How important a role did Attila play in the history of the Hunnic Empire? Some people think that Attila was the last straw to save the Hunnic Empire, but my point of view is a bit different.

How important a role did Attila play in the history of the Hunnic Empire?

In the mid-5th century, the social structure of the Hunnic Empire was crumbling. Some people think that Attila was the last straw to save the Hunnic Empire, but my point of view is a little different.

I think Huns followed a very complex political system. This system had been perfected before Attila came to the throne. After the unification of the Hunnic Empire, Attila became the last powerful monarch, inheriting political power from his previous monarchs. Although much literature depicts Attila as a megalomaniac who wanted to conquer the world, he was actually a cautious leader who was not that dominant.

In fact, if you study what he does carefully, you will find that he fights very cautiously. For example, he did not attempt to conquer the ancient Roman Empire and expand its territory like the Mongols, but instead collected tribute from the Eastern Roman and Western Romans. In my opinion, he was a very traditional emperor. He invaded Rome not to conquer the ancient Roman Empire, but to make the Romans obey him and pay tribute to him, thereby establishing a tribute country in the interior of Asia.

How did Attila's reign differ from that of previous monarchs?

The Huns had two emperors, each ruling half of the Huns empire. The status of the Eastern Emperor Breda was higher than that of the Western Emperor (Attila). However, Attila staged a coup and overthrew his brother, the Eastern Emperor. After that, the status of the Western Emperor surpassed that of the Eastern Emperor. This incident later created a series of problems. After Attila's death, the Hunnic Empire began to suffer civil strife, partly for this reason. The east was unwilling to surrender to the west, so a civil war began.

He was concerned about continuing to receive tribute, as this would enhance his status among the Huns' nobility.

What plans did he have before his death?

He wanted to force the Eastern Roman Empire and the Western Roman Empire to pay tribute to him. The Huns would conquer small countries near their empire, so they directly ruled the Germanic tribes around them. The Huns considered these nearby small countries to be part of their empire, and it was enough for the further regions to pay tribute to them. The ancient Roman Empire fell squarely into this category.

In 447 AD, Attila invaded the Eastern Roman Empire and annexed a large part of the Eastern Roman territory. However, soon after, he wanted to return Byzantium to the Eastern Roman Empire during negotiations, because he was not interested in that area. What he cared about was the continued receipt of tribute, as this would enhance his status among the Hunnic nobility. His goal was not to bloodbath the ancient Roman Empire, but to improve his status. This event was important to Attila because he was a regicide (he killed his brother and became the sole ruler of the Hunnic Empire).

Did he attempt to conquer Europe?

Priscus provided first-hand information about Attila's reign in the history book, and his work is one of the main ancient books describing the history of that time. Priscus believed that Attila's goal was to conquer at least half of the ancient Roman Empire. The Romans certainly felt so. Besides the complete conquest of the ancient Roman Empire, what else could be the purpose of such a large-scale invasion? However, it is interesting to note that when the Huns invaded, they would raid every city in an attempt to plunder tribute. After every major battle or successful siege, they retreated again.

I think Attila's main motivation was to force the Romans into the tribute system he wanted. In fact, before Attila died, he had planned another attack on the Eastern Roman Empire. That was because Marcian, the emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire at that time, was unwilling to pay tribute to Attila and violated the agreement between the former emperor and Attila.

Attila died in 453 AD. What do we know about his death?

We all know this from the records of Priscus. Attila had many wives, and at that time he married a new wife named Ildico.On his wedding night, he was extremely drunk. Later, he died of suffocation due to burst veins and blood backflow. Early the next morning, the nobles of the palace realized that something was wrong and rushed into the palace. At that time, the emperor was already dead in a pool of blood, and his bride was crying beside him. This is exactly the scene Priscus wanted to depict: a bloodthirsty tyrant punished by heaven, becoming the perfect dessert for a wedding night.

But who knows if he really died like this? In fact, he was quite old at the time, about 50 years old. In that era, it was normal to die at the age of 50, so there was no need to wonder whether he had been poisoned. But his sons could not agree on where to belong, so immediately after his death a civil war began. There was also a fierce civil war between the east and the west (the Hunnic Empire), and then the Hunnic Empire naturally fell apart. The East endured, while the West fragmented.

What do you think would have happened if Attila had not died that night?

My guess is that he will invade the Eastern Roman Empire. The Eastern Roman Empire did not have a large army to fight the Huns, so they should not be able to withstand another Huns attack and protect Byzantium. But Attila would not be able to capture Constantinople because he did not have a navy. Without the navy, the fortress would be nearly impenetrable. Therefore, he may want to go to Byzantium to cause trouble again, and then the Eastern Romans will once again pay tribute to calm the trouble as before.

Does this mean the Roman Empire may have fallen before 476 AD?

First of all, the Western Roman Empire will certainly not fall apart like it did after his death in history. It's a little complicated to say, but the reason the Roman Empire collapsed in AD 476 was because there was a whole group of Germanic tribes and Huns at the time. These Hunnic armies were originally ruled by the Hunnic Empire, but they left the Hunnic Empire and marched towards Italy. These men ended Roman rule in the west.

If Attila survived and succeeded in controlling these tribes, the Western Romans would of course have to pay tribute to him, but their control of Italy would still be guaranteed. In this case, the Western Roman Empire would actually continue to last longer in history. What changes will happen in Europe after

?

We will not have a Europe dominated by Franks and . After the collapse of the Hunnic Empire, the Western Roman Empire followed closely behind. At that time, Western Europe was leaderless. This gave the Franks an opportunity to take advantage of it. They unified Western Europe and later evolved into the Holy Roman Empire.

If the Western Roman Empire or the Hunnic Empire had not collapsed, there would have been a country called Hunnia somewhere in Europe, and the Franks would have been restricted to Belgium and the Netherlands . France was just part of Belgium, not where France is now.

Would Attila want to conquer the Roman Empire?

I really think it is unlikely. First of all, the Hunnic Empire was already very large, so large that it was difficult for one ruler to fully manage it. Attila effectively tried this method. He was a dictator and tried to manage the whole situation by himself, but it caused a series of problems. He executed Hun princes at every turn, and the oppressed Hun princes all fled to the Eastern Roman Empire. Constantinople hid many fleeing Hunnic princes, which was one of the main reasons why Attila launched a war with the Eastern Roman Empire.

I think if he had lived longer, he might have replaced a Roman emperor or two. Alternatively, he might give the throne to someone he preferred and who would pay him regular tribute. These speculations were well founded, for he would even return the areas he had just conquered to the Roman Empire. He had no interest in ruling these areas.

Does he really have that much power? Who can be appointed as emperor?

is possible. No country could withstand his army, so in terms of military power, the Huns were more powerful than either Western or Eastern Rome at that time. With such military power, he could actually impose whatever decrees he wanted on the Romans if he wanted.But, as I mentioned before, he is a very cautious person, so he is unwilling to get too involved in long-term political battles abroad. He is always worried about various rebellions at home, so he will not leave his territory too much. These political battles against the Romans were primarily intended to demonstrate his power. He was demonstrating power not only to the Romans, but also to the Huns.

If he wanted to conquer Europe, could he do it?

is fine. But in the process, he is sure to destroy his own country. The Huns actually tried to conquer Europe at that time. The Hunnic territorial armies later conquered Italy and created the first barbarian kingdom in Italy, so the Hunnic conquest of Europe was possible. But if I were Attila, would I risk the collapse of my empire by adding more and more difficult-to-manage territories? I don't think so. My answer to your question is that he "could" conquer Europe, but I don't think he would do it.

If Attila had not died, how long would the Hun Empire last?

The Hunnic Empire in Europe collapsed about 80 years after Attila's death. If he could ensure that subsequent successions could take place in an orderly manner, the Hunnic Empire might continue for another century or so. In this case, in terms of political geography, we will also see a Europe that is completely different from today. In fact, the national borders will still be similar to what they are now, but the German border should not be as limited as it is now. Germany may be larger, including Austria , Czech Republic , Hungary and part of Poland .

How will Attila’s glorious history be different?

If he could live longer and establish a long-lasting dynasty with several generations of emperors, then I think Attila should be comparable to the Frankish king Clovis (Clovis). We often say that Attila was a foreign emperor who invaded from Asia, but this is not true. Counting from the time when the first Huns entered Europe, Attila was already the fourth generation of Huns, and he was a European. Judging from the remains of the Huns, they looked exactly like Europeans in appearance, so Attila seemed like a multilingual European monarch. If his descendant became a German king of Germany, he would be viewed as just another European monarch, not as someone who wanted to destroy European civilization.

I feel that the literature about Attila always over-dramatizes the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains, saying that the battle was between Aetius and Attila. The confrontation between the two countries is a fierce collision between the east and the west. It is also said that because the Huns were prevented from invading there, Europe could continue. This is not true, because the composition of the two armies was basically the same in this battle. No matter who wins this battle, the impact on the development of European civilization will be the same.

Even if Attila took the trouble and conquered all of Western Europe, the empire would eventually become a Christian country, and the aristocratic culture would be dominated by Germanic culture. Even if Attila had continued to fight, Europe would still be the same and he would be remembered as just another German king.