood and could handle Attila. It should be no surprise that Valentinian only became willing to challenge him after Attila's death. Of course, given how wily a stateman Aetius was anyway, butterflies could allow him to recognize any treachery on Valentinian's part early and strike first.

Either way, Aetius surviving is a major asset in the west's ability to retake North Africa and hold onto Gaul. If they can retake North Africa in this scenario, they are in really good shape all things considered.

 

[Mongo]

Either way, Aetius surviving is a major asset in the west's ability to retake North Africa and hold onto Gaul. If they can retake North Africa in this scenario, they are in really good shape all things considered.

I would think that the history books would have a chapter on the "fifth-century crisis" (along with one on the "third-century crisis"), but with the Western Roman Empire continuing to exist afterwards in some undoubtedly changed form.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

I would think that the history books would have a chapter on the "fifth-century crisis" (along with one on the "third-century crisis"), but with the Western Roman Empire continuing to exist afterwards in some undoubtedly changed form.

I can see that.

Anyway, what happens to the Hunnic Empire in this scenario? I can see a resumption of regular tribute from the east keep Attila at bay for awhile until hostilities inevitably return. Another trip west might be in the cards. Another interesting possibility is a major raid into Sassanian Persia. But what happens after Attila dies? Will the Hunnic Empire break up like OTL or will those extra 20 years allow a smoother succession?

 

[Pere F.]

Unless they produce another carismatic leader, they will break up, the huns is heterogeneous mix of people, the hunnic empire is very unstable to last long.

 

[Errnge]

The Hunnic Empire surviving is the best thing that can happen to the Romans. No, seriously. It's collapse triggered a massive power vacuum on the northern frontiers, and when all hell broke loose, many of the tribes looked for refuge or plunder across the ERE and WRE's border. Also, as the Romans learned, it's much easier to deal with one power, who you can buy off, then to have numerous independent tribes on your border. Attila, ironically enough, was a source of stability on the Roman frontier.

This. As I understand it, when the Hunnic Empire collapsed, there was a massive (albeit nearly undocumented) free-for-all in central Europe, with a steady stream of formerly subject tribes deciding they had enough, and looking for safer and more lucrative lands on the other side of the Roman border, either on their own or in newly created confederations of several tribes.

We know about the destruction that took place in ex-Roman territories at the time, but what happened in the former Hunnic Empire must have been just as bad.

Exactly. A lot of the tribes that tore Rome apart would have been either under the Hunnic Empire's control or cut off from Western Europe.

Indeed. Though that isn't to say the Western Roman Empire is in the clear. They still need to take back North Africa. That said, Attila surviving also has another bonus for the Romans-it makes it more likely Aetius survives. Aetius survived as long as he did for two reasons:

1. At first he could always threaten to call upon Hunnic allies if his position was ever in danger, which was deterrent enough
2. He was the one guy in the west who understood and could handle Attila. It should be no surprise that Valentinian only became willing to challenge him after Attila's death. Of course, given how wily a stateman Aetius was anyway, butterflies could allow him to recognize any treachery on Valentinian's part early and strike first.

Either way, Aetius surviving is a major asset in the west's ability to retake North Africa and hold onto Gaul. If they can retake North Africa in this scenario, they are in really good shape all things considered.

I would think that the history books would have a chapter on the "fifth-century crisis" (along with one on the "third-century crisis"), but with the Western Roman Empire continuing to exist afterwards in some undoubtedly changed form.

So, I find this argument rather compelling (to me it is much more realistic than claims that Attila would have taken over all of the Roman Empire), I think I shall make some counter arguments for the sake of playing devil's advocate.

So, to me, it seems unlikely that the WRE would recover at this point. They've lost Hispania, Africa, and Britannia as well as much of Gaul. To me, it seems that collapse in the West by the 450s was pretty much inevitable. Could it have been delayed? Sure. But it could also have been accelerated.

For example, it seems possible that instead of the period that followed Attila's death which seemed to give the WRE enough of a reprieve to launch a massive attack of Carthage, would not having a strong enemy at the North mean that any army assembled to take Carthage back would immediately have to turn around and fight off the inevitable invasion of Huns coming into Gaul or Italia. And without Gothic help, the Romans can't ever hope to defeat the Huns in the field.

Also, rather than the period of, say, ten or so years where formerly Hun-controlled tribes duked it out for dominance in the area (Gepids, Ostrogoths, Scirii, etc.), could you not see a continued ten years of these tribes moving as one against Rome multiple times, perhaps to be settled into the conquered territories.

Also, it seems that a continued Hunnic presence bodes ill for the ERE, who twice had Attila's armies at the walls of Constantinople, not to mention Sassanian armies moving in on Armenia. With the ERE pretty much completely unable to defend itself against the Huns, it seems likely to me that they would lose a lot of their territory in the Balkans, and possibly even more in the East if the Persians have their way.

It seems to me that Rome at this point was extremely fragile, and was bound to shatter from barbarian pressure. It seems likely to me that Rome will shatter, probably into a civil war, and the Visigoths, Vandals, Persians, Franks, and Huns will be there to scavenge what remains.

Anyway, what happens to the Hunnic Empire in this scenario? I can see a resumption of regular tribute from the east keep Attila at bay for awhile until hostilities inevitably return. Another trip west might be in the cards. Another interesting possibility is a major raid into Sassanian Persia. But what happens after Attila dies? Will the Hunnic Empire break up like OTL or will those extra 20 years allow a smoother succession?

The one raid Attila made into the Sassanian Empire didn't do so well for him. Europe posed much easier prey at the time. I'd think he would continue until he died to invade and press the Roman frontier until it collapsed. His empire would remain stable, but the former Roman territories would resemble a dystopia.

It's possible that the line of succession would smooth out and that one of his sons might kill off the others before making viable threats, but it is also possible that the Hunnic Empire will shatter too, like OTL, without a strong central leader to reign in all of the under-tribes that held up the Hun elite.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

So, to me, it seems unlikely that the WRE would recover at this point. They've lost Hispania, Africa, and Britannia as well as much of Gaul. To me, it seems that collapse in the West by the 450s was pretty much inevitable. Could it have been delayed? Sure. But it could also have been accelerated.

Far from it. The key to the maintenance of the WRE, as Peter Heather has it, is North Africa. With North Africa the WRE could survive indefinitely. Without it, they were doomed. After Aetius' death, taking back North Africa became ever more difficult as Aetius' death removed whatever stability was left in the empire. Therefore, Aetius surviving is important-he has a lot of connections across the empire and is single handedly holding it together through this crisis.

That said, even after Aetius' death, a WRE revival isn't impossible. There's 2 more points where it's a realistic goal. That is, with Majorian and with the 467 invasion of North Africa. Majorian, in two rapid campaigns, re-subdued almost the entirety of Gaul, and then crushed the forces in Spain. Of course, his fleet that was preparing an invasion of North Africa was burned and that was his demise.

In 467, the Great Armada as I'll call it had a massive chance of success. If that succeeds, North Africa is reclaimed, and, again, that is a massive boon to the west's survival.

Anyway, Attila surviving massively increases Rome's chance of being able to focus more of her attention on North Africa.

For example, it seems possible that instead of the period that followed Attila's death which seemed to give the WRE enough of a reprieve to launch a massive attack of Carthage, would not having a strong enemy at the North mean that any army assembled to take Carthage back would immediately have to turn around and fight off the inevitable invasion of Huns coming into Gaul or Italia. And without Gothic help, the Romans can't ever hope to defeat the Huns in the field.

Eh. Rome didn't attack North Africa for 6 years after Attila's death. So I don't think it was his death that gave them the window. That said, all Attila wanted was tribute. And the key here is Marcian has stopped paying tribute and Attila has been beaten back twice now in the west. He's going to be focusing on there for a couple years. Aetius will have his window still.

Also, it seems that a continued Hunnic presence bodes ill for the ERE, who twice had Attila's armies at the walls of Constantinople, not to mention Sassanian armies moving in on Armenia. With the ERE pretty much completely unable to defend itself against the Huns, it seems likely to me that they would lose a lot of their territory in the Balkans, and possibly even more in the East if the Persians have their way.

Attila could be nothing but a nuisance for the ERE. He could never take them over and they have the money to pay him off. At any rate, his death was far more dangerous. Tribes such as Theoderic's Goths gave Constantinople far more trouble than Attila did.

It seems to me that Rome at this point was extremely fragile, and was bound to shatter from barbarian pressure. It seems likely to me that Rome will shatter, probably into a civil war, and the Visigoths, Vandals, Persians, Franks, and Huns will be there to scavenge what remains.

Doubtful. It's a likely scenario if Attila dies. But Attila is what is holding it all together. And crucially the Vandals are really in decline from the late 50s onward with only Genseric holding everything together. Attila didn't want to destroy either empire, because that removes his tribute base. Similarly, the Franks are staunch allies of the Romans up until Clovis.

 

[Errnge]

Far from it. The key to the maintenance of the WRE, as Peter Heather has it, is North Africa. With North Africa the WRE could survive indefinitely. Without it, they were doomed. After Aetius' death, taking back North Africa became ever more difficult as Aetius' death removed whatever stability was left in the empire. Therefore, Aetius surviving is important-he has a lot of connections across the empire and is single handedly holding it together through this crisis.

A North Africa that Rome never took back. The Vandals were a tricky bunch, and even at their lowest point, they were able to out-smart and beat back a Roman force that greatly outmatched their own forces.

That said, even after Aetius' death, a WRE revival isn't impossible. There's 2 more points where it's a realistic goal. That is, with Majorian and with the 467 invasion of North Africa. Majorian, in two rapid campaigns, re-subdued almost the entirety of Gaul, and then crushed the forces in Spain. Of course, his fleet that was preparing an invasion of North Africa was burned and that was his demise.

But could a Majorian or Ricimer really do that well with the Huns pressing in on them? They were opportunists who really found themselves largely employing many that used to work for Attila, like Odoacer and Orestes.

In 467, the Great Armada as I'll call it had a massive chance of success. If that succeeds, North Africa is reclaimed, and, again, that is a massive boon to the west's survival.

Anyway, Attila surviving massively increases Rome's chance of being able to focus more of her attention on North Africa.

Eh. Rome didn't attack North Africa for 6 years after Attila's death. So I don't think it was his death that gave them the window. That said, all Attila wanted was tribute. And the key here is Marcian has stopped paying tribute and Attila has been beaten back twice now in the west. He's going to be focusing on there for a couple years. Aetius will have his window still.

Okay. So Attila died in 453. The Romans attacked North Africa in 467. That's 14 years, not 6. Majorian attempted to gather a force of mercenaries in Spain to take the fight to the Vandals, but they beat him before he could. Again, the Vandals were quite wily. I don't think we should downplay that pretty crucial fact.

And it appears that Attila wanted much more than tribute. He invaded Gaul with the intent of conquest, not tribute. He demanded half of the WRE as a dowry to his engagement to Honoria, which he had every intent of legitimizing. Italy, yes, he would have gladly just exacted tribute from them. Things seem murkier in the Balkans, but in the end the ERE was usually able to pay him off after he burned the countryside to nothing.

And "beaten back twice in the West" is a bit misleading. Defeated once in battle is really more accurate, and considering the Roman track record previous (and after) the Battle of Chalons, that doesn't seem to matter much. He invaded Italy, sacked several Northern Italian cities and didn't turn around because Aetius was so awesome, but because there was a famine in Italy at the time and plague had broken out in his ranks. Under more suitable circumstances, Attila could have burned the whole peninsula to the ground, and Aetius couldn't have done squat to stop him.

Attila could be nothing but a nuisance for the ERE. He could never take them over and they have the money to pay him off. At any rate, his death was far more dangerous. Tribes such as Theoderic's Goths gave Constantinople far more trouble than Attila did.

A nuisance? I'm sorry amigo, but you have the worst habit of downplaying people other than the Romans. Let's recap on Attila's track record on wiping the floor with the ERE, shall we?

440: destroy Viminacium in what's now Serbia. Also captured the city of Margus in the same region.

441-2: sacked Margus, Viminacium, Singidunim and Sirmium.

443-5: took Roman military centers of Naissus and Ratiara, as well as taking Serdica, Philippopolis, Arcadiopolis, and destroyed the Roman army outside Constantinople. Defeated another Roman army at Gallipolis. Only turned back because they were unable to breach the double-walls of Constantinople (which were built to keep the Huns out, by the way). Completely stripped the ERE of any military options in Europe.

447- Defeated ERE army at Utus. Raided unopposed as far as Greece. A contemporary account from the time in Constantinople:

"The barbarian nation of the Huns, which was in Thrace, became so great that more than a hundred cities were captured and Constantinople almost came into danger and most men fled from it. ... And there were so many murders and blood-lettings that the dead could not be numbered. Ay, for they took captive the churches and monasteries and slew the monks and maidens in great numbers."

—Callinicus, in his Life of Saint Hypatius

Hardly sounds like a nuisance, considering the ERE was never able to mount a successful defense against him, and he twice threatened the capital.

Doubtful. It's a likely scenario if Attila dies. But Attila is what is holding it all together. And crucially the Vandals are really in decline from the late 50s onward with only Genseric holding everything together. Attila didn't want to destroy either empire, because that removes his tribute base. Similarly, the Franks are staunch allies of the Romans up until Clovis.

Indeed, Attila did not want to see the Empire destroyed, but he also did not want to see it revive. During this time, he had the upper hand, and it was one of the few times in history where it was the Romans who were being played by the barbarians. And even still, I don't think he could hold back the Visigoths who had already taken vast swathes of the WRE from taking even more, or the Allemanni, who invaded Italy in 457. The WRE is doomed to fall apart, or be integrated into the East, which itself is in a compromised position.

As for the Vandals: No. They aren't.

Recall that the Vandals sacked Rome 455. Hardly sounds like the Vandals were the ones in decline at that point.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

A North Africa that Rome never took back. The Vandals were a tricky bunch, and even at their lowest point, they were able to out-smart and beat back a Roman force that greatly outmatched their own forces.

That doesn't mean they can't take it back. Majorian could have very well discovered the treachery ahead of time. As for the 467 invasion I attribute the defeat largely to Basiliscus' incompetence and some meddling by Ricimer (who may have not wanted the invasion to succeed for personal power reasons-him and Leo didn't see eye to eye on who should be emperor in the west to put it nicely, and Anthemius would be given a lot of legitimacy and political capital if the invasion succeeded. That would likely translate to the end of Ricimer and he knew it.

But could a Majorian or Ricimer really do that well with the Huns pressing in on them? They were opportunists who really found themselves largely employing many that used to work for Attila, like Odoacer and Orestes.

Could a Majorian? Well the key here is what happens in the 450s. The loss of Gaul occurred after Aetius' death and the power vacuum that erupted from it. If Aetius is surviving here-and he very well may, the butterflies with this POD could be enormous, there doesn't need to be a Majorian to have one last go at restoration. The western empire was not teetering on collapse under Aetius, but it was tenuous. His assassination was literally the worst thing that could have happened because of the power struggle that followed. If Aetius survives, that changes everything. He likely has important contacts in North Africa from his power struggle days with Boniface, and it's not like the Vandals were unwilling to play politics with the Romans.

Anyway, I think one important thing is being understimated here: By and large, invading the WRE was not really worth the effort for Attila. The west was at the very edge of his logistical capabilities and political control. That was probably the biggest factor in his withdrawal after his first invasion, and probably behind why he didn't press forward after sacking Aquilea. Add on the fact that there wasn't much tribute to exact out of the western empire, and it simply did not have a good enough benefit for the cost to waste time on after the first two failed attempts. The east was far more lucrative, and Attila could more than sustain his power on the tribute from the east alone.

Okay. So Attila died in 453. The Romans attacked North Africa in 467. That's 14 years, not 6. Majorian attempted to gather a force of mercenaries in Spain to take the fight to the Vandals, but they beat him before he could. Again, the Vandals were quite wily. I don't think we should downplay that pretty crucial fact.

I was referring to Majorian's attempt. They were, but it simply takes one traitor (since it appears the Vandals may have bribed Roman crews/captains to assist in burning the ships) to warn Majorian for the plan to fall to pieces. Not to mention, as I said, Aetius almost certainly has important political contacts in North Africa that Majorian simply did not have. They would be invaluable in figuring out the Vandals strategy. Regardless, the Vandal's maintaining control of North Africa was not a fait accompli especially if the west is more stable in this scenario with Aetius living.

And it appears that Attila wanted much more than tribute. He invaded Gaul with the intent of conquest, not tribute. He demanded half of the WRE as a dowry to his engagement to Honoria, which he had every intent of legitimizing. Italy, yes, he would have gladly just exacted tribute from them. Things seem murkier in the Balkans, but in the end the ERE was usually able to pay him off after he burned the countryside to nothing.

It was a pretext nothing more. Attila did not, nor could he sustain, a conquest. It simply would make no sense. His logistics were stretched to the maximum in his invasion of the west already. Attila's not insane and suicidal. All he wants, and all he requires, is tribute. I would reference Peter Heather but I don't have the book on me right now. Regardless, if Attila went for conquest, it would be the biggest mistake of his career.

And "beaten back twice in the West" is a bit misleading. Defeated once in battle is really more accurate, and considering the Roman track record previous (and after) the Battle of Chalons, that doesn't seem to matter much. He invaded Italy, sacked several Northern Italian cities and didn't turn around because Aetius was so awesome, but because there was a famine in Italy at the time and plague had broken out in his ranks. Under more suitable circumstances, Attila could have burned the whole peninsula to the ground, and Aetius couldn't have done squat to stop him.

His logistics were also stretched to a breaking point. He could not sustain an army in the west for very long. He didn't retreat after Chalons because it was a defeat. It really wasn't. He retreated because, again, he could not sustain an army that far west for any length of time. I believe with the second invasion the east counter-raided Hunnic territory anyway, which also contributed to Attila's withdrawal. Attila cannot simply take an army wherever he wants.

A nuisance? I'm sorry amigo, but you have the worst habit of downplaying people other than the Romans. Let's recap on Attila's track record on wiping the floor with the ERE, shall we?

440: destroy Viminacium in what's now Serbia. Also captured the city of Margus in the same region.

441-2: sacked Margus, Viminacium, Singidunim and Sirmium.

443-5: took Roman military centers of Naissus and Ratiara, as well as taking Serdica, Philippopolis, Arcadiopolis, and destroyed the Roman army outside Constantinople. Defeated another Roman army at Gallipolis. Only turned back because they were unable to breach the double-walls of Constantinople (which were built to keep the Huns out, by the way). Completely stripped the ERE of any military options in Europe.

447- Defeated ERE army at Utus. Raided unopposed as far as Greece. A contemporary account from the time in Constantinople:

Which again, never directly threatened the existence of the ERE. Constantinople could never be taken by Attila, and he knew it. Even after the earthquake, a siege of Constantinople would have been very lengthy and Attila would have been boxed in in the process and destroyed. If anything, that was exactly what the eastern commanders wanted. By nuisance I mean Attila posed no existential threat to the eastern empire.

"The barbarian nation of the Huns, which was in Thrace, became so great that more than a hundred cities were captured and Constantinople almost came into danger and most men fled from it. ... And there were so many murders and blood-lettings that the dead could not be numbered. Ay, for they took captive the churches and monasteries and slew the monks and maidens in great numbers."

—Callinicus, in his Life of Saint Hypatius

I think you underestimate the ability for exaggeration. I also am not going to take very literally a source written by someone in the 7th century about a 5th century occurrence. Were the Huns terrifying to the people of the Balkans? Yup. Did they prove a serious problem for maintaining stability and economic well being in the Balkans? Yup. Were they ever an existential threat to Constantinople? Nope.

Hardly sounds like a nuisance, considering the ERE was never able to mount a successful defense against him, and he twice threatened the capital.

He never actually had any shot at taking the capital. This is what would happen if he went for Constantinople (and Attila was directly aware of this, which is why he never tried it). He would be bogged down in a lengthy siege he could never win. Roman field armies in the Balkans (who normally never engaged in a field battle with Attila and so would be very much intact), would surround him. Attila would be trapped and doomed. And again,why would he want to destroy the eastern roman empire? It was far more politically and militarily expedient for him to raid the Balkans, sack a few cities, and demand an increase in tribute (or demand the resumption of tribute), which the ERE almost always obliged. His raiding rested on him maintaining political power at home and that was largely achieved through military might and/or bribing his court lavishly. Which is why all his raids in the east ended with a demand for tribute and never were aimed at destroying the ERE.

Indeed, Attila did not want to see the Empire destroyed, but he also did not want to see it revive. During this time, he had the upper hand, and it was one of the few times in history where it was the Romans who were being played by the barbarians. And even still, I don't think he could hold back the Visigoths who had already taken vast swathes of the WRE from taking even more, or the Allemanni, who invaded Italy in 457. The WRE is doomed to fall apart, or be integrated into the East, which itself is in a compromised position.

Again, all of that was a direct result of the assassination of Aetius. With Attila surviving you vastly increase the chances of Aetius surviving. Aetius was instrumental in holding the WRE together and it's clear he was making moves towards getting one of his own on the throne to shore up his legitimacy. With a couple years of butterflies in between, Aetius' chances of living are substantially increased.

Recall that the Vandals sacked Rome 455. Hardly sounds like the Vandals were the ones in decline at that point.

Because, again, the Roman state practically collapsed following Aetius' death. I'm not saying the Vandals were not a force to be reckoned with, far from it. What I am saying though, is Genseric is to the Vandals what Aetius is to the Romans-the guy holding everything together by sheer force of personality and ability.

 

[Errnge]

That doesn't mean they can't take it back. Majorian could have very well discovered the treachery ahead of time. As for the 467 invasion I attribute the defeat largely to Basiliscus' incompetence and some meddling by Ricimer (who may have not wanted the invasion to succeed for personal power reasons-him and Leo didn't see eye to eye on who should be emperor in the west to put it nicely, and Anthemius would be given a lot of legitimacy and political capital if the invasion succeeded. That would likely translate to the end of Ricimer and he knew it.



Could a Majorian? Well the key here is what happens in the 450s. The loss of Gaul occurred after Aetius' death and the power vacuum that erupted from it. If Aetius is surviving here-and he very well may, the butterflies with this POD could be enormous, there doesn't need to be a Majorian to have one last go at restoration. The western empire was not teetering on collapse under Aetius, but it was tenuous. His assassination was literally the worst thing that could have happened because of the power struggle that followed. If Aetius survives, that changes everything. He likely has important contacts in North Africa from his power struggle days with Boniface, and it's not like the Vandals were unwilling to play politics with the Romans.

Anyway, I think one important thing is being understimated here: By and large, invading the WRE was not really worth the effort for Attila. The west was at the very edge of his logistical capabilities and political control. That was probably the biggest factor in his withdrawal after his first invasion, and probably behind why he didn't press forward after sacking Aquilea. Add on the fact that there wasn't much tribute to exact out of the western empire, and it simply did not have a good enough benefit for the cost to waste time on after the first two failed attempts. The east was far more lucrative, and Attila could more than sustain his power on the tribute from the east alone.


I was referring to Majorian's attempt. They were, but it simply takes one traitor (since it appears the Vandals may have bribed Roman crews/captains to assist in burning the ships) to warn Majorian for the plan to fall to pieces. Not to mention, as I said, Aetius almost certainly has important political contacts in North Africa that Majorian simply did not have. They would be invaluable in figuring out the Vandals strategy. Regardless, the Vandal's maintaining control of North Africa was not a fait accompli especially if the west is more stable in this scenario with Aetius living.


It was a pretext nothing more. Attila did not, nor could he sustain, a conquest. It simply would make no sense. His logistics were stretched to the maximum in his invasion of the west already. Attila's not insane and suicidal. All he wants, and all he requires, is tribute. I would reference Peter Heather but I don't have the book on me right now. Regardless, if Attila went for conquest, it would be the biggest mistake of his career.

His logistics were also stretched to a breaking point. He could not sustain an army in the west for very long. He didn't retreat after Chalons because it was a defeat. It really wasn't. He retreated because, again, he could not sustain an army that far west for any length of time. I believe with the second invasion the east counter-raided Hunnic territory anyway, which also contributed to Attila's withdrawal. Attila cannot simply take an army wherever he wants.



Which again, never directly threatened the existence of the ERE. Constantinople could never be taken by Attila, and he knew it. Even after the earthquake, a siege of Constantinople would have been very lengthy and Attila would have been boxed in in the process and destroyed. If anything, that was exactly what the eastern commanders wanted. By nuisance I mean Attila posed no existential threat to the eastern empire.


I think you underestimate the ability for exaggeration. I also am not going to take very literally a source written by someone in the 7th century about a 5th century occurrence. Were the Huns terrifying to the people of the Balkans? Yup. Did they prove a serious problem for maintaining stability and economic well being in the Balkans? Yup. Were they ever an existential threat to Constantinople? Nope.

He never actually had any shot at taking the capital. This is what would happen if he went for Constantinople (and Attila was directly aware of this, which is why he never tried it). He would be bogged down in a lengthy siege he could never win. Roman field armies in the Balkans (who normally never engaged in a field battle with Attila and so would be very much intact), would surround him. Attila would be trapped and doomed. And again,why would he want to destroy the eastern roman empire? It was far more politically and militarily expedient for him to raid the Balkans, sack a few cities, and demand an increase in tribute (or demand the resumption of tribute), which the ERE almost always obliged. His raiding rested on him maintaining political power at home and that was largely achieved through military might and/or bribing his court lavishly. Which is why all his raids in the east ended with a demand for tribute and never were aimed at destroying the ERE.


Again, all of that was a direct result of the assassination of Aetius. With Attila surviving you vastly increase the chances of Aetius surviving. Aetius was instrumental in holding the WRE together and it's clear he was making moves towards getting one of his own on the throne to shore up his legitimacy. With a couple years of butterflies in between, Aetius' chances of living are substantially increased.



Because, again, the Roman state practically collapsed following Aetius' death. I'm not saying the Vandals were not a force to be reckoned with, far from it. What I am saying though, is Genseric is to the Vandals what Aetius is to the Romans-the guy holding everything together by sheer force of personality and ability.

Ah. A well made argument. I concede. Well done

 

[Hrvatskiwi]

That was really entertaining and informative Errnge and slydessertfox. *applause*

 

[chornedsnorkack]

Stupid question: what month of 454 was Battle of Nedao?

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Ah. A well made argument. I concede. Well done

I think that's like the first time I've been in a debate where someone conceded. I always like these Roman debates. This one was fun.

That was really entertaining and informative Errnge and slydessertfox. *applause*

Stupid question: what month of 454 was Battle of Nedao?

I don't think we know (Jordanes certainly doesn't mention the date). Though if I were to venture a guess, sometime between April-October. That doesn't really narrow it down much though.

 

[chornedsnorkack]

It´s relevant because of the relation to 21st of September, 454.

So - was the outcome of Nedao known in Ravenna before 21st of September?