WI: No Attila

What if Attila never is born and the Hunnic Horde is never lead by him? How would that change history? Would the Huns still rampage across Europe or would they be content to the steppes with occasional forays into Eastern Rome?
 
Hunnic Horde
Huns weren't some kind of Proto-Mongols as imagined by XIXth romanticized historiography.
They formed a confederation which was far from a steppe empire : lack of nomadic peoples is particularily telling, Central European geography, reliance over Romania as for structuration; with a relatively limited proper Hunnic influence : Germanic, Sarmatian and Late Roman features seems to have domined on several grounds.

That said.

Before Attilla, Huns were already largely in contact with Rome : Hunnic mercenaries and auxiliaries were often used by Romans since the early Vth century, as they were considered as more reliable than most foedi or Barbarians inside Romania at this point by generals as Aetius.
This military role and the Roman subsides (more or less sincerely considered as a tribute by Huns) and objective alliance against Germans really buffed Hunnic hegemony in Central Europe by the early 430's, which seems to have formed a super-complex chiefdom in the region, not only trough the submission of many peripherical peoples, but as well as forming an unified rulership as Ruga ruled alone.

Huns, at this point, already play a major role in the Vth century.

Now, Attila leadership seems to have been led to particularily ambitious objectives : it's not a given, far from it, that Bleda would have pulled the same. Nevertheless, Bleda did led with Attilla the campaigns of 440's against Eastern Romania, which had as main purpose to increase the subsides/tributes.
But the Hunnic hegemony was dependent as well on its redistributive capacities than on the charismatic leadership of their rulers. Would Bleda rule alone, I'm not convinced (for the few we know about him) that he had that in the same proportion than his brother.

Either it goes more or less as IOTL, as Bleda bully Constantinople out of its money before trying to pressure western Romania as Balkans are depleted, with a smililar result.

Either Bleda is less able to unify Huns under his authority, and we might witness the usual co-rulership (which may hint at a territorial/political division of the Hunnic hegemony).
Interestingly, this latter option might be relatively beneficial for Huns, making these less vitally reliant on military victories and huge income from tributes and plunder.
We might see some equivalent to Avar or more probably Gepid presence north of Danube, meaning a relatively peripherical entity to Late Romania and Illyricum, with the already importantly Sarmatized and Germanized Huns being culturally not that distinguishable from their immediate neighbours.
 
@LSCatilina Agreed. It has always confounded me as to why people seem to believe the Huns suddenly appear from the vast steppe under Attila. They were in Eastern Europe for quite some time before Bleda or Attila and likely were not from the far eastern steppes at all.
 
@LSCatilina Agreed. It has always confounded me as to why people seem to believe the Huns suddenly appear from the vast steppe under Attila. They were in Eastern Europe for quite some time before Bleda or Attila and likely were not from the far eastern steppes at all.

If McEvedy's Penguin Atlas of Medieval History is accurate, from aby 375 to the accession of Attila they occupied a region from central Hungary to the Caspian Sea, and beyond those limits were content with raids rather than conquests.

Had this policy continued, the Hunnish Kingdom might have survived longer, as Attila's expansionism led to "imperial overstretch" and united Romans Visigoths and Franks against them, leading to their defeat and collapse. Without him, there might have been an uneasy balance between Romans, Germans and Huns, allowing the WRE to go on longer. perhaps into the 6C when Belisarius or someone might have been able to come to its aid.
 
If McEvedy's Penguin Atlas of Medieval History is accurate, from aby 375 to the accession of Attila they occupied a region from central Hungary to the Caspian Sea, and beyond those limits were content with raids rather than conquests.
Which kind of fun can I have answering these threads if you're pointing right from the beggining what's wrong with some representations?
More seriously : of course,this depiction as as much reliable than a chocolate teapot in the Death Valley, as much as the depiction of an eastern european Ostrogothic Empire that, IRRC, the same atlas provides.

Anyone using it is going to met a serious disappointment or doesn't barely looked at an actual historical depiction or study of the period. I mean, I have also really pretty maps of Atlantean Empire if we go this way, complete with migrations.

Save a power base in the Pannonian plain, we're much less talking of a territorial power than hegemonic power, more or less undefined and mostly based on aformentioned redistributive and charismatic capacities.
If we're searching a map, this may be more fitting.
You'd notice that it's a map of the Hunnic hegemony at the end of Attila's reign : some regions weren't covered in 430's (especially in Germania), and some were badly controlled.

One can't understand the quick collapse of the Hunnic power if they consider it as imperial or based on conquests. This is the exact contrary : Huns relied on victories and subsides, enough that the backleash of the 450's was enough to crippled them and led domined people to victory at Nehao (at least, the peoples that didn't already leaved the SoI of Huns at Attila's death).
 
Last edited:
... the Huns ... were in Eastern Europe for quite some time before Bleda or Attila and likely were not from the far eastern steppes at all.
First of all, the core of the ethnic true Huns were 'from the far eastern steppes'. There is no slightest doubt about it among the historians.
Where else would you get the Mongoloid nomads from?

There are archaeological findings where the Huns' Mongoloid racial traits are explicit along with their distinct Inner Asian culture.
Where exactly they are from - that's another issue; probably we'll never be able to know it for sure.
As for their language, there's general consensus among the linguists that it was probably some form of a (proto-)Altaic dialect, related to other Altaic languages (like the Turkic and the Mongolian).

What if Attila never is born and the Hunnic Horde is never lead by him? How would that change history? Would the Huns still rampage across Europe or would they be content to the steppes with occasional forays into Eastern Rome?
I am of the opinion that it is not about Attila, it is about the Huns as such.

The Hunns are the Inner Asian entity(-ies) which got into the European steppes. That took a very long time, but they definitely preserved their ways, including their peculiar empire-building 'inner-asian steppe' habits.
Even before Attila, the Huns already obliterated the so called Chernyakhov culture, which showed their potential. The Battle of Adrianople is when the impact of the Huns on the Empire started to show. I mean the Huns saw that the Goths, running from them, dealt such a blow to the superpower in place; and they definitely made their conclusions about who is the strongest here (meaning the Huns, if united and properly ruled and prepared).

So from my point of view the Huns brought with them their skills to built a huge Empire out of different "Barbarian" peoples by (comparatively) tiny nomad elite. And given some time this was destined to happen.
I mean there's some pattern among the Inner Asian nomads which is close to objective law, regularity, when they start to get together, unite around some charismatic leader in order to strike the closest richest empire.
If it had not been Genghizz Khan it would have been Jamukha; if it had not been Attila it would have been Bleda. One thing for sure - you can count on the most ruthless and aggressive ruler coming on top. Kind of Darwinian law or something; close to inevitability.

So from my point of view with or without Attila the impact of the Huns on the Roman Empire(s) would have been similar... give or take a few hundred thousand people killed, a few thousand square miles scorched...
 
Top