Attila the Hun. What does Hun mean. And what makes him such a huge role in Eastern History? I know he attacked a bunch of places in China, but what really separates him from the other people we know for murdering people?
Next Question: Who was Atilla the Hun? I have heard many vicious and cruel things about him, but never really got to reading about him.
I love you guys... cutting my work in half like that
Alright, first, the quick part. BokkChoi, 'Hun' isn't a title; it's the name of a particular tribe of people.
Now, the long part. The first thing to note when we talk about the Huns is that we don't
know anything about them for sure. All accounts we have of them are from writers in Rome; Rome, of course, viewed themselves as entirely superior in culture and in dignity to any of the so called 'barbarians', and so there is a lot of opportunity for bias to sneak in here. They report a largely uncivilized society, but that's quite typical of Roman writers. Needless to say, everything we know has a lot of potential to be inaccurate.
However, we do
think we know some stuff. Namely, that they appeared in Europe around the 4th century AD. We actually don't know a lot of details about where they came from (although it is assumed that they were from an area just north of China) because those European writers that are basically our only source of information didn't see them until, well, they were in Europe. They were, similar to the Mongols, a nomadic people, and their primary form of combat was horse archers.
Bit of a sidenote: It really does seem like if you want to put together an incredibly effective army in the pre-industrial period, the correct way to do it is to get lots of horse archers. Seems ranged attacks + mobility = something very difficult to beat. So, it seems that 'kiting' works in the real world too.
The Huns, prior to Attila, didn't really have any one ruler; they simply had a group of nobles that would convene on particular matters. Their government style was almost casual, really, but if you wanted a modern comparison, the closest you would get would be an oligarchy.
Now, the more interesting question: why do we care about the Huns as especially interesting people when there are so many other murderers around?
Because they were the best of the best in their time period. Evidence? Well, they weren't the sole cause of the fall of the Roman empire, but they were a big contributing factor. It actually answers a pretty significant question about why we know Attila and the Huns in general today; the really messed up Rome, and they were a significant topic of discussion amongst the roman historians.
Here's the story: The emperor of Rome's sister has a problem. She's being forced to marry a Roman senator against her will, and she really doesn't want to. She knows about Attila, and about the Huns (from her friendship with a particular roman general who was exiled with them for a while), and so she sends Attila a plea for help, attaching the wedding ring as proof. Now, what SHE wanted is for him to come and kill the senator so she'd be off the hook. Simple, easy thought, right?
What ACTUALLY happened is that Attila saw the ring and took it as a marriage proposal to HIM. He then sent a letter to Rome requesting half of the Western empire as a dowry. Now, we all can recognize that that isn't something Rome was willing to do, so he ended up coming down into the Italian Peninsula (not as far as Rome, however) and really roughing it up. Rape, Pillage, mass murder, you name it. However, a particular roman general fought well enough that it discouraged him, and the Huns left.
He hadn't forgotten though. 2 years later, back he came. Same story. He eventually got repelled before hitting Rome, but he still had caused his damage. This was all done in 452, or so, which is relatively close to the 'fall' of the Western Empire in 476. He wasn't the sole cause, as I said earlier, but he certainly helped to destabilize the place.
2 more quick things: How did he die? It wasn't in battle. Rumor has it that after he left Rome the second time, he planned to go and nail Constantinople. However, he stopped off to get married first (apparently having forgotten his supposed Roman wife). At his reception party, something happened, and we can't be too sure of what, but in any case, he died. There are two major theories: Firstly, that he got incredibly drunk, and choked to death, or, Secondly, that he got incredibly drunk, and died of alcohol poisoning. There are also a few other theories that suggest internal bleeding of some kind.
Second quick thing: "But Dread", I hear you say, "That's pretty boring! Attila's supposed to be a crazy murdering cruel barbarian! Tell us about cruel things!" Well, ok. Much as the REAL reason he has gone down in history is because he was a particularly (arguably the MOST) siginifcant barbarian leader in the history of Rome, simply because he was the one who beat them up the most. Thus, he got lots of press. HOWEVER, he wasn't without his cruel charms. There's a legend that on his second trip into Rome, he stopped at a particular town in Northern Italy, and didn't attack it. Instead, he found a nearby hill, and ordered his men to construct a castle on it. After it was complete, he THEN got his troops to burn the town; he simply wanted the castle for a higher vantage point to watch the town burn.
Answers to the other questions coming shortly!