Talk:Attila/Archive 2

• archive 1

I view the Mongolian theory of Attila as a biased concoction of Roman scholars. I would like to address the historical bias and inaccuracies regarding Attila’s ethnic background. Although there are many Roman accounts of King Attila, one may find the true answer through Hungarian (Magyar) mythology and history. The Hungarians themselves are a truly special and unique people of the European continent. Hungarian oral tradition claims that Attila was the leader of one of many Hungarian klans, whose loosely organized principalities stretched from the Danube to the black sea. Furthermore, The Hungarian language itself is NON-Indo-European, and the people are descendents of nomadic warriors who’s tribal networks stretched from the Danube to the black sea between the 5th and 9th century. Even today, Hungarian legend is full of beautiful stories about their origin and national hero. You can read an interesting collection of translated stories in English at this website. Http://www.micetrap.net/tengereken/history.html

Horseback cultures

Establishment of the first Hun state is one of the first well-documented appearances of the culture of horseback migration in history. This is incorrect. See Scythians. --Wetman 10:29, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have a question. Why are the riders in the picture all black? As far as I know Huns were not African. Sincerely.

Payment from Leo to Attila

cut

This may have been aided by a large payment to Atilla from Pope Leo.

What's the source for this? I don't recall running across this idea in any of the texts I read when writing the article, but perhaps I missed something. —No-One Jones ^(m) 01:57, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Atitila's vizier?

That article lists Attila's vizier as Onegesius. Anyone have a source for that or is it worth including something about him here? - Taxman 00:41, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

The source is Priscus, who names Onegesius as "second in power among the Scythians [i.e. the Huns]" [1]. He was certainly not called a "vizier" in any classical texts, but I think the word is an accurate description of his role. —No-One Jones ^(m) 00:48, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Several questions

I am currently translating the article to Bulgarian and here is a list of my questions/remarks. I hope that they will help to improve the text.

• Background
  • Mongolian/Turkic tribe - the statement will be disputable; Turk/Mongols are first mentioned scenturies later - may be it is better to use pre-Mongolian/pre-Turkic instead?
    • Possibly. "Proto-Mongolian" or "proto-Turkic" might also work. —No-One Jones ^(m) 17:58, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Shared kingship
  • What means 350 pounds of gold? I suppose that it has to be the Roman libra. May be a conversion in kg will be of some use.
    • My source (Thompson, if I remember correctly) used "pounds"; I assume he meant the Roman pound, so that works out to about 114.5 kg of gold. —No-One Jones ^(m) 18:03, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Their ambitions contented for a time... - is it precise? If I understand well they just wanted the observance of the 434 treaty. My English is not perfect but I wouldn't call this ambition.
    • Well, that was their pretense for the attack. Their behavior suggests that simple greed played some part as well; perhaps "desire" would be a better word. —No-One Jones ^(m) 17:58, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

...more to come until the end of the week. --Nk 12:42, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here it is:

• Sole ruler
  • Similar problem with the miles. I suppose they are Roman miles of 1479 m.
    • Yes, very probably. —No-One Jones ^(m) 12:14, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Appearance, character, and name
  • The Gothic/Atil origins of the name are clear. But the pre-Turkish is not explained; the language of the Land-Father is not indicated. Is Land-Father the pre-Turkish origin or we have two different origins: pre-Turkish and something else (what?)?
  • May be we can use pre-Tukic instead of pre-Turkish. The connection with the Turkish seems too distant for me.
    • I did not write those parts and am not sure about what's there. This part may need rewriting with reference to real scholarship: I suspect that some of the etymologies derive more from nationalist feelings than from linguistic study. —No-One Jones ^(m) 12:14, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

--Nk 12:05, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For the record, Turkish ! = Turkomen. Joey 04:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

To our anonymous Turkish friend

You made several changes which, in my view, were detrimental. First of all, in a classical context like that of this article, the city is called Constantinople; it was only called Istanbul after the Ottoman conquest, and Attila lived in the 5th century—ergo we use "Constantinople" in this article. Second, the ethnic and linguistic identity of the European Huns is not at all certain; they were probably proto-Mongolian or proto-Turkic, but without knowledge of their language (scholars know exactly one word, strava, which means something like funeral) we can't say for sure. Third, the quotation from Callinicus is a quotation and should not be changed; he called the Huns "barbarian", not "glorious", and he used the name "Constantinople", not "Istanbul". —No-One Jones 19:20, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"in 434 rua lived forever and is still alive"... -- what does this mean? this seems like broken english. --hamstar 02:01, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's just vandalism. I reverted it. —No-One Jones 03:12, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Attila_the_Hun article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Attila_the_Hun}} to this page. — LinkBot 10:27, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC) attila the hun is very interesting and quite remarkeble being one of the prime enemys of rome

representations in art

An anonymous user tacked this on to the end of the article:

A film was also made for the USA Network called "Attila", although its the story of Attila, its is extremely historically innaccurate. For example, Roman soldiers were wearing uniforms that had been out of use for almost 200 years.

While this article does need a section on artistic representations of Attila (Verdi's opera, a number of films, and so forth), this addition wasn't it. I'll try to work it back in if and when I write the needed material. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 23:22, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Icelandic?

How come Icelandic name is important for this article? Halibutt 23:08, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

This should probably be old Norse or something like that, but I'm not sure... It is true that the modern Icelandic name is not relevant. --Bjarki 23:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Attila the Bulgar?

Since when is Attila considered a Bulgarian monarch? When did the Bulgars decide he was one of them? —Charles P. (Mirv) 19:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is a bulgarian source of 7 century - a list of Bulgarian monarchs that starts with a name like Avitohol. There is a theory that this is Attila but it is at least controversial. --Nk 14:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Right, so it shoudln't be in the article as a Bulgarian monarch.(The article itself doesn't even include him). Keep in with the Huns like the other monarchs. 12.220.47.145 02:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• • I should add that I didn't see the later ones were under the Bulgarian but the earlier ones were not instead under Hun rulers. I really don't think its NPOV. 12.220.47.145 03:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Avitohol (Atila) - after his death and the collapse of the Huns' Empire his son Irnik (Ernakh) himself became the ruler of the Bulgars. Therefore, the Bulgars formed the nucleus, the main body of the Huns' army, commanders, administration, and Atila was one of their monarchs. --Shisharki 05:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Hungarian attitudes

removed: Most Hungarians love Attila and think of themselves as descendants of him and the Huns.

Is this true? The article used to say something like that, but someone removed it, and it inspired an an indignant e-mail to WikiEN-L (possibly from the same person) averring that this was not at all the case. Can any Hungarians or scholars of Hungarian history comment? Is a connection between Huns and Hungarians still a popular idea? Was it formerly popular among romantic nationalists? Was it never seriously entertained? —Charles P. (Mirv) 20:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I am half hungarian and my family is very proud of its heritage, my father talks about Hungry all the time, and eat hungarian sausages on thanksgiving, any way, no one in my family ever talks about Attilia the Hun or how much they love him. I do know owever that Attilia is a common Hungarian name, my grandfather had another Hungarian friend named Attilia.

So im not sure if the hungarians realy love Attila, to say that we think of ourselves as his decendants or decendants of the huns is rediculous. Most hungarians, at consider themselves decendants of the megyar people, another tribe from the urasian steps. In fact in hungaraisn the word for "hungarain" is "megyar" & the word for "Hungry" is "Megyarortzag" (i apalogize i think i butchered that spelling) Gregor Vincent 20:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The idea comes from such literature as Gesta_Hunnorum_et_Hungarorum, which is supposedly based upon earlier stories no longer extant. A common analysis is that the intended purpose of creating a pedigree from Huns to Hungarians is to legitimize Magyar rule and sovereignty over the area recognized as being Attila's former kingdom in that age's politics. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 22:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

speculations

I reverted some edits; here's my explanation. I mean no insult to the author, but the text is sophomoric at best and would not of much use even if it were to get the thorough copyediting that it needs.

Atilla was raised as a true Hun, and from a young age was known as an excellent horseman. He grew up along side a Roman named Flavius Aetieus, who stayed with the huns as part of a hostage exchange. A literal show of good faith between the two peoples. While the two became freinds, in an ironic twist of histroy; Aetieus later lead the Romans against Attilla on the field of battle.

Aetius was between 10 and 15 years Attila's senior, and while he did spend some time (how much, exactly, is unclear) as a hostage among the Huns, it is misleading to state that Attila "grew up alongside him". Certainly they knew each other; quite possibly they got along well. Speculation like this needs to be cited to scholarly sources.

I know that "ironic" is so frequently misused that it has lost much of its original meaning, but there is nothing ironic about people who spent time together in youth fighting each other in adulthood. Especially when they are both sons of important political figures of two major empires that were at war throughout much of their history.

It should be noted that Bleda was killed during a hunting accident. Hunting already a dangerous sport, would provide an acceptable explanation. While providing an easy opporotunity for assasination.

I can't find the origin of this story about hunting in the classical sources. I'm pretty sure it's later speculation; I can't figure out exactly where it came from. Again it needs attribution (and not to Age of Empires, please: it's a great game, but it's not a reputable source).

It should also be noted that there is some speculation that Bleda may have assasinated Rua. Thus having eventually been supplanted through the same means he used to gain power.

Speculation like this needs to be cited to scholarly sources.

Near the turn of the century a TV movie based on Atilla was produced by Turner Network Television. However a number of liberties went into the story of the movie, libeties which actually supplanted a much more interesting real-life series of ironies.

See #representation in art above; the same comments apply. Previous remarks about the use of "irony" also apply. —Charles P. (Mirv) 08:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

TELL ME PLEASE, WHAT IS THE STORY ABOUT ATTILA BEING HELD IN ROME AS A CHILD BASED ON? CITE AN ANCIENT SOURCE! IN MY OPINION, THIS IS SIMPLY A MISINTERPRETATION CREATED BY A FRENCH AUTHOR, WHO WROTE A BOOK ON ATTILA ABOUT TWENTY YEARS AGO! THIS ARTICLE ABOUT ATTILA CONTAINS MANY OTHER WEIRD STATEMENTS THAT SHOULD BE EXPLAINED! Cartouche, 31.7. 2006

Attila or Atilla?

There are two articles about Attila the Hun, this one with two t and other with two l. Which is the right spelling? And both say about the same thing, why don't merge them in one to avoid confusation?

The Huns were a Turk family

I have changed origin of The Huns. First of all, I should make a clear defination of The Turks. It is mostly used to identify 25 tribes( such as Hun, Kıyçak, Tatar, Őzbek, Oĝuz, Siyenpi, Azeri ) who lived in Central Asia. At Orkhon inscriptions, vizier Tonyukuk said " They, all of my sons, are 25". The word of Turk " Tǖra ", is firstly found at the early Persian sources " Firdavsi ". The Persian used the word of Tura-Turan to identify the area of Central Asia. They were under a great pressure of people who lived in Tura-Turan. That's why, the people who lived in Central Asia were called Türa.

Turk is used to identify a group of families. Teoman, the great leader of the Turks, took over control of all families, with idea of Great Türaian Empire. In 2nd century, the kingdom was divided into two kingdom, Northern Hun Kingdom and Southern Hun Empire.

In the 3rd century, Siyenpies had fought aganist Huns to have control over the tribes. At the end, the Huns lost the war. There were many reasons for the Turks to walk through east, and one of them was the result of the war. Since, leader family of The Huns was forced to migrate, and some of the tribes didn't recognize Siyenpies as the leader of The Great Türaian Empire.

The families started to migrate through the East. Balamir, a great commander of The Huns, and his approximately two thousand riders passed Western Europe with a great speed. They were lastly seen in Spain.

Atilla the Hun was a European Huns' king. He was assassinated. After his dead, the kingdom disappeared.

--Hybrid Lily 21:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

This has come up before; see #To our anonymous Turkish friend above. With so little knowledge of their language we can't really say for certain whether they were Mongol, Turkic, or something else entirely. This article should describe the uncertainty; if anyone wants to go into the scholarly arguments for one idea or another, they should do so in the articles on the Huns and Xiongnu. —Charles P. (Mirv) 15:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

You are right about their origin. It is definitely uncertain. However, the relationship between Turkic tribes and Huns cannot be explained clearly yet. Turkic culture, life style, war style, language and so on, reflects some affinities.

The Huns - A multi-ethnic group?

The Huns were known to encorporate many tribes and ethnic groups into their own after conquering them during the westward movement. Is it quite possible that they made quite an impact on the early Hungarian tribes that they continued to claim that title until today? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.188.204.2 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 11 January 2006.

It is. It's also quite possible that they had nothing to do with each other. Either way, talk:Huns is the place to discuss this. —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The name Hungary had nothing to do with the Huns. I also think it's interesting how WWI German soldiers were called Huns when the Huns appeared to be the sworn enemy of Germanic peoples. Captain Jackson 21:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Hungary comes from Onoguri, a Bulgar sub-branch. There are different theories about this. Some claim that prince Arpad was the son of Khan Almash, the Bulgar ruler on Volga. Arpad led a horde of fino-ugrians away. Others say that the Majars were mistaken to be part of the Onoguri. Both seem plausible as all empires at that time were multi-ethnic. A horde of fino-ugrians could have easily lived together with the Onoguri and broken away later on. -- Kaloyan* 16:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I am no expert in Altaic languages, but I know from Maenchen-Helfen's THE WORLD OF THE HUNS that their language was an OLd Turkic one. This again confirms that this whole Wikipedia article on Attila is very very weak! IT WOULD NEED SOME REAL SCHOLAR!!! Cartouche, 31. 7. 2006

On his death

I've read Attila did not likely have a nosebleed. Rather, he suffered from a type of internal bleeding brought on by heavy drinking. I'm not sure what this is called. Captain Jackson 21:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Half a million

...his arrival in Belgica with an army said by Jordanes to be half a million strong... I know, there's a reference but the figure is almost certainly exaggerated. Wouldn't it be better to find a reliable present-day estimate on this? Piet 09:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Good luck finding one. One can sometimes make a reasonable estimate of a Roman army's size thanks to the Romans' high level of organization and record-keeping, but in most cases we really have no idea how many people showed up to the battles of antiquity. —Charles P._(Mirv) 17:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Then shouldn't we removed this number that we don't really believe anyway? Piet 07:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I've noted that it's an exaggeration. The number may be inaccurate (is certainly inaccurate, in fact), but it provides information on the perception of Attila's invasion. Think horde. —Charles P._(Mirv) 16:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

wrong map

No Part of modern Iran was part of the Hun empire

Roman hostage status

When and how did Attila stop being a hostage of Rome as a youth? Is this known? The article doesn't explain. --Cam 23:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

As I stated above, there hardly exists any ancient source that would tell this. This is a non-sensical fabrication! Cartouche, 31.7. 2006

He was a Turkish

Atilla and his countrys people were Turkish--Absar 10:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't you mean he was TURKIC?

Citation tag???

Why is it that a citation tag has been added to a featured article? May be whoever added it should raise the specific concerns on the talk page first. - Cribananda 19:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I added that-- There are whole sections that have no inline citations that correspond with the books you have listed in the references section. We can't know what portions of the article were sourced from which book. IMO, it's a candidate for FAR plange 19:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)