The End of Empire: Attila the Hun & the Fall of Rome

by Christopher Kelly
Nonfiction, 333pp.


I finished reading this book over two weeks ago and the initial reactions I had have mostly gone out of my brain. I also didn't take enough time writing this review but I loved this book and recommend it to everyone. Who wouldn't love hearing about the real Attila the Hun? What made this book truly great in my eyes is the correlation between Attila on the Roman Empire and its demise. The cause and effect relationship he describes makes this a valuable historical work, not one describing only the facts, but showing the relationships and consequences of actions. He draws conclusions in this book that differ from the opinions of other historians and he is good enough to tell us what others have said and why he disagrees or has come to certain understandings. His deductions are interesting and intelligent. This never seems like a dry historical read.

First the author, Kelly, points out the difficulties facing the Roman Empire: its scope and the enemies it faces on different sides, plus the communication difficulties. Then come the Tervingi & Greithungi (Goths) crossing the Danube. They are trying to escape the Huns who are moving onto the Hungarian Plain from who knows where! Allowing those Goths to move across the Danube will have its consequences for the empire! Valens ceases the war in Persia because of the threat. The Battle of Andrionope takes place, being the greatest defeat ever to the Romans in 700 years! 20-30,000 Romans are killed including Emperor Valens (by these Goths).

Marcellinus (Roman writer) has this terrible description of the Huns. They are savage, dirty, eat raw meat, don't bathe, live on their horses and in wagons, and more (everything you'd imagine barbarians to be). But what it means to be Roman is having a certain worldview. Those outside the domain of this worldview were all barbarians. It was a Classical prejudice. Marcellinus's writings were likely influenced by Herodotus's 5th BC fantastical views of groups of barbarians which had helped Romans with their feelings of superiority. Tacitus, 100 AD, is the first to pose questions about their true nature and attempt an ethnological study.


Eugéne Delacroix (1798-1863), Atilla suivi de ses hordes, foule aux pieds libéralisme, Marxisme, et pacifisme, Bibliothèque, Palais Bourbon, Paris, 1843-47

Huns are described. It's everything we imagine but with greater detail.

Goths below the Danube are used as a buffer zone between the Romans and Hun attacks. Alaric (we've all heard of him?) united with the Romans to fight the Huns! Then after the Huns are pushed back in 398 the Goths start fighting the Romans and the Romans hire Huns to fight the Goths. The Vandals and the Alans are in France and Britain and then the Goths keep coming until finally Alaric is sacking Rome in 410 because the stupid Romans won't come to a treaty with them. The unrest of all of these borders and the pressure on the Goths is caused by the Huns influx from 370 on.

So the Huns are occupying the middle Danube area from 410-465, including the time when Attila was in charge. Why they didn't last is discussed, such as how leadership is determined and how they were a parasitic people, not like the Romans who enforced a change on the people they conquered. The Hun way of life depended on the people they conquered maintaining their original occupations, etc.

The book talks about what is going on on the Persian side and a war started around 420 lasting only 2 years because of the Hun threat. There is also Geiseric, the Vandal leader of the time, taking parts of Africa away that particularly the Western Roman Empire needs. The Romans make a treaty with the Huns and pull out the go fight Geiseric, but the minute they sail the Huns attack. Nothing is ever accomplished by the armada sailing to Africa either. Geiseric is so not cool, and in his sphere is just as bad as Attila. Why he isn't as famous is a mystery. He was a very effective conqueror.

Boniface and Aetius are the generals of the WRE and one is a supporter of Valentinian III and Galla Placidia and the other (Aetius) is a supporter of John the Bureaucrat. Valentinian becomes the emperor but Aetius is so powerful he is kept on, despite him hiring the Huns to come down and destroy them all. Aetius eventually kills Boniface, cheating in hand to hand combat. Aetius later throws a major opportunity to wipe out the Hun army. He stays clear out of the way while Attila comes right down into Italy and does his plundering there, using the excuse that he's coming to marry the sister of Valentinian who promised herself to him supposedly, and he now wants to claim her and his half of the kingdom by right of her inheritance. Finally Valentinian kills Aetius which completely kills his power ending the Roman empire in the West.

Obviously I've left out everything, but it's all really compelling stuff. Attila was incredibly savage in his campaigns into the Eastern Roman empire and later into France where he was nearly defeated but for Aetius and his double dealing.

There's a lot more to tell but we mostly want to read about Priscus and his famous account of having dinner with Attila. That is good stuff. Conspiracy, eunuchs, loyalty, disillusionment, and insults.

I'm not going to tell how Attila died or what happened to the Huns afterward. It's actually quite anticlimactic, but you might be interested so I won't talk about it. If you're ever interested in the Huns in Europe I hope you'll choose this book to read.