Remembering Attila the Hun

[d3cimat3d]

I always wonder what he actually looked like. Seems like no-one can decide

Attila was Mongoloid in appearance but his pawns were for sure all mostly Caucasoids. What Attila did was force by gun point (or arrow point rather) a bunch of Scythians, Slavs, Goths and etc. to do his dirty work. Without them, he and his "empire" would have been nothing.

[demiirel]

Demiirel, yours is a thoughtful post, but what we do know of Attila does not make it likely he would have been a cultural transmission belt, either in a Hun empire in Europe or in bringing ideas from the Far East. The Huns' ancestors were of a different type from the cultured, sedentary Chinese and as a matter of legacy left much less than the Mongols. Indeed, all they did was destroy. There is nothing of a positive nature to point to, and as such it seems very speculative to anticipate some future cultural flowering from a Hun dominated Europe.

Attila was a warrior too busy conquering his empire. His descendants would be the ones who would do the cultural business, like in the Mongol empire. And this cultural business would have been inevitable. Hun queens would play the same role that Mongol queens played in the 13th century.

[Osweo]

Etzel was a great man. I doubt that much would have survived of the Hunnic power after his death even if he had been utterly triumphant, though. We would have seen much the same immediate flow of history as happened anyway, but perhaps with the Gepids or Allemans taking the place of the Franks. Further on, things would have been of a rather different flavour, though. I can't see a Holy Roman Empire emerging on Charlemagne's model. Perhaps a purer Germanic Europe would have emerged, with a little less of the Romance to it (though the power of Rome's ghost would still have been strong). Perhaps this would not have matured in time to hold back the Saracens, though.

[Joe McCarthy]

Attila’s true brutality is demonstrated succeeding a siege or battle when he has free reign to pillage, plunder, sack, and all the rights of a conqueror over the vanquished. This is exemplified no better than during his campaigns in Gaul during 451AD. Edward Gibbon recounts Attila’s exploits in Gaul, destroying over 70 cities, stating “cities…were reduced into heaps of stones and ashes…exposed to the rapacious cruelty of the Huns"[8]. Discontent with solely razing the settlement to the ground, Attila went on to pillage and plunder, and torture and abuse the surviving populace. An anonymous historian puts this rather ineloquently, saying Attila was, “utterly cruel in inflicting torture, greedy in plundering, insolent in abuse”. In fact, so proud of the savagery and cruelness of their ruler’s conquests, the Huns would sing songs dedicated to Attila and his barbaric victories[9]. The fear Attila spread throughout the Roman Empire and entire western world was incredible, and Gibbon illustrates the famous, or, rather, infamous reputation of Attila among the Romans, “the name of Attila was familiar and formidable at Constantinople”. Attila the Hun’s demonic savagery is excellently demonstrated in the post-battle or siege actions he and his army took. The rape, torture, abuse, pillaging, sacking and burning of so many settlements is a testament to the barbarity of this cruel and bloodthirsty warlord. Attila the Hun was, beyond doubt, a demonic savage, bent on destruction and obliteration of those who did not submit to him, such as those foes who succumbed to his forces in Gaul.

[archangel]

atilla was surely a great man and commander

[LouisFerdinand]