Did West Roman empire collapse because of Attila?

Hi!

Edited by Tar Szer�nd - 29-Dec-2006 at 05:56

Originally posted by positron_051 First, to Constantine the moderator: I didn't know that Attila had a specific objective. Where did you read about the evidence for  Attila having a grand plan of destroying everything and burning all of Europe to the ground? Although you did not say it in this way, but clearly implied it because you think they would have pillaged the West to a "primitive" age had they not "failed in their objective". I ask you where is this documented "objective" because the Huns were nomads, and as nomads do, they were instinctively drawn towards more "civilized" cultures so that they may benefit from adopting the lifestyle and ways of the sedentary peoples. This has been the larger trend of human history not only relevant to this period. But even in this period, there is also clear evidence of this trend. When historians say that the Huns dissolved after Attilas death, where do you think most of them went? Into thin air like vampires? Please, they settled down among the peoples they had domineered. In fact this process had already started even before Attilas death. Hence you would have a "barbarian's" son rise through the Italian society to become king right after the fall of the WRE. In similar ways, but on a much grander and significant scale, Chinggis Khan and his mongols was driven by a similar impetus almost eight centuries later and their actions catalyzed the blossoming of commerce and sharing of ideas among distant lands in immeasurable ways. So even if the Huns had went on to conquer further after Attila's death, how could they have destroyed Europe to the stong age? It must be a fantasy of yours because such destruction would be counterproductive even to the Huns. So in fact, the type of nefarious plan that you attribute to the Huns is most likely the very opposite of what Attila and his people wished to accomplish.

Attila did have an objective, to marry princess Honoria and take half the West Roman Empire as dowry payment. The primary sources are very clear on this, Attila has imperial ambitions which included conquering a large slice of Imperial Roman territory. This explains his costly invasions of Gaul and Italia. He failed in that objective.

If we apply your reasoning, that the Huns wanted to share in the fruits of Roman civilisation, then they also failed in this. They destroyed much of what Rome had built, absorbed very little of it for themselves and failed to replace it with anything better. Even though they were the fiercest of the barbarian tribes, they failed to actually penetrate the Empire and carve out a new homeland for themselves. Instead, they were submerged under successive waves of other tribes. Ironically, the Goth and Vandals which the Huns had driven before them were far more successful in locating a new homeland within the Empire and benefitting from Roman culture and civilisation.

Let's also not compare Attila's petty empire to that of Genghis, Genghis' conquests may have increased some trade and flow of ideas. However, Attila's invasions greatly disrupted commerce, ruined cities and devestated agriculture. The destruction of Naissus is a key example. Unless you can provide some evidence of how the Huns made contributions to the world, I am sticking by my conclusions that they were a destructive horde with virtually nothing of value to offer the world beyond their martial prowess.

Originally posted by positron_051 Second point, also to Constantine: When you said that the pope "persuaded" Attila not to sack Italy, it brought to mind the exact same thing that my history professor quoted from a historical source of that period. So you must have gotten that line from the same source. But unlike you, that history professor, who was a well-known authority on Roman history, used his mind a little more and humorously analyzed the word "persuaded." So how do you suppose the pope "persuaded" someone like Attila? By invoking Christian beliefs on Attila? Won't work.  By magic tricks? Not likely. And in those circumstances and those times, how far can reasoning alone go without the true persuasive power of offering women and gold? Although that was not getting down on one's knees to beg, it had the same effect as begging, or if you prefer, bribing.

How was the Pope able to persuade Attila? Personally I don't think the Pope alone persuaded Attila. I outlined in my earlier post why Attila conquering Italy was an impossibility. The peninsula was stricken with famine and disease which hit Attila's weakened army hard, Attila had difficulties taking sizable cities (he failed at Orleans and only barely succeeded at Aquileia - he had no chance against Rome itself), the Eastern Empire and Aetius may also arrive with troops and the Hun homeland needed watching after Attila's invasion of Gaul left his position back in Hungary less stable.

In the end, the Pope probably just reminded Attila of how impossible his plan to conquer Italy truly was. I doubt there was really begging, since when has a warlord in history ever been turned away from his prize because his opponent pitifully begs him not to? Attila was turned away by the solid inability to get the job done. The inclusion of the Papal visit is a likely propaganda addition by the Catholic church.

Discribing Attila is and will be different in different nations and countries. There are ethnopolitology, and proud history behind it. No Chinese would accept that they were always crashed by the armies of steppe, and no Mongolian or Turk would accept that China ever was stronger than them. The same, here. Even peole who do not like others, will exagerate their fails and not accept success. It is too simple.

Originally posted by Constantine XI No, the West Roman Empire collapsed for a range of other reasons. Attila simply made existing problems worse. The Pope did not beg Attila to leave, he persuaded him. It was beyond Attila's capabilities to take the city of Rome, he only BARELY managed to take Aquileia. His army was striken with the famine and disease which also gripped Italy, he was in no position to take so well a defended a city as Rome. I think Attila probably sped up the destruction of the WRE by about 10-20 years because of the pressure he placed on it. But truly the WRE was collapsing from within because of its own unreliable and insufficient military, weak political structure and inability to reinvent itself as a viable state.

ANd also Onogur, someone said here (with proofs!) that the last (west) Roman emperor was a Hun descentant self.

Huns are the most formidibale enemy that rome faced ever. Not only  because of huns. We know that Atill�`s army was compromised of gepids,ostrogots,rugis,skiri,franks .....At Chalons huns were minority , they were outnumbered by their germanic allies. At 454 the huns were beaten at nedao by the Gepids and Atilla`s son İlek lost his life.

Originally posted by Evrenosgazi Huns are the most formidibale enemy that rome faced ever.

Do you rate Carthage at all?