Did West Roman empire collapse because of Attila?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Steppe Nomads and Central Asia
Forum Discription: Nomads such as the Scythians, Huns, Turks & Mongols, and kingdoms of Central Asia
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=15646
Printed Date: 23-Apr-2024 at 20:07
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Did West Roman empire collapse because of Attila?
Posted By: Guests
Subject: Did West Roman empire collapse because of Attila?
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 21:08
|
In Westeuropean history it is explained that the Germans (Visigoths) made the West Roman empire collapse.
HOWEVER
Attila stormed into central Europe and pushed the Visigoths over the Danube river. Many of them settled in the West Roman empire as refugees.
Attila destroyed many Westroman cities and defeated their armies numerous times. Attila heavily weakened the westroman army. Attila lost the battle in Challons but the Romans still had heavy losses.
The year after Attila invaded Italy and the emperor panicked. He sent the Pope, his sister and gold to Attila. The Pope BEGGED Attila to leave.
The Westroman empire collapsed within decades of Attila's death. The Visigoths in Rome (who were there because of Attila) had sacked the weakened empire.
I claim that the West-Roman empire wouldn't have collapsed or would have collapsed much later without Attila's actions. Do you agree or disagree? Why do historians barely mention Attila's role in the collapse of the westroman empire?
|
Replies:
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 21:17
|
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Gun Powder Ma
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 21:24
|
It was not Attila, but the German tribes he pushed onto Roman territory which turned out to be fateful for the Empire. With the Huns had been dealt within only 75 years after their appearance in Europe, the same time span it took btw the Byzantines to beat the Awars decisively. |
Posted By: kilroy
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 22:31
|
Constantine hit it on the nose. It really was many problems that have been plaguing the empire for years. Attila was just another barbarian threat that sped the process up.
The corruption of officals, weak emperors, weak morale with the people and the real break down of the Roman military machine really did it in. Attila may have sacked cities, and pushed deep into Rome, but Rome still stood for another twenty or so years. All he did was weaken Rome, like all of the other barbarian invasions before him.
And remember, the Huns were pushing the Gothic tribes toward the Roman empire years before Attila was born. Perhaps if he'd lived a little longer things might have been different, but he died. And Gun is right, it was the Gothic tribes in the end that removed the last Emperor and was really damaging both Empires decades before Attila came around. ------------- Kilroy was here. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 23:59
Without the Huns, there wouldn't have been so many Goths in Rome. Rome would have had a much better chance to regroup. Maybe it would have continued to exist another 100 years. Fact is that a couple of decades after Attila's death, the empire collapsed and the empire was sacked by the Goths that were pushed to Rome by the Huns.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 00:03
The Huns were 'dealt' with because the Empire fragmented after Attila's death. His sons quarreled and the empire fell apart.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 00:10
Attila wasn't just another Barbarian threat. According to historians Europe had never seen such an invasion before. He was a HUUUUUUGE threat to both Roman empires. The Goths, the longtime enemies of the Romans, were crushed by the Huns and pushed out of their homelands. Some decided to join the Hunnic armies. Attila had conquered nearly all Germanian territory, something the Romans had never done.
There is no doubt that Attila contributed to the demise of the WRE.
|
Posted By: Feramez
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 01:57
I think the Roman Empire was going to collapse whether Atilla was involved or not. However, Atilla definetly killed them quicker. If he never came into the picture the empire would've collapsed much later. The reason western historians don't mention Atilla and his role in the destruction of the Roman Empire is because the west is obsessed with the Roman Empire and every other super power the west has had in history. They don't care for the east and Atilla came from the east. To the west, it's like "Godforbid an easterner whooped our asses. We're better than that, better than them." They don't want to teach their children this. So they teach that Atilla was a blood thirsty barbarian. But ironcally, in movies they make Atilla look like some white boy from Europe. ------------- For Turks, the homeland isn't Turkey, nor yet Turkistan. Their country is a vast, eternal land: Turan! -Ziya Gokalp- http://groups.myspace.com/TurkWorld - TÜRK DÜNYASI Forum, join today. |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 03:48
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 03:54
Ah but you asked about Attila specifically, not the Huns in general  The truth is that the WRE was overextended and fundamentally no longer viable even before the Huns drove the Goths across the Danube. Remember, the WRE already had abandoned Britain before the Goths in the Balkans turned their attention to attacking the WRE. The decline in the West had already set in, and they showed no drive to reinvent themselves in a manner the ERE was later to do. I will say though that the Huns were important for driving the Goths across the Danube, it most definitely did result in massive pressure being put on both halves of the Roman Empire. ------------- |
Posted By: Turk Nomad
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 12:32
| Western Rome collapsed because of germanic races who kicked from their lands by Hun Turks |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 13:11
|
Atilla the Hun wasn/t just some stupid barbarian.
p.s
'Barbarian' comes from the ancient Greek word barbaros) which meant a non-Greek, someone whose (first) language was not Greek. The word is imitative, the "bar-bar" representing the impression of random hubbub produced by hearing spoken a language that one cannot understand. To the people of ancient http://www.crystalinks.com/greece.html - Greece and http://www.crystalinks.com/rome.html - Rome , a Barbarian was anyone who was not of their extraction or culture.
He was a highly intellegent leader, great pollitician, his people management and motivational skills were excellent. They had a shared Kingship, their system of governance was more democratic than that of Rome.
Put simply, he outdid the Romans on every front.
Leadership Secrets of Attila the Hun
Wess Roberts http://www.leadershipnow.com/leadershop/9106-9.html - http://www.leadershipnow.com/leadershop/9106-9.html
"One of the most sucessfull business books ever sold"
Victory Secrets of Attila the Hun
http://www.leadershipnow.com/leadershop/0591-7.html - http://www.leadershipnow.com/leadershop/0591-7.html
------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Turk Nomad
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 13:54
|
Attila The Hun is one of the cleverest Turkic Leader,
He is my favourite after Mustafa Kemal Atatürk
|
Posted By: kilroy
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 14:03
|
The fact of the matter is that, to the Romans, Attila was just another serious barbarian threat in a long line of barbarian threats that plauged the empire for years. Yes he was a serious threat to both Empires, but so were the Gothic tribes that were also an equal threat to both Empires before that. The Goths not only destroyed the eastern army at Adrianople, they pillaged all of Greece and sacked cities as far down as Sparta, then went on to sack Rome, something Attila never did. I'm not trying to down play Attila's attack, its just he was simply another barbarian threat at that time. They were all serious at that time since the Empire could barely manage itself, and so was his, just more so.
And when you say 'some' decided to join the Hunnic armies, i think you mean that 'many' decided, since a huge number of Attilas troops were infact Gothic and Germanic and not Hunnic. Same thing applies for the Roman side, many were Gothic or Alans. And yes, the Romans never conquerored the majority of the Germanic lands, this has been discussed here before.
And i don't think any of us ever said that Attila wasn't a big contributing factor to the dimise of the WRE, because he was, he drained the empire of many troops, disrupted trade for years and razed many cities, further damaging the peoples morale inside Roman territory. But the contributing factors of the WRE are many, it wasn't just Attila.
And i'm also a bit perplexed at Feramez statement as well. In all of my history classes that deal with Roman History and its eventual fall, from grade school all the way to college, Attila is always mentioned and is a favorite subject for papers and presentations. So that statement was kind of a shock to me. There are many books and articles that deal with Attila and his victory over Roman arimes and land by many Western authors, and he is ALWAYS mentioned whenever someone discusses the fall of the WRE, since he was a factor in it.
And to Bulldog, that is one view of Attila, there are other differing views from Historians such as Priscus that actually had dinner with Attila (he was part of a delegation from the WRE) and discribed him as silent and moody. Not as energetic as the good Dr. Roberts would put him as. But thats the thing about history, you can't always be sure, he could be either or both. But he was ten times the leader that the current Emperor Valentinian was, on par with Aetius i think.
And the Romans did see Attila and his Huns as Barbarians, no matter what tongue he spoke, many of them spoke Latin as well as Greek. And i don't believe anyone here has claimed that Attila was stupid. He must have had some smarts in order to crush armies and gain allies and be able to hold on to an Empire as vast as his, eh? I agree with you completely that Attila was above average (especially compared to Valentinian) when it came to leading.
Alaric was also considered a Barbarian, even though he was Roman educated and spoke fluent Latin and had excellent leadership skills, was highly intelligent and was also nominated by his people to lead that, he didn't take over violently like so many Roman Emperors did, he was simply not Roman.
- Cheers everyone. ------------- Kilroy was here. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 17:18
|
kilroy, I live in Holland and at highschool we were thaught alot about the Roman empire but we were never thaught about the Huns. The reason given was that there wasn't much known about the Huns because they didn't had a written language. In Holland you only get to know a lot about the Huns when you study history. That constitutes a small percentage of the population. The majority don't get to know him from history classes. They only get to know him from tv. |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 18:24
|
Kilroy I agree with most of what you say except for Atilla "just being another barbarian threat". Romans knew how to deal with "outside" threats, they had great experience in the field. They would outsmart these tribes, they wouldn't even need to fight most of the time as they put them against each other, used and manipulated them, controlled them from within. Atilla and the Huns however, were a different story, they wern't just "like the rest", they crushed all other Roman threats in the area and subdued them, they served under the Huns after their leaders were taken out and replaced with Hun leaders.
The Romans couldn't outsmart the HUns, the Huns outsmarted them and used tactics, strategies and new methods which suprised the them.
Recently there have been alot of studies into the various nations Romans called "barbarians", the German tribes were actually advanced and suited to their lifestyle, they had a culture, arts and so on and this is being investigated.
Hopefully the same will be done for the Huns aswell. They're simply known for Atilla and being "barbarians" and that's about it. Their lifestyles, culture, arts, if they had metal-working, pollitical and social structures, what were their advantages/disadvantages, any advancements, contributions and so on. ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 19:01
|
Actually the discussion on the causes of the fall of Roman Empire varies from giving the barbarians all credit to considering the causes are entirely internal. To quote historiographies, on one side I'd mention Ferdinand Lot saying the Western Roman Empire died of "internal disease", and on the other side Andre Piganiol saying "Roman civilization didn't simply die. It was assassinated". Of course, there are many middle opinions crediting both external and internal causes to different degrees.
Fustel de Coulanges, Henri Pirenne, and more recently Karl-Ferdinand Werner, Francois Masai, Pierre Riche or Patrick Geary are among those supporting a continuity, a transformation of the Roman Empire little affected by invasions (surely they were destructive, but arguably not more destructive in themselves than those from 3rd century).
|
Posted By: kilroy
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 22:43
|
Well, here in America, we are taught about Attila, and just about everyone that goes through school has to eventually take a basic world history course which would include the fall of the Roman Empire, so many around here have at least heard of Attila. It's to bad Holland doesn't mention him in its highschool history course. ------------- Kilroy was here. |
Posted By: kilroy
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 22:48
Alright, i'll concede. You made a good point, the Romans did infact know how to deal with many traditional outside threats but the Huns did bring with them a rather different method of fighting that wasn't traditional to the Romans.
And i've read quite a bit up on the Germanic and Gothic tribes, towards the end of the Empire, they were very much like the Romans and not as 'barbarian' as many think. Good post bulldog. ------------- Kilroy was here. |
Posted By: kilroy
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 22:54
I'm not sure i get your point, i've been saying all along that the WRE didn't die solely because of barbarian invasion, but of many reasons, like civil war, corruption in the government, lack of a real means of succession for the Emperor. Break down of formal military training and reliance on barbarian mercenaries to fill the ranks. Economic problems, such as the break down of internal trade due to the civil wars, devaluation of the Roman coin due to inflation etc..
-Cheers everyone.
------------- Kilroy was here. |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2006 at 06:28
| I was merely pointing out there's scholarship for which Attila's role is relatively minor, if not, to extreme, even insignificant. |
Posted By: Feramez
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2006 at 11:59
How did Atilla fail? Because he died?
 He left for about a year, the Romans sent the pope to convince him not to invade and Atilla agreed; even though from what I heard Atilla was still planning on invading anyway, but how could anyone know this for sure. After the pope left Atilla, he then died. So if Atilla was really going to go back and take overm the only thing that saved the Romans is his mysterious and sudden death. "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."
HAha, yea something only Atilla has done, western governments have never done this and they never will. You're a perfect example of what I was talking about in my last post. ------------- For Turks, the homeland isn't Turkey, nor yet Turkistan. Their country is a vast, eternal land: Turan! -Ziya Gokalp- http://groups.myspace.com/TurkWorld - TÜRK DÜNYASI Forum, join today. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2006 at 12:04
| 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? |
Posted By: kilroy
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2006 at 12:34
Please read my post responding to Bulldog. And Rome had better people suited for talking with the other barbarians, such as high ranking officals or diplomats.
Also, the Popes never stood up to barbarians such as Alaric for example because he was a Christian, and he spared Christian buildings (even during the sack of Rome and throughout his military campaign) and targeted pagan structures specifically, which would eliminate them for the Pope, why would he stand up to him?
And before that in the 1st, 2nd and even into the 3rd century, they weren't as powerful as their civil and military contemporaries. The Huns were attacking Christians as well as Pagan places, the Pope had something at stake, and so did the Romans, thats why he acted. ------------- Kilroy was here. |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2006 at 17:53
How did he fail? He invaded Gaul and was repulsed. He invaded Italy, he managed to take one medium sized city and only just. As he advanced through Italy it became painfully obvious to him that he could never sustain an invasion in a place to striken with famine and disease, let alone actually muster the strength to capture larger cities like Rome, Ravenna or Naples. Attila's invasions against the Roman Empire broke the bakc of Hun power, shortly after their Germanic vassals revolted and the Huns melted into obscurity. They caused extensive devastation but their invasion resulted in no long term occupation of Roman territory. They failed in their objectives. If Attila died and his empire fell apart, that constitutes failure. The failure of the Hun political system to sustain an empire beyond one capable leader, the failure to provide a capable successor to sustain the momentum.
Western governments have never done what exactly? Terrorise a bunch of tribes into joining them, wreaking massive devastation and then imploding shortly after because their leader died? True. Instead when it began its advance on the rest of the globe, Western civilisation conquered most of the rest of the planet with much more sustainable impetus and consolidation and their effect is still felt overwhelmingly today. ------------- |
He left for about a year, the Romans sent the pope to convince him not
to invade and Atilla agreed; even though from what I heard Atilla was
still planning on invading anyway, but how could anyone know this for
sure. After the pope left Atilla, he then died. So if Atilla was
really going to go back and take overm the only thing that saved the
Romans is his mysterious and sudden death. Posted By: Gun Powder Ma
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2006 at 10:37
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. |
Posted By: Akskl
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2006 at 22:48
|
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. |
Posted By: Ildico
Date Posted: 01-Nov-2006 at 23:58
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. ------------- Beauty is in the eye of that guy behind the spontaneous diversions, set aside for a good explorer, telling a story about the world. |
Posted By: Mongolia
Date Posted: 03-Nov-2006 at 07:37
|
Yes ------------- Mongolia |
Posted By: Turk Nomad
Date Posted: 03-Nov-2006 at 09:26
| 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... |
Posted By: Krum
Date Posted: 03-Nov-2006 at 10:26
Your leader?????I cant understand you turk nomad.Are you talking for Turkey or turk ethnic group. ------------- It is only the dead who have seen the end of war. Plato |
Posted By: Turk Nomad
Date Posted: 03-Nov-2006 at 12:32
I mean all Turks.
|
Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 14-Dec-2006 at 16:22
------------- Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg - |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 28-Dec-2006 at 22:32
|
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.
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.
As for my third point, this is to turk_nomad: Why do you keep calling Attila a Turk? If Attila were the same as the rest of the Huns, then he was most likely NOT a Turk. Why do you think I say that? Well, it's because according to all the western historical sources from that period, the Huns were described as having "short stature" and "extreme physical features", meaning extremely odd and different from what the western world was used to seeing. Even in Renaissance paintings, such as the "Scourge of God", the Huns are depicted as decidedly Asiatic (i.e. Oriental-looking). Hence, there were stories of Huns being so "deformed-looking" that their presence caused local animals to grow two heads. Now, if I'm not mistaken, the ethnic Turks, though having resided in Asia proper at one time, were an Indo-European group. In other words, Turks were Caucasian by race, and thus if Attila and the Huns were really Turks, they couldn't have been decribed by historical sources in the above ways.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 28-Dec-2006 at 22:51
No one removed the Western Emperor, he was still alive in Dalmatia for another half decade, Julius Nepos, recognized by his colleague in the East, was the legitimate Emperor of the Western half of the Roman Empire. Romolus Augustus was a puppet of the army in the West, headed by his father Orestes. Once Odoacer became the leading figure in the Western army he deposed both Orestes, and his teenage son the puppet-Emperor Romolus Augustus. He was name dux by the Eastern Emperor, to whom he paid lip service to, but ran the Western government autonomously. So in theory it did not fall, in practice it changed hands from one military leader to the next, both of whom were of Germanic origin. The only difference was that Odoacer never named a puppet-Emperor, there was still Julius nepos in Dalmatia, Split for a few years. Once he died, the only Roman Emperor, was in Constantinople who in theory governed the unified Roman Empire once again, that includes Italy and Gaul where the local ruler paid lip service to the Emperor. I'm not sure on the status of Spain, from what I know the Vandals in Africa were independent, and took the land outright. Odoacer was part of the Roman world, and Roman politics, just he was a German soldier, kind of like Napoleon, or better yet a French Foreign Legionary had taken over the government in France or a part of France, paying lip service to the other half where the legitimate government remains.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 28-Dec-2006 at 22:56
Isn't bribing a form of persuasion, Constantine never stated what form of persuasion either.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 29-Dec-2006 at 00:00
| I added the term "bribing", because some might find "begging" to be too blunt to accept. But to me, bribing is not a dignified form of persuasion, like when a lawyer tries to persuade the jury. And when you bribed someone with women and gold in those times, it really sounds like begging. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 29-Dec-2006 at 00:09
| 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." |
Posted By: kilroy
Date Posted: 29-Dec-2006 at 00:32
|
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. ------------- Kilroy was here. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 29-Dec-2006 at 01:30
|
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. |
Posted By: Leonardo
Date Posted: 29-Dec-2006 at 04:39
You forget a point ... Attila, as other barbarian chiefs, was a very superstitious man, so even if we can only speculate about the kind of "persuasion" used by Pope Leo the Great (guess why he was called "The Great" ...) we can imagine he used something like the argument of the sudden death of the Visigoth chief Alaric. He could have said to Attila: "Look at what happened to Alaric. Who will touch the Eternal City he will die!". Probably knowing that Aetius, who had already beated Attila, was coming to Italy with his army helped a lot ...
I agree with you that Huns were not Turks because simply there were no Turks that time  ... I disagree with you about Turks being an "Indo-European group". "Indo-European" is mainly used as a linguistic term and as far as I know Turks never spoke an Indo-European Language. About race ... even if you believe in race (this is a very controversial matter ...) you couldn't say that Turks were "Caucasian by race" ...
|
Posted By: Tar Szerénd
Date Posted: 29-Dec-2006 at 05:54
|
Hi!
It is said, that the first turkik groups in Europe were the proto-bulgarians (saraugurs, utrigurs, kutrigurs, unugundurs etc) They were ogur turks, their kind of turk language is today only spoken by the chuvachs.
After Attilas death the huns had to leave their territories west from the east-charpatians, because the gepids and other hunvasall german tribes wanted to destroy them totally. They moved in the Pontus area and maybe joined to the p-b-s. Some hunish soldiers "worked" by the east and west roman army for a while.
And: romans (meditarrian people ) were not very tall, too... but it's right that some percent of the founded hunish (or hun aged) sculls are mongolid; some avar sculls too, they are from the tipe of South-Baykal group.
TSZ
|
Posted By: Leonardo
Date Posted: 29-Dec-2006 at 06:50
|
"Roman" was not a race. It was not even an ethnicity stricto sensu, so you cannot say "Romans were a Mediterrean people" ... After Constitutio Antoniniana de civitate (212 AD) all free inhabitants of Roman Empire, from Britain to Egypt, were given the Roman citizenship and so were "Romans" independently by their ethnicity.
|
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 29-Dec-2006 at 06:53
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.
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2007 at 23:28
|
can someone give me the picture of attila the hun and he used to be my hero when i was young and then genghis khan lol ------------- |
Posted By: Kerimoglu
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 08:04
|
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. ------------- History is a farm. Nations are farmers. What they planted before will show what is going to grow tomorrow! |
Posted By: omergun
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 17:34
I agree with all of you, and put my signature on it. I dont want to get in a discussion or something, but i have to say some things. I also live in holland, and like Tamerlane is saying, their history books, their history lessons, archives etc. are not trustable, they put things they want to put in. Thats the reason why people choose words like 'barbarian' and 'they are just'.... Its also not directly the fault of people who talk like this, its the systems fault, they cant resist the sistem, therefore they have to go along with the system without thinking... ------------- ATTÄ°LA |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 19:41
True, and the political leaders and generals of Roman Empire were corrupted as well. Plus, the tension between paganism and Christianity was a majot problem as well. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi"> 
Join us. |
Posted By: Onogur
Date Posted: 21-Feb-2007 at 09:23
|
I have just read all the posts in this topic, and I think that there is some truth in all of them.
There is only one confusing fact.... the Roman Empire was neighbouring the Germanic tribes for centuries, and during these centuries, despite of the many periods of political, economical or social crises which the Empire had, they NEVER fall to Germans. Moreover, romans won most of the battles and wars against the germanic tribes. So, the questions are:
1.How comes that Rome falls pretty much when the Huns come and it is not because of them, but because of this old, well known and many teams beaten rival - the Germanics?!
2.How comes that the Huns under Attila beated, conquered and forced the Germanic tribes to flee, and eventually left the WRE practically without army after the battle of Chalons (the very next year Attila invaded Italy and got to Rome almost without resistance), and in the same time the Huns under Attila are not the reason for the collapse of the WRE?!
|
Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 21-Feb-2007 at 15:49
|
ANd also Onogur, someone said here (with proofs!) that the last (west) Roman emperor was a Hun descentant self. ------------- Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg - |
Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 21-Feb-2007 at 16:14
Your argument ignores the fundamentals of late Roman history. True, the Romans lived side by side with the Germans for hundreds of years, but that was also during a time when the Roman empire was still strong economically and militarily. The Huns had arrived after a time of a hundred years of economic and military decline of the Roman Empire, when the economy was in shambles and corruption rampant, after the empire had been battered by countless Germanic populations, at a time when the Roman army was a mere shadow of its former self, and constituted almost solely of Germans... Attila was just one more "barbarian" who happened to threaten Rome at its weakest, just before its passing. It's like a jackal nipping at the heels of a dying lion and trying to take credit for its death. Re-read the previous posts of Constantine on this topic for a more detailed explanation. ------------- What is history but a fable agreed upon? Napoleon Bonaparte Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi 
|
Posted By: Evrenosgazi
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2007 at 07:13
|
Huns are the most formidibale enemy that rome faced ever. Not only because of huns. We know that Atillà`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. So Huns were not numerous hordes. Their population was smaller than germanics. But with their tactical and millitary superiority they found a shortliving empire. After the leaders death, they dissolved and no sign of their empire could be found.
There is no Huns right now . But the huunic history is much more related to turkic peoples history than other nations. So I think there isnt any logic in becoming disturbed when turks favour atilla.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 27-Apr-2007 at 10:26
That however does not mean much in the Roman Empire, the Romans were not ethnocentric in that perspective. Every ethnicity and tribal affiliation had a chance at attaining the Imperial title as long as they were a citizen of the Roman Empire, and had enough influence preferably the support of the military, or key military figures. The Roman Empire never developed that exlusivity as did most of the Greek city states. They had the concept of foreigner (barbarian), which would be any non-Roman citizen, however, once someone does attain citizenship he will be considered Roman.
|
Posted By: cattus
Date Posted: 27-Apr-2007 at 23:53
Do you rate Carthage at all? |
Posted By: Balain d Ibelin
Date Posted: 04-May-2007 at 10:52
|
The Barbarians (German tribes) were the actual problem which collapse the West Roman Empire. It's right that Attila the Hun did much damage after raiding Germany and Northern France. But ...... ONCE MORE
The Barbarians are the real problem, after the Hunnic Empire collapse, Attila's Empire collapsed and the Barbarian rosed against once more, the Franks, Visigoths, Goths, Vandals, Lombards, Saxons and whatever other German tribe collapsed the west Roman Empire by raiding it, doing vandalism and another. The Great leader of the Visigoths who leads the Invasion was Lord Alaric.
------------- "Good quality will be known among your enemies, before you ever met them my friend"Trobadourre de Crusadier Crux |