Bleda The Hun

He might have been, he seemed as ambitious though a bit reserved, he seemed to have respected treaties just a bit more than Atilla, altough he still would have exacted heavy tribute, and may have followed his uncle's example of heavy tribute, and border skirmishes, and raiding.

Without Attila they is a distint possibility that the WRE could have lasted significantly longer.

Bleda maybe capable to handle and do that, but she must ally with the Germannic Tribes to do a "Scourge of God" as horrible as his brother did.

I'm not sure, we don't have a very complete description of Bleda, and thus don't know whether he would have taken the same path as Attila. I couldn't give a good answer either. The �Scourge� was an Ancient Roman type of whip, designed to inflict the most damage and pain possible on the victim. Attila dubbed himself with the sobriquet, �Scourge of God�, as he believed himself to be "God�s whip" to inflict as much pain and damage to the Western and Eastern Roman Empires as possible. Whether Bleda had intentions to attack the WRE is unknown to an extent. Attila made many fatal mistakes, and if Bleda had've been in the position and not made similar errors, the WRE could have expired 20 years earlier than it did...

From what I know he seems more calm, and rational, he supported the politics of the day, i.e. the raiding, and the tribute collections from both the Western, and Eastern Empire among others. Attila seemed too impatient for such safe, and sure prosperous enterprises', and rather liked conueror's path to ensure the virility of his realm. Their uncle, and as seems Bleda prefered that concrete path, unlike Attila. Therefore, to me it seems that he would have been a tough opponent for Rome, nevertheless, he would have preferred his tributes than going to claim his rights to the Emperor's sisters hand in marriage.

Originally posted by es_bih From what I know he seems more calm, and rational, he supported the politics of the day, i.e. the raiding, and the tribute collections from both the Western, and Eastern Empire among others. Attila seemed too impatient for such safe, and sure prosperous enterprises', and rather liked conueror's path to ensure the virility of his realm. Their uncle, and as seems Bleda prefered that concrete path, unlike Attila. Therefore, to me it seems that he would have been a tough opponent for Rome, nevertheless, he would have preferred his tributes than going to claim his rights to the Emperor's sisters hand in marriage.

Originally posted by Knights Originally posted by Penelope   That is very well put, and fair enough. I actually had no idea that Attila dubbed Himself that.  And i would finally like to say, that Rugila The Great, uniter of the tribes, should also be credited, since he "gave birth" to both Bleda and Attila lol. Rugila, was he Attila/Bleda's predecessor? I can't remember if he was their father, or their predecessor...Rua comes to mind. Anyway, I get your drift about him "giving birth" to the two. I believe that Attila's greatest achievement was centralising Hunnic authority and administration, by laying the stones for a capital, and uniting the numerous Hunnic tribes to an extent unseen before him.

Edited by Penelope - 11-Aug-2007 at 03:25

Originally posted by Knights Originally posted by PENELOPE! Yes, Rugila The Great was the uncle of the two, and creater of the empire. He had them both crowned before his death.   And Knights, i do believe that both Attila and Bleda together, would have had enough capability to conquer the entire planet, had they stuck together. Maybe a bittt of a hyberbole...seeing as even Genghis and his dogs of war didn't even achieve that. But Nevertheless, the Huns would have been a force to reckon with to both the WRE and ERE if Bleda and Attila had campaigned in unison. Another huge mistake Attila made was not making full use of Geiseric. Not even allying or scheming against the common enemy, the WRE, was a mistake that's implications should not be overlooked - Attila and Geiseric could have whooped the WRE! But in all seriousness, purely by remedying some of the mishaps of Attila, Bleda/Attila and Bleda, might have dramatically changed the course of history...

Originally posted by Knights Very true Penelope. Regardless, it was nothing compared to the misjudgment, disorganisation and consequent failure of Attila's successors. See: http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=Attila_the_Hun_The_Scourge_of_God_-_Demonic_ Should provide some further insight into the matter (not on Bleda though).

Attila and Bleda (actually its Buda) were close brothers in good relationship. No fight between them, Attila didnt kill Buda as some western historicals claim.. As the Huns, Magyars, Scythians, had dual rulership. Attial was leader of the army, he was the hysical power of the Hun empire, while Buda was teh spiritual leader of the people. Thats how the balance is kept.

little off topic: There are 2 common versions of Attila death. Attila was not killed by her wife, and not died in bleeding nose by drinking wine. Even teh greek Priscos rhetor wrote down that Attila was drinking much anytime. He was far more wise leader than get ddrunk on any occasion. Attila was assasinated in a pact of the Western and Eastern Roman empire.