What really stopped Atilla the Hun?

[ScandinavianRoman]

According to history, Atilla made it to Rome and was about to take over when Pope Leo 1(I think that was his name) stopped him. How did a Pope convince a Hun to leave? There are three possibilities.

 

One: He impressed the Hun with his piety and claimed that Saint Paul helped him. This seems unlikely, since piety didn't stop the Hun from destroying churchs elsewhere? Also, I doubt Saint Paul helped him. Besides, I doubt he would help the empire that had him beheaded.

 

Two: The Pope used Atilla's superstition against him. Let's remember that while Atilla was aethistic he did have many superstitious beliefs. He was known to have a band of shamans and magicians. The Pope might have told him that the spirits of the saints would be angry if he took Rome.

 

Three: He used political savvy to get Atilla to leave. This is the most likely. There was a plague going on in Italy at that time, so Attila feared that his victory would be undone if he took a plagued city. Also, Rome had been sacked several times and was in ruin. The Pope might have convinced Atilla that Rome was not worth taking for it was in such ruin. Atilla didn't care about money, he cared about conquest, so the Pope could not give him money to leave.

 

Somehow, the Pope convinced Atilla to leave. Atilla probably thought that he would come back later to take Rome. Unfortunately, he died of suffocation by a nosebleed so that didn't work out. Comments and corrections are welcome.

[Primus Pilus]

Attila wasn't an atheist with superstitious beliefs, he was a pagan, as was Hunnic culture. Because of the wide diversity of the Hunnic population, these beliefs were probably not uniform, but a lack of 'christianity' doesn't constitute atheism. (Despite the incorrect claim of Ammianus Marcellinus in The History 31.2.11).

 

In any case, I believe it was Priscus who suggested that Attila feared the fate that Alaric met after sacking Rome a generation earlier in AD 410. Alaric died shortly thereafter at the young age of 40ish. (I can't find the exact passage, alas)

 

However, Procopius doesn't even bother mentioning the meeting with Attila and Leo. He claims that Attila simply interpreted an omen and decided against invasion

 

From Procopius, History of the Wars Book IV:

So after the death of Aetius,[24] Attila, since no one was a match for

him, plundered all Europe with no trouble and made both emperors

subservient and tributary to himself. For tribute money was sent to him

every year by the emperors. At that time, while Attila was besieging

Aquileia, a city of great size and exceedingly populous situated near

the sea and above the Ionian Gulf, they say that the following good

fortune befell him. For they tell the story that, when he was able to

capture the place neither by force nor by any other means, he gave up

the siege in despair, since it had already lasted a long time, and

commanded the whole army without any delay to make their preparations

for the departure, in order that on the morrow all might move from there

at sunrise. And the following day about sunrise, the barbarians had

raised the siege and were already beginning the departure, when a single

male stork which had a nest on a certain tower of the city wall and was

rearing his nestlings there suddenly rose and left the place with his

young. And the father stork was flying, but the little storks, since

they were not yet quite ready to fly, were at times sharing their

father's flight and at times riding upon his back, and thus they flew

off and went far away from the city. And when Attila saw this (for he

was most clever at comprehending and interpreting all things), he

commanded the army, they say, to remain still in the same place, adding

that the bird would never have gone flying off at random from there with

his nestlings, unless he was prophesying that some evil would come to

the place at no distant time. Thus, they say, the army of the barbarians

settled down to the siege once more, and not long after that a portion

of the wall--the very part which held the nest of that bird--for no

apparent reason suddenly fell down, and it became possible for the enemy

to enter the city at that point, and thus Aquileia was captured by

storm. Such is the story touching Aquileia.

[ScandinavianRoman]

Attila wasn't an atheist with superstitious beliefs, he was a pagan, as was Hunnic culture. Because of the wide diversity of the Hunnic population, these beliefs were probably not uniform, but a lack of 'christianity' doesn't constitute atheism. (Despite the incorrect claim of Ammianus Marcellinus in The History 31.2.11).

 

In any case, I believe it was Priscus who suggested that Attila feared the fate that Alaric met after sacking Rome a generation earlier in AD 410. Alaric died shortly thereafter at the young age of 40ish. (I can't find the exact passage, alas)

 

However, Procopius doesn't even bother mentioning the meeting with Attila and Leo. He claims that Attila simply interpreted an omen and decided against invasion

 

From Procopius, History of the Wars Book IV:

So after the death of Aetius,[24] Attila, since no one was a match for

him, plundered all Europe with no trouble and made both emperors

subservient and tributary to himself. For tribute money was sent to him

every year by the emperors. At that time, while Attila was besieging

Aquileia, a city of great size and exceedingly populous situated near

the sea and above the Ionian Gulf, they say that the following good

fortune befell him. For they tell the story that, when he was able to

capture the place neither by force nor by any other means, he gave up

the siege in despair, since it had already lasted a long time, and

commanded the whole army without any delay to make their preparations

for the departure, in order that on the morrow all might move from there

at sunrise. And the following day about sunrise, the barbarians had

raised the siege and were already beginning the departure, when a single

male stork which had a nest on a certain tower of the city wall and was

rearing his nestlings there suddenly rose and left the place with his

young. And the father stork was flying, but the little storks, since

they were not yet quite ready to fly, were at times sharing their

father's flight and at times riding upon his back, and thus they flew

off and went far away from the city. And when Attila saw this (for he

was most clever at comprehending and interpreting all things), he

commanded the army, they say, to remain still in the same place, adding

that the bird would never have gone flying off at random from there with

his nestlings, unless he was prophesying that some evil would come to

the place at no distant time. Thus, they say, the army of the barbarians

settled down to the siege once more, and not long after that a portion

of the wall--the very part which held the nest of that bird--for no

apparent reason suddenly fell down, and it became possible for the enemy

to enter the city at that point, and thus Aquileia was captured by

storm. Such is the story touching Aquileia.

 

 

 

So Attila was a pagan, I just got the idea he was an aethist from an inaccurate source on Roman history then. It is mentioned in history that he did meet with the pope. Well, the bad omen did not stop him from battling the Romans at Chalons.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, guys!

 

As Khaddafi, Attila probably got back after a huge ransom, which very well could have been their main goal in the first place.

 

Legends about the Pope Leo or Sarkozy would have been creative public relations.

[Syphax]

 

So Attila was a pagan, I just got the idea he was an aethist from an inaccurate source on Roman history then. It is mentioned in history that he did meet with the pope. Well, the bad omen did not stop him from battling the Romans at Chalons.

 

The only source I know of that labels Attila as an Atheist comes from the game series "Age of Empires". Things from these games are usually sensationalised merely for gameplay value. This source also made the meeting between Attila and Leo the main focus of his ceased assault on Italy. Of course, this too was likely oversensationalized. Even if the two actually did meet, it's doubtful that a pope would have any sway over a Hunnic warlord. As Asclepiades said, it was probably more of a PR stunt by the church to display its power to the people who were, at the time, very frightened.

[Primus Pilus]

The only source I know of that labels Attila as an Atheist comes from the game series "Age of Empires". Things from these games are usually sensationalised merely for gameplay value.

 

The suggestion of atheism existed long before a video game. In the link provided earlier Ammianus Marcellinus wrote the following in the 4th century regarding the Huns (though clearly before the age of Attila himself).

 

The Histories 31.2.11 (Of the houses and customs of the Huns, the Halani, and other nations of Asiatic Scythia.)

In truces they are faithless and unreliable, strongly inclined to sway to the motion of every breeze of new hope that presents itself, and sacrificing every feeling to the mad impulse of the moment. Like unreasoning beasts, they are utterly ignorant of the difference between right and wrong; they are deceitful and ambiguous in speech, never bound by any reverence for religion or for superstition.

[ASCLEPIADES]

From Procopius, History of the Wars Book IV:

So after the death of Aetius,[24] Attila, since no one was a match for

him, plundered all Europe with no trouble and made both emperors

subservient and tributary to himself. For tribute money was sent to him

every year by the emperors.

 

'Nuff said.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, guys & Ladies!

 

From AFP:

 

"France-Libya arms deal "nothing to do" with Bulgarian medics' release

PARIS, Aug 4, 2007 (AFP) - A top French official said Saturday that the possibility of a deal in exchange for Libya's release of Bulgarian medics was "a subject that never came up in our discussions."

France confirmed Friday that Libya had reached a major arms deal with the European aerospace giant EADS, the first since a weapons embargo was lifted on Tripoli in 2004 and a potential source of embarrassment for President Nicolas Sarkozy.

Negotiations over the arms deal between EADS subsidiary MBDA and the Libyan authorities "had been going on for a long time and we never intervened to speed up their conclusion," presidential aide Claude Gueant said in an interview with the daily Le Figaro.

French Defence Minister Herve Morin confirmed Friday that a letter of intent had been signed for the sale of Milan anti-tank missiles and a radio communications system worth, according to a Libyan official, 296 million euros (405 million dollars).

News of the contracts sparked an uproar in France, coming a week after Sarkozy and his wife Cecilia helped broker the release of six foreign medics, sentenced to life imprisonment in Libya on charges of infecting hundreds of children with the AIDS virus.

The opposition Socialist Party immediately demanded a parliamentary enquiry to decide if France offered the contracts to Libya as a counterpart for the medics' freedom.

"If there was no exchange, if there was no bartering, why sign a military agreement with the Kadhafi regime, which has been responsible for terrorist acts, which has been a rogue state?" asked party leader Francois Hollande.

Sarkozy, who travelled to Tripoli to sign a nuclear and military cooperation agreement the following day, has denied suggestions of a trade-off, presenting the case as a French and European diplomatic coup.

Gueant, secretary-general at the Elysee presidential palace, told Le Figaro: "I learned only after I travelled to Tripoli that an MBDA mission had been staying in the Libyan capital for a month."

The speaker of the National Assembly Bernard Accoyer, a member of Sarkozy's ruling UMP party, said he supported calls for an enquiry and was confident it would ease the opposition's concerns.

The presidency issued a statement, hours after Sarkozy left for a lakeside summer vacation in New Hampshire, saying he would welcome an "enquiry into recent developments in the relations between France and Libya."

Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi's son, Saif ul-Islam Kadhafi, has said unblocking the medics' case paved the way for the weapons contracts.

But defence minister Morin said the missile accord had been in the pipeline for months, though he acknowledged that "on arms contracts, the finalisation, the last touch, generally comes via a political act, a visit from the president, or prime minister."

He said the deal was approved in principle by the government of Sarkozy's predecessor Jacques Chirac in February 2007."

 

ANOTHER SIX NEWS ABOUT THE SAME STORY

 

Ransoming has always been a good business.

 

Does anybody know if Jordanes or someone else have any more to say about the Attila-Leo affaire?

 

Cheers & good luck!

[lothia]

Ave Civitas,

 

I am a writer of historical fiction, and so I speculate on what could have caused things to happen.

Since no one wrote down what Atilla thought, all we can to is speculate.

 

Here are my thoughts on why Atilla quit on his advance into Italy.

 

In Atilla's invasion of Italia the Huns comprised only a small portion (percentage) of the troops available to Atilla.

 

The Huns were settled in the plains between the Danube and Transylvania.

 

In his invasion of Gaul where Aetius cleaned his clock for him, there are few mentions of Hunnic cavalry, where in earlier encounters with the Huns the horsemen played a major enough role to be mentioned.

 

Where Pope Leo met Atilla was pretty far north in Italy. I asked myself this, If the Pope were in Rome and Atilla were sweeping down into Italy, how did Leo get so far north so quickly?

 

All I could think of was that Atilla wasn't moving very fast. The Pope wasn't notified by short-wave, so some messenger had to ride down, the Pope had to decide what to to, then the Pope had to go north to meet the Hun.

 

Furthermore, Summer was well on its was and disease must have been dogging his army too. He was in a hurry to get out of Italy and back north before winter closed the Julian Alps.

 

Lastly, If he had continued south Aetius, who gave him a whipping in Gaul would have crossed the Alps and he would have been trapped in the boot of Italy.

 

If he knew anything of history he knew that Radagaisus got caught and whipped and killed too, by another good Roman general (Stilicho). He surely did not want that happening again.

 

By 450 most of Rome's forces were mounted (mounted cavalry and mounted infantry) where Atilla's weren't anymore. The Romans could (and did in Gaul) outmaneuver him.

 

Just something to think about.

 

Lothia

[ASCLEPIADES]

Ave Civitas,

In his invasion of Gaul where Aetius cleaned his clock for him, there are few mentions of Hunnic cavalry, where in earlier encounters with the Huns the horsemen played a major enough role to be mentioned.

By 450 most of Rome's forces were mounted (mounted cavalry and mounted infantry) where Atilla's weren't anymore. The Romans could (and did in Gaul) outmaneuver him.

Lothia

Salve, L!

 

Even if we don't know the Hunnic version of the story, the battle of the Catalaunian Fields was a massive inconclusive carnage, where the clocks of both sides were thoroughly cleaned; Hunnic army's retreat across the Rhine might be interpreted as defeat or strategy (or both).

 

Besides, Flavius Aetius shared command at that battle at least with the Visigothic King Theodoric, and probably also with the Alan king Sangiban.

[Nerva]

I see three things that could have stopped Atilla.

 

1) He was stopped militarily.

I find this highly unlikely as Aetius did not have the numbers he had at Chalons since the Visigoths had returned to their territory in southern Gaul once the main threat from the Huns had been stopped. The defenses of Ravenna were also formidable, but even that was not enough to keep Emperor Valentinan III from fleeing to Rome for safety. There are some stories that Aetius harrassed the Huns with a shadow force and that might have slowed them, but I don't believe it would have been enough to really stop Atilla if he wished to Sack Rome. Look at what the Huns did to Aquileia. Which brings me to my next possibility.

2) They were paid a ransom to leave Italy.

If it was money they were after, why raze Aquileia completely to the ground? In my opinion, they were out for blood after the Romans had the audacity to challange him in Gaul. I think it was his intent to make Rome look exactly like Aquileia.

3) There was a plague that broke out within his army.

This to me seems like the most likely answer. There wasn't the military might to stop him and all the gold in the world couldn't save the cities of Italy in front of him. Pope Leo I may have met with him and discussed various topics including the plague in Italy and the Hun troops, who knows, but no words were enough to stop the Huns up to that point. It seems logical to me that the plague was the deciding factor in halting the Huns from running over Rome.