Attila or Gaiseric

[DecimusCaesar]

I have always wondered why Attila has become such a famous figure in popular imagination; Taking into consideration that Attila is the most famous figure of the Later Roman Empire. Why is it that his influence has overshadowed that of other barbarian leaders, like Alaric and Gaiseric?

 

In E.A Thompson's book on 'the Huns',the controversial historian came to the conclusion that Attila, although a threat, was not the 'scourge of God' as he liked to see himself. Thompson even says that Attila was a failure: He never took Rome, never married Honoria, he lost the battle of Chalons in 451, and he failed to become the overlord of the Western Empire. As far as some historians are concerend, Attila was not a terribly good leader, rather a glorified raider. Others might argue that he was a great leader, considering that the Hun Empire needed his strength to survive. After he died it quickly collapsed under the rule of his sons. Peter Heather believes that the Huns made a devastating blow to the Empire, and that Attila really was a terrible threat. J.J Norwich claims that the fate of Europe hung on battle of Chalons, and the defeat of Attila is comparable to the defeat of Xerxes' army at Greece.

 

Gaiseric the Vandal on the other hand, is unknown in popular culture. Yet he also devestated the Western Empire. The Vandals took control of southern Iberia, but worst of all, they captured Carthage and Rome's 'bread basket' provinces of north Africa. This was a huge blow to the Western Empire's economy. Yet Rome was unable to launch a counter-attack as Attila arrived on the scene to devastate Gaul. Gaiseric was therefore safe from any large scale offensive from the Romans. In 455, a few years after Attila's death, Gaiseric was able to launch a raid on Rome itself, sacking the city and looting the populace. Even after Gaiseric's death in 477, the Vandals remained a threat to the Mediterranean, as Vandal pirates raided as far as the coasts of Greece.

 

Who was the most devastating force to descend on the Roman Empire? Does Gaiseric deserve greater recognition as the man who brought Rome to its knees, or does Attila deserve his title of 'Scourge of God' and a reputation for devastating the Western Empire? Who did the most damage to the Romans?

[Western]

I think I would have to with Atilla as he is the one who is remembered. If it wasn't for the distraction of the threat from Huns which weakened and divided the Romans, would the Vandals have over run the Romans in North Africa and sacked Rome? In fact in Iberia the Vandals had suffered greatly from attacks from the more poweful Visigoths, and Geiseric had decided to leave Spain to the Visigoths and had started building a Vandal fleet even before he became King. After Gaiseric died, the status of the Vandal declined and eventual collapsed just like the Huns after Atilla died.

[Divi Filius]

I think it was more or less due to the fact that those who came to power in later times were deeply influenced by Attila. The city of Venice attributed its origin to Attila's destruction of Aquilea; the Popes of later times glorified their success in "forcing" Attila to retire from Italy and thereby spare Rome.

 

The other barbarians were more or less embarrassments that later Catholic or Italian forces could not really explain, whereas Attila's failure, or rather near success, was what ultimately drew attention to him.

 

There is also the fact that the Huns were never really tamed. The Goths and other barbarian groups were in fact brought to the authority of the Pope -- excluding the Vandals, who live on in our vocabulary -- but Attila and the Huns were not and would not accept either Christianity or civilization for that matter.

[Rameses the Great]

The Huns swept from Central Asia and came out of no where destroying much of Eastern Europe and later Western Europe. Although Atilla was not a great general, he did not believe in tactics, he was a great leader who spoke eloquently. His forces would have followed him to the end of the world if they had to. People were scared to death because here is a people they have never seen before whose agenda is to destroy and utterly kill populaces.

 

Also the bow they had (can't recall the name) also probably scared the Romans. They brought new revolutionary weapons that Europe and the Middle East have never seen before.

[DecimusCaesar]

I think it was more or less due to the fact that those who came to power in later times were deeply influenced by Attila. The city of Venice attributed its origin to Attila's destruction of Aquilea; the Popes of later times glorified their success in "forcing" Attila to retire from Italy and thereby spare Rome.

 

The other barbarians were more or less embarrassments that later Catholic or Italian forces could not really explain, whereas Attila's failure, or rather near success, was what ultimately drew attention to him.

 

You make a very good point there DF. The Huns became a great propaganda tool for the early church, as they could claim to have saved Rome (and therefore civilisation) from Huns, while the emperor and the army were impotent. The church still commemorated the event a thousand years after Attila's death with Raphael's paintings.

It's interesting that Pope Leo I tried to reason with Gaiseric only a few years later. This deal wasn't as half as succesful as the one he'd made with Attila, and Gaiseric went on to sack Rome. Pope Leo did make sure that the Vandals kept their destruction to minimum levels though. Perhaps it was this lack of success when dealing with Vandals that lead to them losing their influence on later histories. Meanwhile the ferocity of the Huns is made legendary to increase the prestige of the Papacy.

 

Still, we should take into consideration the destruction that the Huns caused the eastern empire. A lot of Byzantine chronicles mention Attila; and we shouldn't forget that Attila sacked many towns in the Balkans and very nearly marched on Constantinople itself. This would have blackened the Byzantines view of the Huns. The Vandals on the other hand were only able to launch pirate raids on Eastern territory, while later in the Sixth century, Belisarius managed to conquer Vandal Africa. This must have made the Byzantines contemptous of the Vandals.

 

I think it's the combined weight of both the Roman and Eastern (Byzantine/Greek) view of the Huns which has brought them fame, while the Vandals - arguably delivering the worst blow to the western empire by taking Africa and sacking Rome - have become less (in)famous.

Edited April 22, 2007 by DecimusCaesar

[Divi Filius]

Still, we should take into consideration the destruction that the Huns caused the eastern empire.

 

I dont see the east influencing the western perception of Attila all that much; plus we have to take into account the various people that came in after Attila and did their damage to the empire, for example, the Bulgars and the slavs.

 

Attila's damage may have been great, but it not long lasting.

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

I think this is a good question DC, when you compare Attila, Gaiseric, Alaric or even lesser known barbarians achievements, on paper Attila's doesn't look any more impress than the others, so why does he over shadow them??

 

It's like when ever the every day person in the street is asked "Name a famous Roman?" 9 out of 10 will say Julius Caesar, I think the same counts here, whenever the question "Name a famous barbarian?" the name on most peoples lips will be Attila the Hun!

 

There's been some good posts so far and I've enjoyed reading them, unfortunately my knowledge of these barbarians is not good enough to give an educated opinion but I just thought I'd stick my two pence in anyway .

[DecimusCaesar]

I dont see the east influencing the western perception of Attila all that much; plus we have to take into account the various people that came in after Attila and did their damage to the empire, for example, the Bulgars and the slavs.

 

Attila's damage may have been great, but it not long lasting.

 

Yes, the Hunnic Empire did not last long after the death of Attila, and the damage it caused the eastern empire wasn't as great as the devestation caused by later invaders.

 

I believe that our modern day perceptions of the Huns were greatly influenced by the Eastern Romans. Our most vivid descriptions of Attila comes from the account of Priscus, a 'Byzantine' diplomat; while Priscus was quoted by Jordanes, a Gothic historian who worked in Constantinople. A lot of information concerning the Huns comes from Byzantine chronicles as well. I am not sure if the Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus mentions the Huns, although he did write a history of the Dominate period.

[Divi Filius]

The only reason I say that the east's image of Attila did not influence us much is because of the way we view him in the modern western Catholic world. To us he is the one who was just barely defeated at Chalons; and only through the united force of Goths and Romans(even though, I would say, Attila's forces were just as much a conglomerate as the latters were). When we picture Attila it is usually followed by Aetius, or the destruction of Aquileia, plunder of Gaul or the near march on Rome.

[DecimusCaesar]

The only reason I say that the east's image of Attila did not influence us much is because of the way we view him in the modern western Catholic world. To us he is the one who was just barely defeated at Chalons; and only through the united force of Goths and Romans(even though, I would say, Attila's forces were just as much a conglomerate as the latters were). When we picture Attila it is usually followed by Aetius, or the destruction of Aquileia, plunder of Gaul or the near march on Rome.

 

That's true. Attila and Bleda's raids on the east are usually overlooked by westerners today. Not to mention his defeat of two eastern armies in 440's and his plunder of various towns in the Balkans. These are usually overshadowed by the invasion of Italy and the destruction brought on Gaul.