Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Cartoonist

(7,317 posts)
Mon May 6, 2019, 02:55 PM May 2019

The Pope meets Attila the Hun

Last edited Mon May 6, 2019, 06:32 PM - Edit history (1)

And everyone has a weird hat





In internet parlance, I call bullshit on that claim. Let's see what Wikipedia says:

Despite his defeat at the Battle of Chalons in 451, Attila invaded Italy in 452, sacking cities such as Aquileia and heading for Rome. He allegedly demanded that the sister of the reigning Emperor Valentinian III be sent to him with a dowry. In response, the emperor sent three envoys to negotiate with Attila: Gennadius Avienus, one of the consuls of 450, Memmius Aemilius Trygetius, the former urban prefect, and Leo. Little is known of the specifics of the negotiations, as a result of which Attila withdrew. Most ancient and medieval historians celebrated Leo's actions, giving him all the credit for this successful embassy. According to Prosper of Aquitaine who was alive at the time of the event, Attila was so impressed by Leo that he withdrew. Another near-contemporary was the historian Priscus who records that Attila was dissuaded from attacking Rome by his own men because they feared he would share the fate of the Visigothic king Alaric, who died shortly after sacking the city in 410. Paul the Deacon, in the late 8th century, relates that an enormously huge man dressed in priestly robes and armed with a sword, visible only to Attila, threatened him and his army with death during his discourse with Leo, and this prompted Attila to submit to his request.

More modern historians debate other possible reasons for Attila's sudden withdrawal. The pope may have offered Attila a large sum of gold or Attila may have had logistical and strategic concerns: an army probably laden with booty from plunder; a plague in northern Italy; food shortages; military actions of the Eastern Emperor Marcianus on the Danube frontier. Besides, the whereabouts of Aëtius at that time are unknown, and Attila or his warriors may have felt endangered by their arch-enemy from the Catalaunian plains.

Writing in the early 20th century, John B. Bury remarked:

The fact of the embassy cannot be doubted. The distinguished ambassadors visited the Hun's camp near the south shore of Lake Garda. It is also certain that Attila suddenly retreated. But we are at a loss to know what considerations were offered him to induce him to depart. It is unreasonable to suppose that this heathen king would have cared for the thunders or persuasions of the Church. The Emperor refused to surrender Honoria, and it is not recorded that money was paid. A trustworthy chronicle hands down another account which does not conflict with the fact that an embassy was sent, but evidently furnishes the true reasons which moved Attila to receive it favourably. Plague broke out in the barbarian host and their food ran short, and at the same time troops arrived from the east, sent by Marcian to the aid of Italy. If his host was suffering from pestilence, and if troops arrived from the east, we can understand that Attila was forced to withdraw. But whatever terms were arranged, he did not pretend that they meant a permanent peace. The question of Honoria was left unsettled, and he threatened that he would come again and do worse things in Italy unless she were given up with the due portion of the Imperial possessions.

11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Act_of_Reparation

(9,116 posts)
1. Attila never even made it south of the Po.
Mon May 6, 2019, 03:38 PM
May 2019

But I doubt the kind of people who would believe this story would be particularly interested in hearing of its factual inaccuracy.

Act_of_Reparation

(9,116 posts)
3. So, it is nonsical, but for one fewer reason?
Mon May 6, 2019, 04:33 PM
May 2019

I dunno, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Attila was so impressed by Leo he packed up and left town. Maybe Leo was just a little off his game when Genseric sacked the shit out Rome three years later.

Voltaire2

(13,051 posts)
4. The empire repeatedly bribed Atilla to go away.
Mon May 6, 2019, 05:56 PM
May 2019

The most obvious reason why he went away again, and this is hinted at in the excerpted text, is that another wagon train of gold was delivered.

MineralMan

(146,317 posts)
7. It's not an issue that concerns me all that much, really.
Tue May 7, 2019, 09:31 AM
May 2019

I was just pointing out a single fact to clarify.

Probably, Atilla was rewarded for pulling back. I have no idea. It was all a very long time ago, so the details are sketchy, really.

Act_of_Reparation

(9,116 posts)
10. Right, but I think we can agree the fundamental conceit is absurd.
Tue May 7, 2019, 10:37 AM
May 2019

Leo didn't so impress Attila with his piety that the conquering horseman turned his army around and go back... to all those no-less-pious lands he'd already conquered.

uriel1972

(4,261 posts)
5. I understand Attila was a christian..
Mon May 6, 2019, 08:07 PM
May 2019

an Arianist, a heretic by Roman standards, but a christian nonetheless.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»The Pope meets Attila the...