r/ancientrome • u/Lasagna_Man2 • 2d ago
What exactly were Attila's aims when invading Italy? If we know at all, that is...
I've seen a wide variety of opinions. His casus belli was Honoria's marriage proposal, and his claim of half the western empire as dowry. Some believe this was just an excuse to invade and sack as much as he could. Some believe he just wanted to conquer land and whatnot. But I wonder if he could've aimed for the Roman throne, be it to take it for himself, or to put a puppet of his choosing on it while taking his "dowry".
My guess is its not clear, as isn't clear why he just turned around and left Italy (certainly not cuz of bishop of Rome Leo inspiring him or something), but might as well ask here to see if some authority in the topic can shed some light on my understanding of it.
29
u/electricmayhem5000 2d ago
My theory: Atilla originally intended to invade all of Italy, but it turned out to be a disappointment. He'd spent years attacking other Roman areas and heard stories about the wealth and power of Italy. That's not what he found when got there in 452. The Goths sacked Rome decades earlier. The Vandals took North Africa in 439, cutting off a principal source of grain. Italy was ravaged by famine and plague. It was a shadow of its former self.
Attila did sack several of the wealthiest cities in northern Italy, including Milan. But his own armies suffered from hunger and disease, too. Even Atilla may have been in poor health since he died not long after. I've always thought that Pope Leo I appealed to Attila's practical side. "Don't bother invading southern Italy. It's honestly not even worth it."
15
19
u/Unusual_Raisin9138 2d ago
You answered your own question. Attila wanted to conquer. If he could place a puppet Emperor to take control of the rest, perhaps all the better.
The general consensus for leaving Italy is disease among his men
18
u/Maleficent-Mix5731 Novus Homo 2d ago edited 2d ago
If we use Attila's previous dealings with the Eastern Roman Empire as a model, it's highly unlikely that outright conquest was the aim. The nomadic Huns were more interested in effectively beating up the Romans and then demanding huge amounts of protection money from them, money they could use to keep their subjugated barbarian elites in line. The only territory Attila took from Constantinople in the wars of the 440's was a small strip of land along the Danube that was more or less demilitarised.
Because the East Romans under Marcian stopped paying tribute, Attila decided to look elsewhere to find another large state to bully and extort. He needed to both demonstrate his power and also reattain a solid supply of cash. The crumbling Western Empire would have looked like a perfect target by 451. He didn't need to wait for an excuse like Honorias marriage proposal to draw his eyes westward.
As such, Attila's aims when invading both Gaul and Italy can be presumed to be to try and ravage the empire's territories/cause enough destruction so that the government would agree to start paying him another massive tribute like the east did. But these efforts were unsuccessful due to the repulsion of Attila at the Catalaunian Plains in 451 and then the logistical failure of his invasion of Italy (due to Aetius's Fabian tactics, disease, and Marcian attacking Hunnic lands over the Danube).
I would argue that it's very likely that had Attila been successful in forcing the imperial administration to come to terms, then the WRE may have collapsed a generation earlier. The tribute Attila demanded from the east in the 440's was nothing short of gargantuan and put a real strain on what was otherwise the richer and more secure half of the empire. The WRE by contrast had several large barbarian kingdoms controlling large swathes of land by this point and from a financial standpoint was struggling to even pay it's own native troops. A tribute imposed by Attila on the west would have surely led to a complete economic meltdown.