This paper examines the role of Attila the Hun and the Hunnish people in accelerating the collapse of the Roman Empire during the fifth century AD. Drawing on historical accounts by J.B. Bury and Christopher Kelly, the paper analyzes how Attila united scattered Hun clans into a cohesive military force, exploited Roman political weakness, and employed a dual strategy of warfare and diplomacy. It also considers the broader impact of Hunnish expansion on Roman territorial integrity, the settlement of Pannonia, and the chain of events that contributed to the eventual fragmentation of both the Western and Eastern Roman Empires.
The paper demonstrates effective use of cited authority to support analytical claims. Each major argument — about Attila's consolidation of power, his strategy of extortion, and his manipulation of Roman alliances — is supported by a direct quotation from a named historian, showing students how to weave secondary source evidence into an interpretive narrative without over-summarizing.
The paper opens by contextualizing the Huns within the late Roman world, then narrows to Attila's personal leadership and military strategy. Middle sections explore Hunnish economic and political methods, including tribute extraction and mercenary diplomacy. The paper then broadens again to assess the Huns as an emerging empire before closing with a reflection on Attila's historical legacy and the comparative judgment offered by Bury. The structure moves from context → leader → strategy → legacy in a logical arc.
The Huns, a nomadic people regarded as barbarians from the Roman point of view, came from the East and may have delivered the final blow to an empire that was already crumbling. Moving westward, they conquered the semi-nomadic peoples they encountered along the way, settling in territories north and south of the Danube and incorporating them into a new empire.
The Roman Empire, divided into two — the Western Roman Empire and the Eastern — faced new challenges imposed by wars on several fronts. The Goths, the Vandals, the Persians, and others were threatening to tear it to pieces. The Huns, however, did not necessarily intend to destroy Rome. Their goal was to live off the wealth of the Roman provinces they marched upon. Attila's formidable leadership and his ability to unite his tribes and make them act as a nation created a powerful force that would shatter an empire already on the verge of collapse.
During the fifth century AD, Roman leaders had to rethink everything about how they ruled their empire. Attila, as Rua before him, along with their merciless cavalry and its blitz attacks, forced the Romans to reconsider both war strategies and diplomacy. The most important example of this is the Huns' settlement in Pannonia — a concession on the part of Rome that would cost it dearly, but one the Huns left the Romans no choice but to accept.
Attila, the Hun leader, had the singular merit of uniting his people, who had previously been scattered across different clans and tribes, giving them the opportunity to rally under the same flag and fight as a nation. He was born at the dawn of the fifth century AD, at a moment ripe for questioning and greatly endangering Roman supremacy in the Mediterranean world and beyond.
Although probably illiterate, Attila had the ability to make use of those around him who could read and write, and — most importantly — he knew how to motivate his troops and hold them together with an iron fist. As J.B. Bury observes: "the policy of concentrating authority within the nation and extending it externally, which was introduced by Rua, was consciously developed by Bleda and Attila, especially by the latter after he had in 444 or 445 attained to exclusive dominion by setting aside his brother and co-ruler." Thus, although his joint rule with his brother Bleda had initially been effective, Attila chose to rule alone at the head of the newly united Hun nation and eventually had his brother eliminated.
He was a ruthless leader, well trained in the art of war, fearless, and ready to stop at nothing. What made him exceptional among contemporaries was not simply his ferocity, but his capacity to transform a confederation of nomadic clans into something resembling a state capable of projecting sustained military power against the most organized empire of the age.
Like other barbarian peoples of their era, the Huns were largely parasitic in their economic model, living off the possessions of those they pillaged and the tributes that subjected peoples agreed to pay in exchange for peace. What the Huns could not conquer outright, they controlled by keeping it under the permanent threat of attack. This strategy proved effective the great majority of the time.
The Eastern Roman Empire, for example, was at that time under the rule of the incapable Emperor Theodosius II. As J.B. Bury explains, a complete overthrow and destruction of the Eastern Empire was never Attila's intention: "His policy on the contrary aimed at keeping it, by continual extortions of money and actual depredations, in a state of permanent weakness and incapacity to resist." Some historians have gone so far as to speak of a Hunnish rule over the Romans. While that may be an exaggeration, there is little doubt that the Romans were no longer the absolute masters of the territories surrounding the Mediterranean.
Unfortunately, all surviving historical documents that mention Attila are of Roman origin. The Huns do not appear to have recorded their own historical evolution, and the remaining archaeological evidence is too inconclusive for modern historians to construct a complete and accurate portrait of the Hunnish leader. What is beyond doubt is that he launched fast and forceful attacks — following the well-established model of nomadic assaults on settled provinces — with a force and effectiveness the Romans had rarely encountered before. The Western Roman Empire was no longer able to sustain attacks of such magnitude and was forced to make enormous concessions to these nomads.
Even with the Romans, Attila found ways to engage beyond outright warfare. He befriended certain Roman figures and used them as best he could in order to divide and conquer. As Bury notes: "Like Rua, Attila maintained friendship with Aetius [the Roman general from the Western Roman Empire], at whose disposal he repeatedly placed Hunnish mercenaries. This relationship was partly brought about by personal conditions, partly by the endeavor of Attila to divide the Roman power."
You’re 55% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.