05-16-2014, 05:21 PM
Kim states in his book that Attila wanted to fulfil three objectives in his invasion of Gaul. To subdue the Franks and put his preferred candidate on the Frankish throne bringing the Franks under his sphere of influence, to pressure the Alans of Orleans as well as the Visigoths to defect to his cause and to meet and destroy Aetius's army there by making the Western Empire too weak to resist his demands of tribute.
.The first part of this strategy is confirmed by the route taken by Huns in their invasion of Gaul. Tournai, Cologne and Trier are attacked first and occupied and sacked. If he had succeeded in taking Orleans then it probably would have been an easy task to take the capital of the Visigoths Toulouse or at least detach the Visigoths from Aetius. The next part of his strategy was to bring what was left of the Western field army to battle so he could destroy it like he did the Eastern army.
While it seems he achieved his first objective, he did not succeed in the second and the third is debatable but it seems that the power of Aetius declined after the battle of Chalons as even the following year he was in no position to stop Attila's invasion of Italy. So even though the battle of Chalons probably ended in a stalemate, Attila probably achieved most of his objectives, although at great cost to both sides in that the western Roman field army which probably wasn't that strong before Chalons, took heavy casualties and never seemed to recover after the battle. In twenty five years the last emperor was deposed by Odoacer although Nepos ruled a small rump state in Dalmatia till 480AD and Syragius ruled Soissons till he was murdered in 487AD. But never again was the western army a force. Sounds like a good strategy from a 21st century historian's perspective but maybe the situation was a little bit more complex in the 5th Century.
.The first part of this strategy is confirmed by the route taken by Huns in their invasion of Gaul. Tournai, Cologne and Trier are attacked first and occupied and sacked. If he had succeeded in taking Orleans then it probably would have been an easy task to take the capital of the Visigoths Toulouse or at least detach the Visigoths from Aetius. The next part of his strategy was to bring what was left of the Western field army to battle so he could destroy it like he did the Eastern army.
While it seems he achieved his first objective, he did not succeed in the second and the third is debatable but it seems that the power of Aetius declined after the battle of Chalons as even the following year he was in no position to stop Attila's invasion of Italy. So even though the battle of Chalons probably ended in a stalemate, Attila probably achieved most of his objectives, although at great cost to both sides in that the western Roman field army which probably wasn't that strong before Chalons, took heavy casualties and never seemed to recover after the battle. In twenty five years the last emperor was deposed by Odoacer although Nepos ruled a small rump state in Dalmatia till 480AD and Syragius ruled Soissons till he was murdered in 487AD. But never again was the western army a force. Sounds like a good strategy from a 21st century historian's perspective but maybe the situation was a little bit more complex in the 5th Century.
Regards
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
