Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

If Pope Leo hadn't convinced Atilla of turning back his army, he probably would've sacked Rome itself. Though death was nigh for the King of the Huns, would it have made a huge impact on Western Europe if the "Scorge of God" and his troops took over Rome? Opinions please...

rome would have been screwed over big time until the slaves from africa were pulled up then atila would have been owned.
he failed

Anybody???

Atila probably wouldn't have taken the actual city for a while, Hannibal couldn't because of his lack of siege equipment. He would have been a thorn in their side for a long time

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
Atila probably wouldn't have taken the actual city for a while, Hannibal couldn't because of his lack of siege equipment. He would have been a thorn in their side for a long time

Hannibal screwed himself by going through the mountains.

Atilla was a great Khan.

I think that Attilla could have definitely sacked Rome. I have to go back and look at the history of it, but I think he would have succeeded where Hannibal failed. Although I do believe Hannibla could have succeeded had he immediately went into Rome instead of waiting. He was always outnumbered, but he had superior military strategy

He could have taken Rome, he didn't. I don't see how he could have failed anyway.

Originally posted by Fishy
He could have taken Rome, he didn't. I don't see how he could have failed anyway.

I agree. The Roman will to fight was gone.

ATILLA IS FAR MORE INTERESTING THAN HANIBALL LETS NOT FORGET THAT HEIS A KING OF THE HUNS

Originally posted by KAVHAN ISBUL
ATILLA IS FAR MORE INTERESTING THAN HANIBALL LETS NOT FORGET THAT HEIS A KING OF THE HUNS

I would hardly call that a qualifier to be more interesting... What Hannibal did was absolutely ****ing brilliant Now Atilla is interesting too, but he has more to do with the fall of Rome then the rise of it, so I prefer Barca...

Atilla, Had he not died, could of Easily made Rome tributary, to his Nation. Permanently.

Attila was Hun!

Hun=Turk!

Originally posted by GrandTurk
Attila was Hun!

Hun=Turk!

Well I know that Attila was orginally from Asia and his religon was Heathenism. He worshipped the Germanic gods which would become the Norse gods. Attila is mentioned in Heathen literature in the Lay of Atil. I dont know where you got this thing about him being a Turk.

I don't think it would have made much of a difference. I forget which barbarians sacked rome during the twilight of its time, but i think rome was sacked 3 times after the year 400...being that it was already on its death throws attila sacking it would have made the end much earlier.

However, don't forget that attila was on his way to Constantinople before he even turned west towards Rome. If Attila would have sacked Constantinople....well we all might be speaking a different language today. Certainly not English.

Originally posted by batdude123
Hannibal screwed himself by going through the mountains.

where else could he have gone, Rome had the sea and Egypt under their power

Originally posted by Tenebrous
I don't think it would have made much of a difference. I forget which barbarians sacked rome during the twilight of its time, but i think rome was sacked 3 times after the year 400...being that it was already on its death throws attila sacking it would have made the end much earlier.

However, don't forget that attila was on his way to Constantinople before he even turned west towards Rome. If Attila would have sacked Constantinople....well we all might be speaking a different language today. Certainly not English.

Constantinople was paying a huge tribute to the Hun Kingdom when Attila was in power. That's why he didn't attack the Eastern Roman Empire. Hell, at one point, they even doubled their total yearly tribute to him just to insure that the Huns wouldn't attack.

The Pope bribed Attila with gold, if he hadn't, Attilla would have sacked Rome; taken it's riches and left. Either way, money would have been lost. Atilla wouldn't have stayed and made camp in Rome, so history would have most likely been the same.

The end.

Originally posted by Robtard
The Pope bribed Attila with gold, if he hadn't, Attilla would have sacked Rome; taken it's riches and left. Either way, money would have been lost. Atilla wouldn't have stayed and made camp in Rome, so history would have most likely been the same.

The end.
agreed, people have sacked Rome before and left.

Originally posted by batdude123
Hannibal screwed himself by going through the mountains.

At least he saw the Alps before they melted.