Chalons...how Important Was It?

[Cohort]

IF Attila had won the battle of Chalons...would have an asiatic influence then reformed the basic society of romanized gaul, hence france, the merovingian dynasty being a non starter? Thoughts?

[Gaius Octavius]

Chalons did not relieve the Empire of his threat. Death did the deed. With that his realm withered; so I guess that a victory at Chalons would have resulted in the same happy ending.

[Cohort]

Chalons did not relieve the Empire of his threat. Death did the deed. With that his realm withered; so I guess that a victory at Chalons would have resulted in the same happy ending.

 

 

Assuming his fate was pre-ordained yes..but if not? IF the Huns had won and set up a Asiatic styled government, in Gaul, and prcaticed there usual brutal style.....how would the Romanized natives and customs faired?

 

The Burgundian franks would not have been influenced by Christianity, or coalesced under Childeric, he would probably have been dead as he fought with Aetius, Clovis (his marriage to Gundohars daughter would not have occurred) would not have united the Burgundian, salian and riparian franks

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

The Burgundian franks would not have been influenced by Christianity

 

Or perhaps Christianity would have influenced them anyways, and maybe the huns would take it back to Asia with them too?

 

The problem with these "ifs" is that there are always too many variables. Topics like these are usually sent to the arena and people endlessly argue about something they can never prove. I can ask, "But what if Rome was destroyed by the Sabines and never ruled the known world?" Then none of this would have happened!

 

It is always fun to ask this stuff though.

[caldrail]

IF Attila had won the battle of Chalons...would have an asiatic influence then reformed the basic society of romanized gaul, hence france, the merovingian dynasty being a non starter? Thoughts?

 

Yes and no. There would have been an asiatic influence if they'd stayed there but remember that invaders often adopt local attitudes and customs in the long run. Take for instance the normans in england. After a few decades the saxon influence was diluting the norman culture - and thats simply because they interacted with each other. Although the norman invaders were the conquerers and very much in charge, their serfs, servants, and childminders were saxon. To some extent it all boils down to numbers and culture. The romans 'romanised' other places because they made it such a good choice (you can either accept our generous politico-economic model or lucius here will call out the legion). The hunnic culture was deeply ingrained in its people but as soon as they settled in east europe their warlike stance faded. Also remember that although gaul might have been over-run with huns the people there were romanic and were in contact with romanised people outside, so there would have been a strong influence against .. erm... asianism.

[Tobias]

Chalons is one of those interesting battles one occassionally sees throughout history. It's generally excepted that it was physically and numerically a rather phyrric victory for Aetius; yet, it had the sort of mental effect that one tends to see in battles here and there; the restoration of belief in themselves, and the moral boost in proving that Attila was not invincible. I know that it did virtually nothing to help the Western Roman Empire save delay the inevitable, but for one moment, just one moment, I'm sure that the Romans under Aetius believed that they had at last saved their Empire. It was no mean feat of Aetius either to unite the Gothic tribes with his forces. The theory that Aetius held back from routing the Huns so as to establish a balance of power between the Huns and the Goths is an interesting one; this theory is that Aetius may have believed that if he decisively defeated the Huns, the Goths would no longer need the Romans, and Rome would face yet another barbarian invasion.

 

If Attila had won the Battle of Chalons? It's difficult to say. The Huns weren't necessarily the sort of people to settle down and set up a government like Rome's. Perhaps they would have been driven out by the Gothic tribes; perhaps they would have annihilated them and settled. It is most likely, as has been said above, that they would have been eventually indoctrined to the remnants of Romanisation. It's all very hypothetical however. Too big an IF, i think...

Edited August 16, 2006 by Tobias

[Virgil61]

IF Attila had won the battle of Chalons...would have an asiatic influence then reformed the basic society of romanized gaul, hence france, the merovingian dynasty being a non starter? Thoughts?

 

I doubt Attila would have changed the basic structure of Western society in any measurable way. By Chalons a large percentage of his army wasn't even of Hunnic origin and Attila had been involved in political affairs of both the Western and Eastern empires. After Chalons his forces invaded Italy anyway where Pope Leo's famous meeting with him was said to convince Attila to leave Rome alone.

 

If successful he was intelligent enough to have understood the symbolism of Rome and it's a good bet he'd have co-opted it to further his own power.

[Rameses the Great]

Chalons did not relieve the Empire of his threat. Death did the deed. With that his realm withered; so I guess that a victory at Chalons would have resulted in the same happy ending.

 

It would have been the same, but how different would the world have been? Chalons was important and psychologically effected Atilla and his army. However this could have been a catalyst to expedite Atilla's conquest of Gaul.

 

Inevitably the outcome of the war was determined by a peace treaty after Atilla started destroying Northern Roman towns. Aquilea, Milan, etc. Pope Leo gave him his ransom of gold to leave for the summer campaigning and he died along with his army.

 

Chalons could have marked how much of Gaul could have been desimated effecting the economic flow of the empire. The question of could Atilla have conquered the gates of Rome itself, no he was not even close.

[Neos Dionysos]

Chalons is one of those interesting battles one occassionally sees throughout history. It's generally excepted that it was physically and numerically a rather phyrric victory for Aetius;

 

 

Sup Tobais... long time no see...

 

 

Back on topic...

 

The generally accepted outcome of the battle is that it was a stalemate, but unoffical Roamn victory and niether side had the forces to destroy the other but mainly Aetius not having the troops to complete the victory. Personally, studying the career of Aetius, we can see that even if he did have the forces to destroy Attila, (I think he did), he pursposely left him as a threat, because we have to understand that Aetius had a unique relationship with the Huns and Attila, (especially Attila's late uncle Rua), and so Aetius twice used the Huns to get him into his power positions, and if Attila and the Huns were gone, he knew that Galla Placidia and Valentinian III would have no need of Aetius any further, but his ability to "control" the Huns previous to Attila's campaigns ensured his position as the de facto ruler of the West, once Attila became hostile, Aetius, while needed, was slowly losing his power and influence since he could not hold the Huns over Rome's head like a threat that COULD be unleashed. They went from tools of Aetius to out of control ones and he ultimately suffered because he lost his control of them, so hence the reason he did not finish off Attila, because to do so would have completely destroyed his reason for being.

[Gaius Octavius]

If memory serves, I believe that the king of Aetius' allies died (slain?) and the allies new leader left the army after the victory. This prevented Aetius from following up his victory. It was a victory insofar as Attila retreated, leaving Gaul 'free'.

 

Somewhere I read that there is a remainder of Attila's army (progeny) in Switzerland today. They supposedly have a blue dot at the base of their spines. Have I been taken in?

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

Chalons is one of those interesting battles one occassionally sees throughout history. It's generally excepted that it was physically and numerically a rather phyrric victory for Aetius;

 

 

Sup Tobais... long time no see...

 

 

Back on topic...

 

The generally accepted outcome of the battle is that it was a stalemate, but unoffical Roamn victory and niether side had the forces to destroy the other but mainly Aetius not having the troops to complete the victory. Personally, studying the career of Aetius, we can see that even if he did have the forces to destroy Attila, (I think he did), he pursposely left him as a threat, because we have to understand that Aetius had a unique relationship with the Huns and Attila, (especially Attila's late uncle Rua), and so Aetius twice used the Huns to get him into his power positions, and if Attila and the Huns were gone, he knew that Galla Placidia and Valentinian III would have no need of Aetius any further, but his ability to "control" the Huns previous to Attila's campaigns ensured his position as the de facto ruler of the West, once Attila became hostile, Aetius, while needed, was slowly losing his power and influence since he could not hold the Huns over Rome's head like a threat that COULD be unleashed. They went from tools of Aetius to out of control ones and he ultimately suffered because he lost his control of them, so hence the reason he did not finish off Attila, because to do so would have completely destroyed his reason for being.

 

Let me add to that. Because of the invasions the Romans and Visigoths held a fragile alliance against this common foe. If the huns were destroyed, the alliance would no longer be needed, and the visigoths could continue their rants through Roman lands. One could only imagine why Aetius placed the Visigoths in the center of the line during the battle.

[Neos Dionysos]

If memory serves, I believe that the king of Aetius' allies died (slain?) and the allies new leader left the army after the victory. This prevented Aetius from following up his victory. It was a victory insofar as Attila retreated, leaving Gaul 'free'.

 

Somewhere I read that there is a remainder of Attila's army (progeny) in Switzerland today. They supposedly have a blue dot at the base of their spines. Have I been taken in?

 

 

Well yes, I omitted that because that is part of the "did not have the forces to follow up the victory", theory. But yes this is the commonly held belief.

 

 

Let me add to that. Because of the invasions the Romans and Visigoths held a fragile alliance against this common foe. If the huns were destroyed, the alliance would no longer be needed, and the visigoths could continue their rants through Roman lands. One could only imagine why Aetius placed the Visigoths in the center of the line during the battle.

 

 

Presicely Antiochus, Aetius had assembled created a very loose but effective balancing act with the various peoples in and outside of Rome. He was key in helping settle the Burgandians as well, which was another form of insurance and used the Visigoths and Vandals against each other as well. You might say he was a genious in this regard because it worked so well, but, he bit off much more than he could chew and once there was one person he could not control, it all fell apart and he paid for it with his life.

 

I put my confidence in this theory, of counter-balance etc, especially given the records of the day and embassies which all go to Aetius and NOT Valentinian III. The various people's regarded Aetius as the 'true ruler', which he was just w/o title, and by his actions while he reigned as Magister we can see just how deep and far reaching his actions were.

[Kosmo]

The huns were steppe living nomads and they lived from grazing in Tisa valley (Eastern Hungary) and in the regions North and East of Black Sea.

They did not settle areas they conquered like Serbia.

Dacia, from where they kicked out the goths, had few hun settelments despite being so near to their main centers and the importance of Transilvanian salt for preserving meat.

I believe that their numbers in Pannonia where low and most still lived in the East.

So, if they conquered Gaul they would have kept it under control without major settelments. Or maybe just raided and go back.

An interesting (and with serious evidence) theory claimes that some of the huns from the Black Sea were, after a period of independence, reunited in the Bulgarian Khanate.

The reminants in Pannonia where either subordinated by the avars or pushed west where they were destroyed by the Thuringians under Frankish soveraignity.

[caldrail]

The huns were steppe living nomads and they lived from grazing in Tisa valley (Eastern Hungary) and in the regions North and East of Black Sea.

They did not settle areas they conquered like Serbia.

 

 

The huns did settle down in some numbers. Part of the reason for migrating west was find new areas to live.

[Krackalackin]

The huns were steppe living nomads and they lived from grazing in Tisa valley (Eastern Hungary) and in the regions North and East of Black Sea.

They did not settle areas they conquered like Serbia.

Dacia, from where they kicked out the goths, had few hun settelments despite being so near to their main centers and the importance of Transilvanian salt for preserving meat.

I believe that their numbers in Pannonia where low and most still lived in the East.

So, if they conquered Gaul they would have kept it under control without major settelments. Or maybe just raided and go back.

An interesting (and with serious evidence) theory claimes that some of the huns from the Black Sea were, after a period of independence, reunited in the Bulgarian Khanate.

The reminants in Pannonia where either subordinated by the avars or pushed west where they were destroyed by the Thuringians under Frankish soveraignity.

 

Are you so sure about that? I dont possess a great amount of wealth of Rome -yet anyway- but I'm pretty sure the huns came from Central Asia and not very close to Rome at all. There are some theories they were the early mongolians or related to them. I think this theory is a much more likely than the one you've presented unless of course this has been proven as a fact which I would be surprised and have to read more about it.