“The End of Empire: Attila the Hun and the Fall of Rome”, by Christopher Kelly

368 pages, W. W. Norton & Company, ISBN-13: 978-0393061963

Bear with me here: Desmond Seward is a British popular historian and the author of many books – some 30 or so, give-or-take – several of which I own and which I have enjoyed. Each is relatively brief, easy to read and yet informative as all hell (and could once be found on the publisher overstock area of my Barnes & Noble when I was a kid). I mention this in regards to Christopher Kelly as his book, The End of Empire: Attila the Hun and the Fall of Rome, reminds me of many of Prof. Seward’s works: namely, it is, er, relatively brief, easy to read and yet informative as all hell; while Kelly’s careful use (and non-use) of certain sources might put off some readers, this work is probably as accurate as possible for a modern researcher, and few other writers have performed anywhere nearly as well, if I may be so bold. In some places the author was forced to explain why he didn’t use certain information a given ancient source, or how he came to certain conclusions based of several contradictory sources, revealing that the typical modern-day historian must also be a modern-day detective, analyzing the evidence, carefully qualifying his conclusions and then writing a narrative that is understandable by all, no easy task when so much has been lost and, it must be said, so many opinions have changed.

Don’t forget, gentle reader, that the Huns left no written accounts of their own, essentially no archaeological evidence and everything written about them came strictly from their enemies: so accounts like Ammianus Marcellinus’ (who never even saw a Hun in the flesh), describing them with flattened skulls, misshapen bodies, evil appearances, etc., etc., must be taken with very large grains of salt (hell, even their horses were supposedly ugly). Kelly strives mightily to present the probable truth, and is probably as successful as a researcher at this distance can be. The real litmus test for me came early with Kelly’s treatment of cranial deformations used to identify the Huns: although this was a practice of certain steppe dwellers and has been associated with the Alans, whether or not the Huns practiced this is questionable. Kelly addresses this issue and in his end notes actually points out that if the process was to beautify, then high ranking Huns like Attila and his wives would have undergone this practice, but eyewitness description of Attila mentions no such obvious deformations. The author therefore mentions this practice as occurring among the Huns, but carefully retreats from using it as a means of identifying them. A small point, perhaps, but important all the same.

All told, The End of Empire is as thorough and complete a work on Attila as can be expected, dependent as it may be on the work of Priscus of Panium (the 5^th Century Roman diplomat and Greek historian and rhetorician), as well as other Roman writers. From that perspective, it doesn’t really offer any new insights on Attila or the Huns and isn’t controversial in perspective of either. Kelly assumes that he is controversial when he mentions that Attila was really quite civilized in his dealings with others – i.e., in the chapters on Priscus’ visit to Attila. However, it stays away from controversy in these concerning the relationship of Attila and Flavius Aetius; although he hints at it, Kelly doesn’t really suggest any connection between their relationship and Aetius letting Attila go after the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains. The reason that the book provides may seem appropriate: Aetius needed both the Huns and the Goths in order to keep both in check but, when you think about it (especially within the prism of what happened in 452 in Italy), this doesn’t seem to be a good rationale (and it would seem that Aetius sure should have expected what happened in 452). Also, Aetius leaving Italy to the Huns in 452 makes one wonder whether Aetius had other reasons than what were brought up in the book…say, the hope that maybe Attila would eliminate Valentinian III, allowing Aetius to become emperor in the West? Just sayin’…

Anyway, The End of Empire: Attila the Hun and the Fall of Rome is the best primer I have read on this misunderstood era and Kelly succeeds in showing Attila as he was: the leader of a civilization that the Romans dismissed out of arrogance, ready to play power politics with Rome, Constantinople and Persia. This is genuine popular history that draws on the latest archaeological research to show us a society with laws, elites, fools, geniuses and, above all, pride. Kelly places the old stories about the Huns in the context of their times, explaining what all that hyperbolic language really meant. He doesn’t glorify the Huns any more or less than the Romans or Byzantines and instead shows them all acting with honor, lying, conniving, breaking treaties, and upholding right as they understood it…in other words, treating them like people.