Did West Roman empire collapse because of Attila?

Originally posted by Constantine XI Everyone in the West has heard of Attila. Westerners don't have to admit that he "whooped our asses" because in the end Attila failed in his objectives and his empire crumbled soon after. By the way, Attila was a blood thirsty barbarian. He galvanised the tribes allied to him through sheer terror and then attacked western civilisation, causing massive devastation. Attila and its Huns had nothing to offer to surpass Roman civilisation and the world is better for the fact that he and his warriors failed in their objectives. Their success would have reduced Europe to a primitive, tribal wasteland devoid of the vibrant drive for progress which has characterised it for much of its history once it recovered from the invasions of other barbarians.

Originally posted by Tamerlane If Attila was just another barbarian threat, then why didn't Romans ever before send the pope to persuade the leader of those former barbarians?

Edited by kilroy - 21-Oct-2006 at 13:29

Originally posted by Constantine XI If Attila died and his empire fell apart, that constitutes failure.

The Huns had no administration worth the name, that's why their huge empire fell apart within 12 months of Attila's death. That's historically about the fastest downfall an empire ever had.

Did you know that there was only a single stone building in Attila's 'capital' in Pannonia? His sauna...so much for  the contribution of the Huns to world civilization.

Originally posted by Akskl E.A.Thompson "The Huns", Blackwell Publishers, p.171 writes that very last emperor of the WRE was dethroned by Odoacer, who became the first barbarian king of Italy, and�who also was son of Edeco (or Edige?), a Hun.

I was just about to say that, but you beat me to the punch, huzzah.

It may have not been Attila who ultimately destroyed the western empire, but it was still done by hunnish blood.

Also, the last emperor of the WRE was the son of Orestes(Attila's secretary, I believe, unless he was of a different position). The son took the name Romulus Augustus when he was emperor, and he was a weak one, in my opinion, before he was dethroned by Odoacer.

In the history classes I had, they always said that Attila was a ruthless barbarian who killed for fun. I believe what a few of you said that he was intelligent and a far better leader than Valentinian. Attila is a very important part of history, because he influenced the conquerers after him, Genghis Khan, for example.

Jack Weatherford, "Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World," Three Rivers Press, page 130 states:

"He acknowledged only one preceding empire from which he personally took inspiration--his ancestors, the Huns........He wanted to find his own way as befitted a steppe empire descended from the Huns."

For some, Attila may have been a ruthless barbarian or an intelligent leader, either way he inspired future history.
    

For Turks,Attila is one of the greatest leaders of us.And we know him the matter of Rome's collapse.He did or not,he will always stay in a place of our greatest leaders...

I mean all Turks.

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.

Originally posted by positron_051 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.

Not to harp on this sub-topic, but come to think of it, begging is a form of persuasion too, isn't it? It's part of the spectrum of persuasive activities. So I guess there really was no need for Constantine to disagree with another member on whether it was "begging" or "persuasion". But deep down, I know Constantine felt too indignified to accept the word "begging."

Originally posted by kilroy While i won't argue the technicality of Juliu, Zeno had no real power over the rest of the Western Empire, it did in fact fall.  Your mistaken in the fact that most of Gaul still paid lip service to Zeno, in 475 a treaty was signed with the Visigoths and they were recognized as the rulers of the vast majority of Gaul and Spain completely independent under King Euric, paying no homage to Rome in any way.  Africa was, as you correctly stated, under Vandal rule. Only the Dominion of Soissons was still under 'Roman' rule, however that quickly gave way a couple of years later to the Visigoths (486 i think).  Corsica and Sardinia were also not under Roman rule.  And Germania was overrun by than.  The Western Roman Empire was gone.  Italy gave way later on. And technically, one could argue that Julius was removed from power since he was merely an Emperor on paper, and he was forced out of Ravenna in 475 by Orestes.  Julius did not have any power over his Domains (except for Dalmita),  Odoacer did.  He was also unable to retake his rightful throne.  However it is true,he was an 'Emperor.'  He even had coins with his name on it to prove it, but these were minted by Odoacer upon the request of Zeno.  Good catch on Julius though.

I did not know about the Gaul situation, I do know there were parts under direct rule. I think the year 486 is correct. Julius was still on paper the legal Emperor recognized by Odoacer as well. Not to mention the Imperial insignia of the West was in Zeno's hands. Legally speaking Odoacer was a buearacraut of the Empire, practically speaking he was the autnomous ruler of the Western half, or what remained of it.