# Humanities & Anthropology > History & Civilisations >  Huns Ended Ancient Times

## Silverbackman

When many people think of the end of Ancient Times they think of Rome falling. The idea of Rome falling was the cause of the end the ancient times is not accurate, because that only applies to Europe.

The Huns are the ones who brought an end to Ancient Times because they basically conquered all and left in ruin all major empires. At the time there were 5 empires: Gupta India, Sassanid Persia, Han China, West Rome, and East Rome. The Huns basically brought the end to all these empires except East Rome. Though many people say that the Germanic Barbarians conquered the Roman Empire this is not necessarily true. The Huns sacked Rome and weakened it enough for the Barbarians to win. After all, as little as 12 years later Rome fell.

What do you think is the greatest cause for the end of Ancient Times?

----------


## Kinsao

How do you define 'Ancient Times'? How old does it have to be, for classed as ancient?  :Doubt:

----------


## Mars Man

This sounds very interesting. I have read some history on the subject way back when, and remember almost nothing. This should prove to be a subject to look into, but I tend to agree that a definition may be called for. 

Hope to hear more detail--it is a VERY important thing. The context makes the meaning!!

----------


## Mycernius

I was always led to believe that the Roman Empire and its fall endedthe Classical history period. Ancient history is pre-Greek and Phoenician.

hang on found some info:
Pre-History: Before c.3500 BC
The beginning of civilisation: c.3500 BC to c.1500 BC
The Classical civilisations: c.1500 BC to about 600 AD

----------


## Void

One of our authors L.N. Gumilev devoted a lot of time to study the history
of Huns (he uses Hunnu)? wrote several books. Short chronology from his another book "Ethnogeny and biosphere" 
// sorry for spelling

Hunnu - nomadic state, which appeared in ancient Mongolia before IV b.c. Their state was based on idea "overlook(dominate) the nations". Since 209 b.c. till 97 a.c.
Hunnu empire grows and finaly smashes the beat forces of China. But soon after they grew weaker and without any combat China again becomes "top dog" In 1 a.c. century Hunnu set themselves free from China`s influence, but devided onto 4 "branches", one of them, the most irrepressible and freedom loving, struggling with various enemies uhey faced, moved to the west of Great Steppe (or whatever it is called in english  :Laughing: ) mixed with ugorians of Ural-Volga interfluve and turned into east-european ethnos which we call Huns [G`unnu]
During 3-5 a.c. centuries they defeated Alans and only in 5th century crossed
Carpatians and went to Dunai`s valley. But part of them stayed back in steppes of Don and Volga. 
During 4th century they concurred Alans, then Goths with help of Rossomons and around 420 invaded Pannonia
Besides Huns were rather small ethnos and they "used" as well ants, Ostgoths, rossomons, alans and other local nations

----------


## Void

Around 1 a.c Roman and Parthian empires faced "ethnic poverty". Population
decresed, all virtues long forgotten, widely spread culture before at those
times became the assetof a few. Since then economic became rather "predacious" toward natural resources
Common point of view: Rome rottened from within. Obscure stage of ethnogeny.
Same was with Germanic and Sarmats tribes

Around 2 a.c. some morepassive ethnic groups arose: Dacia (though, were eliminated) Illyrians which even managed to put their own Ceasars - Severs(???) Almost all 3rd centure this small ethnic group was hegemon of Roman empire. Then came Goths, vandals and ants

This is the time when "Christians" appeared. Around 1-3 centuries a.c. almost everyone who felt alienated to his own society would join the community,
`cause there he can feel himself "at place". Their number grew. At IV pole shifted, Byzantium took over slackened Rome

----------


## Void

so, were empires brought to ruins (no matter by whom) or they were all ready to fall apart?

----------


## Silverbackman

> so, were empires brought to ruins (no matter by whom) or they were all ready to fall apart?


Gupta India, Sassanid Persia, Han China, and East Rome seemed to be standing strong until the Huns came. West Rome I guess was getting closer to falling, however it would have probably lasted a good 200 years more if the Huns did not indvade.

During the dark ages of the middle ages the entire world was basicly under chaos, not just Europe. East Europe stood as what we might call today the "sole superpower". But every other empire seems to have all died off because of the Huns.

----------


## Void

> West Rome I guess was getting closer to falling, however it would have probably lasted a good 200 years more if the Huns did not indvade.


There are different point of views. And this 200 years is one of them.

On the other hand, why Atilla left Rome? there also various assumptions exist.
1) some epidemy among his troops.
well, recent findings of US scientists showed that Rome could suffer some severe form of malaria, which also caused high child mortality
2) famine, which raged over Apennines (not in a favor of well standing Roman empire, ne?)

So, Huns, still can be only the trigger
1) many ethnic groups gladly joined Atilla`s army in his campain against Rome (some not so gladly, but to survive, since Huns didn`t take prisoners). It means Rome didn`t have much love among his neighbours
2) mentioned above slow decay of recently great culture (in spite of their perfect Roman law system which seems to survive much longer) 
3) acceptance of Christianity. Some compare it with AIDS infection, which destroyed the body of empire
4) lack of great leaders and generals (after Atilla`s death Huns` empire lost its potential and disappeared as well)

and so on

----------


## Silverbackman

> There are different point of views. And this 200 years is one of them.
> 
> On the other hand, why Atilla left Rome? there also various assumptions exist.
> 1) some epidemy among his troops.
> well, recent findings of US scientists showed that Rome could suffer some severe form of malaria, which also caused high child mortality
> 2) famine, which raged over Apennines (not in a favor of well standing Roman empire, ne?)
> 
> So, Huns, still can be only the trigger
> 1) many ethnic groups gladly joined Atilla`s army in his campain against Rome (some not so gladly, but to survive, since Huns didn`t take prisoners). It means Rome didn`t have much love among his neighbours
> ...



Many historians believe that Attila left because his troops were becoming restless of war. He was going to return to finish what he started but he soon died of unknown causes.

Yes there were many causes for the fall of Rome, but I think the Huns speeded it up. But Rome is not the only mighty empire that fell to the Huns. Around the same time Han China, Gupta India, and Sassanid Persia was attacked and the civilizations later fell quickly. The only empire that had the ability to fight off the Huns was the Byzantine Empire, but in actuality they bought the protection because East Rome was so rich with gold.

----------


## lexico

> Many historians believe that Attila ... soon died of unknown causes.


As to the cause of Attila's death there are four theories, some of which may have overlapped as converging factors leading to his death:

1) Priscus the Greek historian and a contemporary of serving as Roman embassador to Attila's court of the Huns, wrote of Attila's death in his fragmented work _Byzantine History_  excerpted in Jordanes's _Getica_, attributing it to a beautiful Goth named _Ildico_; 


> Attila left Italy and returned to his palace across the Danube. From there he planned to strike at Constantinople again and reclaim the tribute which Marcian had cut off. However, he died in the early months of 453; the conventional account, from Priscus, says that on the night after a feast celebrating his latest marriage (to a beautiful Goth named _Ildico_), he suffered a severe nosebleed and choked to death in a stupor. 
> 
> His warriors, upon discovering his death, mourned him by cutting off their hair and gashing themselves with their swords so that, says Jordanes, "the greatest of all warriors should be mourned with no feminine lamentations and with no tears, but with the blood of men." 
> 
> His horsemen galloped in circles around the silken tent when Attila lay in state, singing in his dirge, according to Cassiodorus/Jordanes "Who can rate this as death, when none believes it calls for vengeance ?" then celebrating a strava over his burial place with great feasting. He was buried in a triple coffin—of gold, silver, and iron—with the spoils of his conquest, and his funeral party was killed to keep his burial place secret.


2) Acc. to Count Marcellinus (no content; please write sth.) the Roman chronicler, in his Chronicon wrote, 


> Attila, King of the Huns and ravager of the provinces of Europe, was pierced by the hand and blade of his wife.


3) The Volsunga Saga and the Poetic Edda claim that King Atli died at the hands of his wife Gudrun. _Gurdun_ in Norse mythology, also known as _Kriemhild_ in the Niebelungenlied, supposedly killed Attila with fire;


> After the death of Sigurd, Gudrun married the king Atle (Attila), who is in the northern version responsible for the death of her whole family, who did inherit the name Volsunge/Niebelungen from the gold. The queen took revenge for her family by killing the children she had with Attila and serving them as dinner to him at a feast in his hall. Later, when he was solidly drunk, she broke the news to him:
> 
> "Thou giver of swords, / of thy sons the hearts 
> All heavy with blood / in honey thou hast eaten; 
> Thou shalt stomach, thou hero, / the flesh of the slain, 
> To eat at thy feast, / and to send to thy followers. 
> 
> Thou shalt never call / to thy knees again 
> Erp or Eitil, / when merry with ale; 
> ...


4) Emperor Marcian of the East Roamn Empire



> Most scholars reject these accounts as no more than romantic fables, preferring instead the version given by Attila's contemporary Priscus. The "official" account by Priscus, however, has recently come under renewed scrutiny by Michael A. Babcock (_The Night Attila Died: Solving the Murder of Attila the Hun_, Berkley Books, 2005). Based on detailed philological analysis, Babcock concludes that the account of natural death, given by Priscus, was an ecclesiastical "cover story" and that Emperor Marcian (who ruled the Eastern Roman Empire from 450-457) was the political force behind Attila's death.
> 
> His sons Ellak (his appointed successor), Dengizik, and Ernakh fought over the division of his legacy—"what warlike kings with their peoples should be apportioned to them by lot like a family estate" and, divided, were defeated and scattered the following year in the Battle of Nedao by the Gepids, under Ardaric, who pride was stirred by being treated with his people like chattel, and the Ostrogoths. Attila's empire did not outlast him.


5) Although not directly responsible for his death, there is an interesting episode about Honoria, the sister of Emperor Valentinian, who 


> in order to escape her forced betrothal to a senator, had sent the Hunnish king (Attila) a plea for help—and her ring—in the spring of 450. Though Honoria may not have intended a proposal of marriage, Attila chose to interpret her message as such; he accepted, asking for half of the western Empire as dowry. 
> 
> When Valentinian discovered the plan, only the influence of his mother Galla Placidia convinced him to exile, rather than kill, Honoria; he also wrote to Attila strenuously denying the legitimacy of the supposed marriage proposal. Attila, not convinced, sent an embassy to Ravenna to proclaim that Honoria was innocent, that the proposal had been legitimate, and that he would come to claim what was rightfully his.


source: Wikipedia Attila the Hun

The version I had read earlier was Priscus' account; it appears that the Goth princess (?) Ildico killed him in revenge, perhaps for her family who had been killed by Attila's troops if I can extrapolate that part from the Norse saga regarding Gudrun's revenge. Emperor Marcian might also have played a role as Michael Babcock suspects.

----------


## Void

again, sorry for spelling

By the time Atilla started his compain Roman empire already was split on two

435 - seized Margus (outskirts of Estern Rome). They managed to rebuff the 
invasion with the help of the West

443 - Gallipoli Peninsula

by 448 Balcans belonged to huns

448 - seized Konstantionopolis. Feodosii II chaffered peace fr 2100 kilo of gold and nearshore Dakia (though some historians say 2100 kilo per year was impossible even for Byzantium empire, so, the death of Atilla was their luck, i suppose)

451 - army of aAtilla headed for Orlean (joined army, not only Huns, other 'barbarians' hadn`t much favor for Rome) at Cataluans (?) fields unite army of Rome and visigoths made Atilla to return back to his stepps

452 - Huns army devastates Milan and nearby areas, came to the walls of Rome Pope Leo I conducted the negotiations

453 Atilla`s death


Rome

235 - the end of Severus (?) dynasty, time of military anarchy. Empire falls apart provinces try to proclaim their independence from the center and fight each other settling up borders

284 - era of Diocletian (and Maximilian as his co-regent) 
suppresed the rebellion in Egypt, had wars with sarmats
reformed of the army

but 
1) bloated bureaucratic apparatus
2) tax burden was too much for his citizens, they left their lands
3) enourmous (and mindless) building activity at provinces` expenses

305 - ... a bit of fighting for power

312 - Constantine, avid and prodigal wastes a lot of taxes for luxery and bureaucrats, even had to issue a decree concerning ranaway colonuses. Citezens turnes into boned tax-payers. Army levied from barbarians. Creates New Rome spending hell of a money. Patronized Christians

325 - Nikean (?) convocation accepts Symbol of Faith. Arians condemned.
Expelled bishops baptize barbarians (Goths as well). 
Time of religiuos debates at the Estern empire and aristocratic arrogance of
the Western. Gowth of political and economical problems, famine, `cause colonuses faced two 'threats' - talukdars and barbarians

By that time migrational policy (forcible) of the empire destroyed the Great 
Roman Nation turning it into a bunch of variegated, multilingual groups, who
lost their cultural roots and didn`t care much about future of empire. Super-ethnos degraded

Barbarians constantly press the borders. They have roots, culter and goal that unites them, and hatred for Rome that moves them

410 - Visigoths destroy the Rome

439 - Vandals cut off Africa - source of metropoly`s food supplies


------------------------------------

Seems Rome was all ready to fall at least 100 years before Huns

=================================================

Hans China looks almost alike, but i have some reding to finish

----------


## Miss_apollo7

> 453 Atilla`s death


Let us not forget that he died on his honeymoon....he was drunk and got choked to death by his own vomit.....sad that a great warrior and horserider loses his life so pitifully....

----------


## Miss_apollo7

> When many people think of the end of Ancient Times they think of Rome falling. The idea of Rome falling was the cause of the end the ancient times is not accurate, because that only applies to Europe.
> 
> The Huns are the ones who brought an end to Ancient Times because they basically conquered all and left in ruin all major empires. At the time there were 5 empires: Gupta India, Sassanid Persia, Han China, West Rome, and East Rome. The Huns basically brought the end to all these empires except East Rome. Though many people say that the Germanic Barbarians conquered the Roman Empire this is not necessarily true. The Huns sacked Rome and weakened it enough for the Barbarians to win. After all, as little as 12 years later Rome fell.
> 
> What do you think is the greatest cause for the end of Ancient Times?



You have an interesting point which I partly agree with. However, I also think that barbarians in general (read: also including the Goths) also was a major factor in the fall of the Roman Empire, especially the fall of the Roman Empire in the West.

It can be argued that it was due to the conflict between the Romans and the Barbarians that the Western Empire declined. 
The conflicts were numerous and it was mainly based on hostility towards each other. Hostility led to violance amonth groupings of people and the empire became unstable.
From 376 AD the Barbarians actually settled within the Roman Empire. Even though the Romans and the Goths hated each other, the Visigoths had no choice to seek asylum in the Roman Empire when the Huns came after them. 
The Visigoths were always considered different than the Romans, and especially considered as slaves. 
The other barbarian groups followed more or less the same footsteps of teh Goths, as they became integrated into Roman society (as inferior races), except the Huns, as they remained threats to the Empire, but not long enough to overthrow the Empire as they in power died out very quickly after the death of Attila.

----------


## Doc

> When many people think of the end of Ancient Times they think of Rome falling. The idea of Rome falling was the cause of the end the ancient times is not accurate, because that only applies to Europe.
> 
> The Huns are the ones who brought an end to Ancient Times because they basically conquered all and left in ruin all major empires. At the time there were 5 empires: Gupta India, Sassanid Persia, Han China, West Rome, and East Rome. The Huns basically brought the end to all these empires except East Rome. Though many people say that the Germanic Barbarians conquered the Roman Empire this is not necessarily true. The Huns sacked Rome and weakened it enough for the Barbarians to win. After all, as little as 12 years later Rome fell.
> 
> What do you think is the greatest cause for the end of Ancient Times?


Well Rome didn't exactly fall.  It was in a slow decline for almost three hundred years to begin with. When the barbarians finally did take over the glory of Western Roman Empire was finally gone. Then the Dark Ages (Middle Ages) kicked into full gear. Plus the Roman Empire was weaken due to Constantine leaving Rome for something better (the Eastern Roman Empire) since he was from the East to begin with. Rome wouldn't see any restoration until almost the 15th century. Most would say that Rome began to fall after Julius Cesar's death, and in many aspects it's true. I guess as you're pointing out with the Huns ending the Classical Period it all depends really on what view you're looking at in history.

Doc

----------


## Miss_apollo7

Silverblackman:
You started this thread, but you haven't responded to our opinions.......Please do!!  :Smiling:

----------


## Silverbackman

> Silverblackman:
> You started this thread, but you haven't responded to our opinions.......Please do!!


Sorry, my computer for some reason kept freezing when I came to Jref Forum. I guess there is something wrong with firefox or my computer;).




> You have an interesting point which I partly agree with. However, I also think that barbarians in general (read: also including the Goths) also was a major factor in the fall of the Roman Empire, especially the fall of the Roman Empire in the West.
> 
> It can be argued that it was due to the conflict between the Romans and the Barbarians that the Western Empire declined. 
> The conflicts were numerous and it was mainly based on hostility towards each other. Hostility led to violance amonth groupings of people and the empire became unstable.
> From 376 AD the Barbarians actually settled within the Roman Empire. Even though the Romans and the Goths hated each other, the Visigoths had no choice to seek asylum in the Roman Empire when the Huns came after them. 
> The Visigoths were always considered different than the Romans, and especially considered as slaves. 
> The other barbarian groups followed more or less the same footsteps of teh Goths, as they became integrated into Roman society (as inferior races), except the Huns, as they remained threats to the Empire, but not long enough to overthrow the Empire as they in power died out very quickly after the death of Attila.


I guess you do have a point that the barbarians already started the beginning and the end of Rome, but the Huns speeded it up quite a bit. The Huns sacked Rome, they basically had it in their hands! They could have done as they did with it, but the Pope begged them not to take over. 10-12 years later it fell. Perhaps if the Huns did not attack Rome may have been stronger 200 years furthermore than the date it was officially declared it dead.

The Persians in the East are the only other people to successfully fight off the Huns (East Rome too, but they bought their safety with gold) but they were basically weakened so much that they could not fight off the fury of the new emerging Muslim Empire. So despite the fact Persia survived the Huns, like Rome they soon fell afterwards to other forces. But these other forces may not have had the power at the time if it wasn't for the Huns weakening these empires.





> Well Rome didn't exactly fall. It was in a slow decline for almost three hundred years to begin with. When the barbarians finally did take over the glory of Western Roman Empire was finally gone. Then the Dark Ages (Middle Ages) kicked into full gear. Plus the Roman Empire was weaken due to Constantine leaving Rome for something better (the Eastern Roman Empire) since he was from the East to begin with. Rome wouldn't see any restoration until almost the 15th century. Most would say that Rome began to fall after Julius Cesar's death, and in many aspects it's true. I guess as you're pointing out with the Huns ending the Classical Period it all depends really on what view you're looking at in history.
> 
> Doc


Yes it was a slow decline but the Huns speeded it up quite a bit considering they basicly had Rome in their hands but let it go. And if Atillia did not choke on his on vomit, most historians agree he would have came back and sacked Rome again, ultimatley changing the destiny of Christianity as well. Keep in mind only 10-12 years after they sacked Rome it fell;).

----------


## lexico

Also have been suggested that the following had contributed to the decline, and fall of the Roman system of government within the empire.

The public health problem of widespread lead poisoning due to the public waterworks.
The environmental breakdown: the Saharan Plains, the bread basket of Rome, had increasingly desertified after more than 500 yrs of intensive exploitation.

However, we are still assuming that Rome fell in 476, which Doc pretty much disspelled above. In his support, here's what Wiki has to say on the so-called Fall of Rome, from the Roman Empire: 
Late Antiquity in the West (AD 395 - 476).

The general confusion on the subject is summarised in The Decline of the Roman Empire.

----------


## bossel

> Sorry, my computer for some reason kept freezing when I came to Jref Forum. I guess there is something wrong with firefox or my computer;).


That maybe due to the tribalfusion ads. Here is the related thread.

----------


## GRAEME PHOENIX

I do not know alot about this, Im not upto scratch with names, dates or specific places to do with this but! 

" EVERYTHING MUST END " That is the way the world works " NOTHING CAN LAST FOREVER"!

----------


## Miss_apollo7

......Or we can all read Edward Gibbon's classic and masterpiece: The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. (published between 1776 and 1788.

----------

