WI: Huns sack Constantinople in 448?

[Arkenfolm]

In 447/early 448, two earthquakes struck Constantinople, severely damaging the walls of the city. This was also around the time that none other than Attila the Hun was campaigning in Thrace and the Balkans. Emergency efforts repaired the walls, and Attila settled for large tribute paid by the Eastern Empire.

So what if everything goes right for the Huns and everything goes wrong for the Romans? Perhaps Attila aims for Constantinople when he feels the earthquake and hears of its effects. The Roman effort to repair the walls is mired in corruption and failure, and the second earthquake (probably an aftershock) causes even more damage and allows the Huns to sack the city in 448. Attila views capturing the city as a means of extorting greater wealth out of the Romans than any emergency attempts to buy him off, so he continues with the siege.

What happens next in the Eastern Empire after the sack of Constantinople? And how does Attila's career finish after this moment?

 

[starman]

Had Attila succeeded to that extent by '48, he could've tried to takeover the eastern Empire instead of just extorting it. He might've put a puppet emperor on the throne, and threatened to destroy anyone who challenged him. Had he done that, or just got even more loot from the east, it wouldn't have been able to try to assist the West in 468. Of course that made no difference anyway. But what if Attila, content to live off the fat of the east, didn't go West in '51 and was still home in '53, hence able to preempt the trouble that year, and better consolidate Hun rule. I wonder if the Hun dominance would've lasted into the 6th century, preempting Justinian and enabling the ostrogoth and Vandal kingdoms to survive.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Had Attila succeeded to that extent by '48, he could've tried to takeover the eastern Empire instead of just extorting it. He might've put a puppet emperor on the throne, and threatened to destroy anyone who challenged him. Had he done that, or just got even more loot from the east, it wouldn't have been able to try to assist the West in 468. Of course that made no difference anyway. But what if Attila, content to live off the fat of the east, didn't go West in '51 and was still home in '53, hence able to preempt the trouble that year, and better consolidate Hun rule. I wonder if the Hun dominance would've lasted into the 6th century, preempting Justinian and enabling the ostrogoth and Vandal kingdoms to survive.

But can't the Eastern Empire regroup? Although I would think the capture of Constantinople is likely to break their whole system such that they have no way of doing so and are held hostage to Attila's demands. Such that if they resist, Attila campaigns into Anatolia. As you said, I guess Attila might never attack the Western Roman Empire and milk the Eastern Empire for all its worth? Is the Western Empire still doomed, or is its doom postponed until a later date?

Since you've sent the Eastern Empire into chaos, what might the Persians do as a result of this?

 

[Byzantion]

In 447/early 448, two earthquakes struck Constantinople, severely damaging the walls of the city. This was also around the time that none other than Attila the Hun was campaigning in Thrace and the Balkans. Emergency efforts repaired the walls, and Attila settled for large tribute paid by the Eastern Empire.

So what if everything goes right for the Huns and everything goes wrong for the Romans? Perhaps Attila aims for Constantinople when he feels the earthquake and hears of its effects. The Roman effort to repair the walls is mired in corruption and failure, and the second earthquake (probably an aftershock) causes even more damage and allows the Huns to sack the city in 448. Attila views capturing the city as a means of extorting greater wealth out of the Romans than any emergency attempts to buy him off, so he continues with the siege.

What happens next in the Eastern Empire after the sack of Constantinople? And how does Attila's career finish after this moment?

What if the Sassanid Empire allies with Attila?

 

[Arkenfolm]

What if the Sassanid Empire allies with Attila?

I don't think there'd be time at that point to ally with Attila, but after the sack (which has to happen in 448), maybe. The Persians will benefit off of this, that's guaranteed.

 

[Tom Colton]

Apocalypticism would reach a fever pitch, given that the Huns were already being likened to Gog and Magog.

 

[starman]

Is the Western Empire still doomed, or is its doom postponed until a later date?

Of course it's doomed, and if anything it'll fall sooner not later. It's true that eastern help availed little in 468 CE. But at least knowing the West had a "big brother" helped western morale a bit. Had the East been undermined beginning in 448, western leaders might've despaired of ever getting back on an even keel and thrown in the towel sooner.

Since you've sent the Eastern Empire into chaos, what might the Persians do as a result of this?

It's remarkable that, even after the shellacking the East took in 447 the Sassanids didn't take advantage of it, as they had done under similar circumstances in the third century. For some reason, the East's eastern front was remarkably quiet in the fifth century--a very lucky break for Constantinople. And far from the only lucky break that century.

 

[starman]

I don't think there'd be time at that point to ally with Attila, but after the sack (which has to happen in 448), maybe. The Persians will benefit off of this, that's guaranteed.

Had they been in a position to exploit eastern weakness I think they've would've done so. One potential problem for the Sassanids is that the Huns, in this alternate scenario, will come to regard the East as their own milch cow; its tribute is for them, and they might fight to stop sassanid inroads.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Wait, so what if Attila marries Pulcheria, heir to Eastern Rome, upon the death of Theodosius II? Sure, he wasn't too old (49), but perhaps he is killed in battle before or during the sack and Pulcheria is captured. Would Attila marry her and become leader of Eastern Rome, or would he hand her off to a loyal puppet and continue exacting tribute from Eastern Rome in that manner. This obviously places Attila in a role similar to the magister militum and in any case the power behind the throne. Attila could easily live until 460 or so, giving him quite a while to control Eastern Roman politics. No doubt usurpers might rise against him.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

If Attilla moves to sack the city, his army os going to get trapped and destroyed. It would be a rare strategic mistake on his part, one the Romans were waiting for. There were still Roman field armies in the Balkans avoiding a pitched battle. If he marched on Constantinople they woild concerge on him amd trap him.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

If Attilla moves to sack the city, his army os going to get trapped and destroyed. It would be a rare strategic mistake on his part, one the Romans were waiting for. There were still Roman field armies in the Balkans avoiding a pitched battle. If he marched on Constantinople they woild concerge on him amd trap him.

Agreed. The Huns knew attacking Constantinople in earnest was likely foolhardy. A way he could take it, I suppose, is if some sort of civil war of major proportions erupted and Attila supported the weaker side, preferably with a navy.

 

[Arkenfolm]

If Attilla moves to sack the city, his army os going to get trapped and destroyed. It would be a rare strategic mistake on his part, one the Romans were waiting for. There were still Roman field armies in the Balkans avoiding a pitched battle. If he marched on Constantinople they woild concerge on him amd trap him.

Even with the walls being at their weakest point (as my scenario laid out)? Is defeat simply that imminent for Attila, even if he knows the walls have been damaged that badly and suspects any rebuilding effort is likely to be pretty weak? So Attila has to divide these armies and defeat them one at a time to avoid being overwhelmed during a siege of Constantinople, and by that time, the walls may well be repaired to a much more suitable point?

Is subterfuge on the part of the Huns and Roman traitors (ala Fourth Crusade) really the only way to capture the city before the Roman armies eliminate Attila's forces?

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Even with the walls being at their weakest point (as my scenario laid out)? Is defeat simply that imminent for Attila, even if he knows the walls have been damaged that badly and suspects any rebuilding effort is likely to be pretty weak? So Attila has to divide these armies and defeat them one at a time to avoid being overwhelmed during a siege of Constantinople, and by that time, the walls may well be repaired to a much more suitable point?

Is subterfuge on the part of the Huns and Roman traitors (ala Fourth Crusade) really the only way to capture the city before the Roman armies eliminate Attila's forces?

It is just not in Attila's interests. His goal was to extract tribute from the Romans, as kuch of it as possible. This means a comtinuous stream of gold. Rosking the destruction of his army for a one time sack of Constantinople, is an unnecessary risk, and might risk the Roman emperor cutting off tribute altogether in retaliation. He can milk the Romans for far more money by just pillaging their lands at will until they agreee to more tribute.