Chapters
In 451, one of the bloodiest battles of antiquity took place. The Huns, Romans, and Visigoths clashed on the Catalaunian Plains. A year after this battle, the fearless Attila invaded Italy but retreated across the Danube, where he soon died, allowing Rome to breathe a sigh of relief. To whom does the Empire owe its salvation? General Aetius? Emperor Marcian? Or perhaps Pope Leo? Who truly stopped Attila?
The great battle
On June 20, 451, a battle took place on the Catalaunian Plains. The Huns, led by Attila, who had posed a deadly threat to the Roman Empire (both Western and Eastern) for many years, intended to invade Gaul. They encountered the army of Flavius Aetius, along with Visigothic reinforcements under King Theoderic. The Roman army emerged victorious from the bloody clash, despite the death of the Visigothic king. The Huns suffered heavy losses. Exactly one hundred years after the battle, the historian Jordanes would write: Antiquity knows of no battle so cruel, so vast, and fought with such ferocity (Iord., Getica, 207). Aetius saved Gaul from devastation. But did he save Rome?
History clearly answers: no. Aetius had the opportunity to deal Attila the final blow and crush the Hunnic army, yet he did not. Why? Some attribute the reason to the personal sympathy and mutual respect between the two great leaders. However, a more likely version seems to be that Comes Aetius, who held the de facto power in the Western Empire, feared the growing power of the allied Visigoths. In other words, there was a fear that after the Huns were defeated, Rome would have to fight the Goths, which soon proved true. Therefore, Aetius did not want to weaken Attila too much, so that the Huns could continue to serve as a counterweight to the Visigoths. This decision proved disastrous, as already in 452, Attila invaded Italy, capturing and destroying Aquileia, and then heading towards Rome.
Thus, while Aetius cannot be denied a military victory over Attila, he can hardly be called the “savior of Rome,” since his decision not to fully capitalize on his triumph left Emperor Valentinian III in serious trouble in Italy. So who ultimately prevented Attila from conquering Rome and bringing the empire to its knees?
Meeting at the Mincius River
After conquering Aquileia, Attila intended to conquer Rome. This would be his greatest triumph over the Romans, the culmination of his campaign against the empire. However, the Hunnic leader, nicknamed “The Scourge of God” (Latin: Fragellum Dei) by the trembling Italians, encountered considerable logistical difficulties along the way. His army, exhausted by hunger and plague, began to rebel. Some of the Hunnic leader’s subordinates pointed out that the only previous conqueror of Rome in 410, Alaric, king of the Visigoths, had died shortly after his victory. Following this superstition, the capture of Rome could mean the imminent end of Attila’s life. The Hunnic ruler therefore began to hesitate about the further course of the campaign. It was then that an embassy from the Eternal City arrived in northern Italy.
The Bishop of Rome, Leo, set out to meet Attila on his own initiative. According to the widely known and well-established version of events in Christian culture, it was the Pope who convinced Attila to retreat across the Danube. How did he accomplish this? One version speaks of a miracle: the Hunnic leader experienced a vision of a young man with the appearance of an angel who threatened him with death if he continued his invasion. Another version cites Leo the Great’s eloquence and forceful arguments, which convinced Attila that Rome was ready to recognize the Hunnic victory, while the real enemy force for Attila remained the Visigoths, still undefeated by him. The Hunnic leader, taking the spoils with him, withdrew from Italy in 452. Rome was saved. But was the impression the Pope made on Attila truly enough to order a retreat?
A stab in the back
Historians point out another fact that easily escapes notice, but which was nevertheless of considerable significance to 5th-century writers. This concerns the actions of the Eastern Roman Empire. In 450, Emperor Marcian ascended the throne in Constantinople. To strengthen his rule, he married his predecessor’s widow, Pulcheria. However, Valentinian III, the Western Roman Emperor, refused to recognize Marcian’s title, considering himself the sole legitimate ruler of the entire empire. However, the new Eastern Roman Emperor proved to be a remarkably resourceful ruler.
Right at the beginning of his reign, Marcian refused to pay Attila the customary, high tribute his predecessor had paid in exchange for the Huns leaving the empire in peace. This boldness outraged Attila, who, however, due to his planned campaign in the west, had no intention of intervening against Constantinople for the time being.
However, in 451, the plans did not go as the Huns had hoped. Meanwhile, Marcian ostentatiously did nothing to help the Western Roman Empire. He waited for Valentinian to officially recognize him as emperor. In the meantime, he convened the Council of Chalcedon in 451 to settle important ecclesiastical issues. Faced with Attila’s invasion of Italy and the threat of Rome’s capture, Valentinian, at Aetius’ urging, finally reluctantly recognized Marcian as emperor in 452. Marcian then immediately sent his troops across the Danube towards Pannonia, into lands under Hunnic rule. It was precisely because of the threat of a “stab in the back” that Attila allegedly decided to retreat and make peace with Rome. Aleksander Krawczuk writes that in this way Marcian became the true savior of Rome.
So who stopped Attila?
But who was really the “true savior of Rome”? The chronicler Hydatius (5th century) emphasizes that it was the difficult situation of the Hunnic army and the reinforcements of Emperor Marcian that had the greatest impact on Attila’s retreat (Hyd., Chronicon, 146). Jordanes (6th century) emphasizes both the great importance of the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains and the role of Pope Leo, thanks to whom Attila quickly curbed the bloodthirsty tendencies of his army (Iord., Getica, 223). In his second work, however, the same historian writes that it was Marcian who calmed Attila’s threats (Iord., De summa temp., 333).
The question therefore has no clear answer. But must the problem remain unresolved? Can’t all the answers be correct? Aetius’s victory, though unfulfilled, surprised the Huns, cooled their battle spirit, and thwarted Attila’s plans. Despite their success at Aquileia, the campaign-weary army faced numerous difficulties along the way. Pope Leo, through his own personality and persuasive power, persuaded Attila to abandon his plan to capture Rome. News of Marcian’s sudden aid surprised the Huns and ultimately influenced their decision to retreat. Although Attila continued to threaten the Romans and planned further campaigns against them, his sudden death in 453 forever thwarted these ambitious plans.
It can therefore be concluded that the final halt to Attila’s attack was made possible primarily by the role played by three figures: Flavius Aetius, Leo the Great, and Marcian. We should also remember the valiant King Theoderic and Emperor Valentinian III, who also played a role in Rome’s short-lived salvation. Short-lived, because although Attila’s death in 453 brought relief to the Romans, in the following years the Eternal City was shaken by such dramatic events that its fall became inevitable.
