Attila the Crusader

I came across this quote from Gregory of Tours in the History of the Franks

�Journey of Bishop Aravatius of Tongres to Rome thait he might avert by prayer the threatened invasion of the Huns. But there he learns that "it was sanctioned in the council of the Lord that the Huns must come into the Gaul�s and ravage them." He: returns to Tongres and dies.�

At the time the Gaul�s where mainly under Visigoth control, who practiced the heresy of �Arian Christianity�.

The "Council of the lord", Isn't that the Pope of Rome?

Priscus an eastern Roman ambassador journeyed to Attila�s palace he meets up with some western Romans who are on an embassy also. Priscus gets into a conversation Constantiolus one of the western ambassadors, discussing whether Attila should attack the Persians. Priscus states:

�Constantiolus said that he feared that when he had easily subdued the Persians, he would return as a master rather than as a friend. At present, gold is brought to him because of his rank. However, if he were to subdue the Parthians, Medes, and the Persians, he would not continue to endure a Roman state independent of himself and, holding them to be obviously his servants, would lay upon them very harsh and intolerable injunctions. (The rank which Constantiolus mentioned was that of a Roman general, which the Emperor had granted to Attila��

Attila's a Roman General??

Jordanes tells us about Attila�s invasion of Italy

� �a peace mission came to him from Rome. For Pope Leo in person came to him in the district of Ambuleium in Venetia, at a place where a busy ford crosses the river Mincius. Attila soon abandoned his usual fury and, with a promise of peace, retreated beyond the Danube�"

Attila is listening to Pope Leo. A Christian Pope, what kind of Barbarian is he anyway???

Was Attila the Scoorge of God or the Scoorge of Pope Leo????

Thoughts and comments welcomed 

 

Edited by Monteleone

Originally posted by minchickie where did you get such garbage from??? its not even edited properly! what crap!

Medieval Sourcebook:
Gregory of Tours (539-594):
History of the Franks: Books I-X

In Book II Chapter 5

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/gregory-hist.html

The Fragmentary Classicising Historians of the Later Roman Empire. Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus and Malchus. II. Text, Translation and Historiogr ... l Texts, Papers and Monographs 10) (Arca, 10)

By Dr. R.C. Blockley

Priscus of Paniun part of fragment 8 for the years (447-448)

(Exc de Leg. Rom. 3)

Page 279

�No on-line version�

Available at Amazon for $75

http://www.amazon.com

THE ORIGIN AND DEEDS OF THE GOTHS

translated by Charles C. Mierow

JORDANES written around (550)

Chapter XLII part (223)

http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~vandersp/Courses/texts/jordgeti. html

 

Originally posted by Belisarius Jesus of Nazareth, the things that get published these days... Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the world of tomorrow, where the literature is mediorce and the history books are unedited, filled with nothing but generalizations, opinions, assumptions, and are good for nothing but shock value.

Yes it's amazing, that these Authors wrote these words 1500 years ago. Yet our modern history books state a much different view of events. But the modern history books use these Authors as their primary source for information about this time period. Hummm.....It most be that whole editing thing you where talking about.

Perhaps we should burn this ancient writings since they do not agree with our vision of the good Pope Leo and the evil Attila.

 

Edited by Monteleone

Yes, Heraclius is exactly right.

What I was complaining about was not the historical quotes, that would be quite illogical of me. I was complaining about the authors' writing. They are making erroneous conclusions about almost random quotes. Yes, the editing was also a problem.

If one reads a lot of history, a conclusion most come up with is that there really is no such thing as good or evil. Attila wanted a home for his weary people, but killed hundreds of thousands without mercy. Can one say he is good or evil?


Edited by Belisarius

 At Chalons Attila lost a large number of his Hunnic troops, the core of his army the men he could always rely on, I personally wouldnt feel safe leading a large army into Italy which would have had large numbers of germanic contingents in whilst my heartland (hungary) was weakly defended.

 Had the Eastern empire not invaded, then perhaps Attila may have found a way to continue his campaign, but he simply couldnt risk losing his base especially when so many Hunnic troops had been killed at Chalons by Aetius.

 Chalons as a battle was a narrow victory for Rome it wasnt a crushing victory but Attila had been finally checked, his campaign in Gaul halted his army badly damaged. So even though both sides suffered horrendous casualties its still a Hunnic defeat which had consequences for when Attila invaded Italy.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Quite right, I do believe the claim Leo's preaching turned away Attila to be simple church propaganda. It was a way of them cementing their hold on a society reeling from the destruction of the Dark Ages and lacking moral leadership. Claiming you "saved" civilization from being overrun by the likes of Attila is a good way of doing that. More than likely Attila turned back due to the famine and disease sweeping Italy. As we know the Huns did not have a particularly advanced system of logistics like the Romans and Byzantines. Lacking a proper navy and often living off the land the were invading, the Huns had little to sustain them in famine stricken Italy. Attila managed to sack Aquileia, but only just. Only by the superstitious sign of a flock of birds was he able to muster his army to finally break through the city just as he was about to abandon it. Aquileia was considered the 12th city of the Empire at the time and was encountered very early on during Attila's invasion. As Attila's army advanced the famine, disease and usual desertion of racially heterogeneous conscripts and unpaid mercenaries took their tool. Attila, only just able to capture a city like Aquileia, would have no chance breaking through the Aurelian Walls and entering Rome. A siege would have been necessary, and a protracted siege by the Hunnic army in a famine and disease stricken land would only have ended in failure. The assertive Emperor Marcian in the East may even have sent an expedition to smash the already badly weakened force slowly wasting away outside Rome.

The memory of this event was mixed with other historical events. The encounter of Pope Leo and the vandal king Geiserik two years after Attila's death, and the capture of Rome by Totila the goth king. (In the medieval times the name Attila was often mispelled to Totila) Attila and the pope truly encountered, but not besides Rome, but at the river Micio and the pope was only one member of the delegation.

Originally posted by Raider   Attila and the pope truly encountered, but not besides Rome, but at the river Micio and the pope was only one member of the delegation.

Raider, the meeting by the river Mincio is not fact, but medieval fiction.

"In a life of Leo the Great by some later author, whose name is unknown to us, the episode as told by Prosper has been developed into a miraculous tale calculated to meet the taste of the time"

 After over 15 centuries of myth it may be impossible to ever get an accurate view of Attila and what happened.

 However logic and basic common sense suggests that a Pagan barbarian king would not listen to a word a christian leader would say to him, after all why would he? he had been at war with Rome for years why a sudden change of heart?

 The fact is like most military endeavors that fall apart, disease, famine and invasion can break an army that has lost no battle during the campaign.

Now, this discussion is really streching!

I'm very sceptical to the idea that a delegation, in which the Pope was present, was not headed by the Pope and the Pope being present would not address himself the higher authority of the other party.

That being said, I also question the idea that the Pope would put himself to mortal danger, in order to save some prisoners. That story is clearly a myth in my mind and is confirmed by none of the sources. If such a thing was the truth, there would be scores of relevant citations. 

Well the Donation of Constantine is a pretty much perfect example of forgery at its most shameless.

As for the Pope heading the delegation, I am not saying he did or didn't, but let's remember that back then the Pope was simply one of the five major church leaders under the umbrella of the Roman Church. He was not given control over the church, infact all that massive prestige and power over the realm of Christendom didn't hit home in the form we know it until the reform movements of the 11th century. He was an important man to be sure, but back then really just Bishop of the City of Rome.