Talk:Attila/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Vandalism This page seems to be really badly vandalized but is locked from editing. Could someone please clean it up? Anonymous, September 20, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.170.49.86 (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

older entries

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

• Huns were basically belong to Turan. It is really simple. With respect, Deliogul 17:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Since the Huns were nomadic they might have come from anywhere. John Man, author of Attila The Hun (Bantam Books, 2005), convincingly paint them as 'out of asia' few centuries prior to the same stock that also gave birth to later Mongols. - Red1 D Oon 12:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Let's put is straight: we don't know where they are from, we SUSPECT they are from Turan. The Chronicles are contradicting. They might come from Scythia, too :) Abdulka 09:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

I have a question about the word strava. It sounds very Slavic. For example, strava means food, meals in Czech. Could you please point at some sources where more information about this word can be found. I am, of course, not agitating for a new crazy theory that Attila was a Slav, but the origin of the word is very interesting. The presence of it in Slavic languages may actually signify the ancient influence of Hunnic.

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)

On another note, the picture of Attila purported to be from the Poetic Edda: It looks very 20th century to me. Post-renaissance anyway. /roger.duprat.denmark

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)

According to Michael Babcock, a philologist who wrote The Night Attila Died, it shows that the Germanic peoples' stories about Attila are very old and possibly originate from the Goths and others who lived during Attila's time. This is because Attila's name changed to Etzel in High German sometime later, but in Icelandic it still retains the original sounds, so there is no way that the Vikings got the story later on. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 19:54, 25 August 2007 (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)

I am a hungarian. Hungary, not Hungry. The hungarians name themselves as Magyar and their country (Hungary) as Magyarország. It is a common thesis in Hungary that the hungarian tribes are the descendants or at least close relatives of the huns. Faller 16:01, 29 June 2007 (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)

There are other points why Hungarians believe in Hun-Hungarian connection. The name "Attila" is ancient Hungarian name (and not invented in later centuries), it is coming from "Itélet"=judgement. He was named as Scourge of God as he was the judgement. Attila was monotheistic, and probably Christian, but not Judeo-Christian as we know today. They were fighting similar way as Hungarians did later in 10. century. They ate similar food and their tradition, mythology is similar ti ancient Hungarian. The nosebleed tradition can be justified by Hungarian when the blood thickens, it is called "alvad" which is "going to sleep", this means that both Attila had gone to sleep and his blood, too, so thats why he died. Another point is that ONLY Hungarian Chronicles attest him as good-faithed, good-willing person, all other legends and written form is putting him as a cruel king. This article is also reflecting the views of Western scholars, which may not be completely true! Abdulka 09:15, 22 August 2007 (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

I have deleted this section which was nothing but speculation 82.6.77.186 07:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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?

In Hungary scientist say Atilla, so I think it should be corrected.

• No, the "correct" or accepted English spelling is Attila. Wahkeenah 18:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The correct way to spell it, even in Hungary, is Attila. The confusion arises from the pronunciation, which sounds like it is Atilla. 89.132.60.228 (talk) 08:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Though it is commonly pronounced with the accent on the second syllable, it is properly accented on the first. (See the note on Will Cuppy's reference to the question.)

Kostaki mou (talk) 02:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

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.

'Turkic' life style and war style is just typical steppenomad-style, I think. Krastain 08:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Hello, my capslocky friend. First; why is the whole article 'very very weak!' because the language is wrong? Second; I read half a dozen books on the subject, (some quite recent) and they all stated that it is not known for sure wich language the Huns spoke. Third; No, I'm not going back to the library to get those books to quote from them. Try it yourself, I'll put the ones I can still remember in the article. Krastain 02:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

IT IS CLEAR THAT HE WAS A TURK. A MORE PROBABLE ORIGINE OF HIS NAME IS FROM TURKISH: AT = AN HORSE ILA = WITH (IN COMPANY OF) ATILA= WITH (IN COMPANY OF) AN HORSE IN TURKISH

That is a strech at best --Armanalp (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

Please tell us where you read that. Krastain 02:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

saxo grammaticus in his danish chronicle has him dying of heavy drinking.His name is there Atle,and he is seen as a very greedy person. Interesting is that there is a ring and a woman connected to saxos story...As far as i remember saxo has 3? stories with the huns.Saxo lived in the 1100s and probably got these stories (i guess) from danish oral tradition,some of them could have come from anywhere in europe.Also one of the stories has a danish king marry an hunnic princess,later sending her home because she was untrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.129.21.126 (talk) 09:35, 17 May 2008 (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)

Empire map

No Part of modern Iran was part of the Hun empire.

And I wonder if Southern Sweden ever was ruled by a Hun. Krastain 08:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No, there are nothing that indicates parts of Scandinavia was ever controlled or even visisted by the Huns. The map is clearly exaggerating the extent of the Huns. Something should really be done about it.

I have completely re-engineered the map. The map is now centered on the the empire itself (instead of Iran), the "borders" of the empire are more conservatively drawn (no more Sweden), the colors are based on the semi-official ones at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps, and I made an attempt to place Attila's capital. I would like, at some point, to put an English-language label/box on the map, but not today. Let me know if you find any errors, MapMaster 05:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Due to cache issues, the map may look a little borizontally squashed until your cache is cleared.

Interestingly, I found a map in which also shows modern Denmark and the southern half of Sweden as part of Attila's empire. Even more interesting, these maps were originally created by a Norwegian team. So, there must be some (other) source out there that insists that this part of Scandinavia was conquered by the Huns.

But it makes no sense to me. It would have been nearly impossible for the Huns to reach Sweden, given that they were almost exclusively cavalry. And what does it mean to be part of the Hun empire? Likely, it means that the territory paid tribute and perhaps contributed troops.

Anyway, I thought I would bring it up here. MapMaster 01:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

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

By "hardly any" do you mean "none whatsoever" or "maybe a hint"? If so, what is the hint. Certainly Gibbon had never heard of this story. The user who added this bit cited "Leadership secrets of Attila the Hun" which does not give me any confidence in it. 82.6.75.30 14:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I have looked into this and there is no basis for this story. Actually we know nothing about Attila's youth. I have removed the relavant text 82.6.77.186 07:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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?

Do you have a source for this? Krastain 12:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

hello guys, the problem is that Attila has been taught as a powerful turkic leader in class in Turkey. And many people has its name -even my name resembles Attila:) Therefore it has a clear influence in turkish culture. However, there is no clear proof of that in academic world. What is clear is that eastern Huns (Xiongnu) has some Turkic roots. However the relation between european Huns and Xiongnu is not clear, too. I think many nations today can see Huns as their origin (magyar, german, turk etc.). This is just fine since Huns were a confederation, not a single entity. I would suggest to stress this, instead of providing a clear connection to any nation. by the way, the first undisputed Turks are Gokturks in 6th century. Ati7 09:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Attila was not Turkish, not even close. The Huns originate from Northeastern Europe. They migrated to Eastern Asia around 2-3 thousand BC. After the chinese built the Great wall, the Huns were no longer able to attack and ravage them. So they migrated across Asia to arrive in Europe. They are from a group of tribes which includes the Magyars (Hungarians). Little is known about this group because there are no written records of them. These people did not record their history, but the stories of their lives were passed on from one generation to another, orally. Presently we only know some of these stories as legends. But these legends are fundamentally true. This is all I will share with you, and hopefully it will bring an end to the confusion and lies about the past of the Huns.

We look forward to fully-referenced contributions based on sound evidence. Richard Keatinge 08:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Attila as hostage in Rome

According to Dr Peter Heather, the celebrated historian and author of 'The Fall of the Roman Empire' the stuff about Attila having been a hostage in Rome in his youth is a 'later piece of nonsense' with no basis in fact.± Attila the Hungarian? Attila the bulgarian? Attila the Romanian? Attila the european? Attila was a short and broad chested man like his people.

I think that in the weak light of the candle, some near-sighted author mistakenly translated a section about Aetius' stay among the Huns. 82.100.61.114 10:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Attila in Music

Why is there a funny section on Attila in Music below the references section? The content is reasonable enough, if in need of more copy-editing than I can handle whilst only up due to insomnia, though we can probably presume it was written by a heavy metal fan. Added the opera by Verdi, but should we have this section, or is it fancruft? Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

How about a map? And another question

Map of the invasions, including the Huns.

I just created a map of the barbarian invasions of Europe for the Migration Period article and I thought that perhaps I could create a more detailed map of just the campaigns of Attila for this article. A worthwhile endeavour??

Now, in my map, I wanted to show Attila's capital, which is somewhere on the plains of Pannonia I understand. To my surprise, I have been unable to find the name of this capital. Am I just not looking in the proper places? Or is its name not known? MapMaster 03:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

MapMaster, there is some speculation regarding the location of Attila's capital. In Hungarian folklore in particular, it was either based on the ruins of the Roman city of Acquincum (today in Budapest), or it was his mobile 'wooden castle' (as described by Priscus rhetor on his visit to Attila's camp), which as you say was based primarily in the Hungarian Great Plain, somewhere near the Tisza River. And, unlike is stated in the text, it was the Tisza that was diverted to bury the dead king. (Shame that Hungarian is not better understood, people with an interest in Attila and the Huns would find a gold mine of information and stories :)) Hunor-Koppany 04:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, what happened to the map? Why does the article say in the intro "see map below" if there's no map in the actual article? Is there a reason that the map was removed? Esn 23:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hunnic Empire could use some cleanup

The Hunnic Empire article could do with some cleanup - anyone care to step up ? Megapixie 08:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Attila the Hun

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Invasion of Persia

'The Huns remained out of Roman sight for the next five years (from 435-440). During this time, they were conducting an invasion of the Persian Empire. However, in Armenia, a Persian counterattack resulted in a defeat for Attila and Bleda, and they ceased their efforts to conquer Persia.' Does anyone know where this idea come from? I can't find any source for this whatsoever. Krastain 08:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I would also want to know the source. Isn't it based on the Hunnic invasion to Persia, but with no clear relationship to European Huns? 82.100.61.114 10:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Cut Section

I've cut this section as it was badly misplaced. I think that, at the least, the Verdi opera is notable, but I'm not sure about the rock music. In any case, the section was misplaced. What think ye?

Attila in Music

• Attila, an opera by Giuseppe Verdi
• The song Attila by Iced Earth tells the history of Attila against the Romans.
• A song cycle by Dark Moor (on their album of the same name) tells the history of Attila. It consists of an Overture, "Wind Like Stroke", "Return For Love", "Amore Venio", and "The Ghost Sword".

Don't forget the blues song "The Dietary Secrets of Atila the Hun" (don't know the artist) ("Day 1, Steak Tartar! Day 2, Steak Tartar! ...") Erniecohen (talk) 17:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Images

I realize that this article is getting pretty big, but I've added two pictures of Attila from the Chronicon Pictum, a text from 1360. I think they have particular value because of their age. Maybe some of the other pictures, like the weird one from the Poetic Edda, should be cut? I can't seem to find a date on the illustration at all, and its verifiable accuracy is nil. Korossyl 16:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright, unless unless someone disagrees, I'm gonna go ahead and remove the image. Feel free to re-add it, but if so, please leace a note here. Korossyl 20:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so: removed another picture. This one is of the Huns, riding about upon horsies. It's a valuable picture, but the article is too long (over 32kb), and it doesn't have anything to do with Attila specifically. Also, the section has a link to the Huns page at the top (one of those "see main article" thingies), and it's one of the most prominent pictures on that page. Again, I think we need to make image cuts where possible on this page. Feel free to disagree... Korossyl 20:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

anon user 58.110.65.230 constant vandalism

This guy seems to do nothing but vandalize the Attila and Hun wikis with his turkocentric agenda. Please do not be afraid to revert him outright as he seems to have no intention of rational debate or understand what a cite is and/or the credibility of experts versus cranks.

There are references given for each idea put forward and different sides are presented for each issue with references given, i am not pushing a Turkish POV, im giving both sides of the argument

Well, you are now well over the 3RR and will be taking a vacation regardless, thank god. Ernham 13:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I am reverting vandalisms by an anon user that has an ip beginning with 85, who keeps adding unreferenced, illegible information not reverting a normal article

his/her edits are almost as bad yours... almost. At leats he probably doesn't have an agenda, Attaturk. Ernham 13:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Pretended homsexuality

I've removed the references to Attila's homsexuality on the heading. It is not referenced, I've not been able to find support for it [2], and anyway his sexuality did not play a rellevant enough role in his life to include it on the heading. --RR' 13:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Alternate biography

What's the point of this section? This infor is mostly repeated. Shouldn't the new etails be included in the proper sections. I'm going to remove it if no one opposes.--RR' 14:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Attila's name

I just think that it should be added to the part of the article on Attila's name that Ata has a meaining father, grandfather in Turkic languages, for example in Kazakh http://kz.kub.kz/cgi-bin/dictionary.pl?word=%E0%F2%E0&direction=123

I think that Attila's name is a romanised version of Edil or Idil. This is the name of Volga in modern turkic (particularly of kipchak group) languages. This could mean that He could born near Volga or somewhere out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.218.165.230 (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this map of the hunnic empire accurate?

• File:Http://felszerelesek.lovasijaszat.hu/userspace/felszerelesek/nepcsoportok/hunok.jpg

The areas in Gaul, Italy and the Balkans were invaded by the Huns but not conquered. The areas to the east of the Don were settled by Huns, but it isn't known if those Huns were part of Attila's empire. The areas around the Baltic are conjectural. --Abou 19:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Attila's name is usually stressed on the second syllable, but I remember reading (I think in The Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody, but I'm not sure) that it's supposed to be stressed on the first syllable. Is this right? --WikiMarshall 04:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

In Hungarian the stress is (as always) on the first syllable, for what that's worth. K. Lásztocska 02:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wives

The Norse saga of the Voelsungs (Burgunds), basically homologeous to the Niebellunglied, says that Attila married Gudrun, the widow of Sigurd (Siegfried) Are there any records pertaining to Attila's wives?

Attila and hungarians are Turkic family

Attila and hungarians are peoples of Turkic family a lot of turkish people name is Atilla Atilla was a Turk! please be careful smooth this page

No, Huns were Scythians, (so are the Turkish). Though, this needs to be prooved scientifically. once this will not be bothered by politics, we will see more clearly. Abdulka 09:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

From WP:RD/H

There is little doubt that Attila was skilled, both as a soldier and more generally as the ruler of a great Hun confederation. The image you grew up with is, however, quite right: he was rampaging and brutal, though given the nature of his rule, and the peoples he ruled over, he had little alternative. Despite justifiable Roman fears of the Hun threat, not all of the contemporary assessments of Attila are perhaps as negative as you might assume. Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus, a Roman historian, describes him thus;

Of middle height, he was manly in apperance and well made, neither too frail nor too heavy; he was quick of wit and agile of limb, a very practiced horseman and a skilful archer; he was indefatigable with a spear. A born warrior; he was renowned for the arts of peace, without avarice and little swayed by desire, endowed with gifts of the mind, not swerving from his purpose for any kind of evil instigation. He bore wrongs with utmost patience and loved labour. Undaunted by danger, he was excelled by none in the endurance of hunger, thirst and vigil.

Others who knew him remarked that he was not himself greedy for plunder. When he was visited by a Roman diplomatic mission it was noted that he drank from a simple wooden bowl, as might be used by the lowest of his followers. What he did have a taste for, though, was power; and he was utterly ruthless in maintaining his position at the head of a great barbarian alliance, that included not only his own Huns but also Ostrogoths, Gepids, Franks, Rugians, Sciri, Burgundians and Thuringians. And the only way that he could maintain his hold, and ensure their loyalty, was by finding fresh opportunities for plunder and yet more plunder. His empire, in other words, was an alliance for robbery and destruction. It was also an 'Empire of the Will', so to say, for reasons that should become a little clearer as I proceed.

So, in his quest for plunder, Attila was drawn over the borders of the Roman Empire, first in the east, where he raided in 440, 442 and again in 447. The object was not to conquer but to draw out all of the sources of wealth, so much so that by 450 the Empire was close to econmic exhaustion. The whole destructive, and it might be said, self-destructive campaign, continued, first in Gaul and then in Italy, where the waves were broken. Of this John Julius Norwich has written;

Had the Hunnish army not been halted in these two successive campaigns, had its leader toppled Valentinian from his throne and set up his own capital in Ravenna or Rome, there is little doubt that both Gaul and Italy would have been reduced to spiritual and cultural deserts, just as surely and just as completely as the Balkan peninsula was reduced by the Ottoman Turks a thousand years later. (Byzantium. The Early Centuries, 1988, p. 157)

In the end this great threat came to nothing for one simple reason: Attila was a man caught between two worlds; that of the barbarian nomads, and that of the settled urban world of the Romans. He needed war simply to survive, though old fashioned mounted archery was no longer enough. To take the great cities of the empire he needed siege equipment; he needed to keep their populations under control; to build an administration; to make laws. He did none of these things, and never rose to the real challenge of imperial rule, unlike, say, Genghis Khan, with whom otherwise he mighty stand comparison. In the end the vast Hunnish empire simply imploded on Attila's death in 453, leaving little more than a savage memory. The true victors are those who create history: Attila was just passing through. Clio the Muse 02:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"the offending bishop"

The last sentence in the second paragraph of Shared kingship reads -- "Their advance began at Margus, for when the Romans discussed handing over the offending bishop, he slipped away secretly to the Huns and betrayed the city to them." Who was this "offending bishop", how did he offend and how did this begin the advance at Margus? I think something got only partly dropped in the editing. Jason3777 15:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The Huns said something to the effect that the bishop crossed over to the Hun's side of the river and despoiled some of their graves. It might even be true. In any case, it gave Attila reason enough to advance on Margus. The people of the city got angry at the bishop, and instead of being killed by an angry mob or an angry Hun, the bishop decided to defect to the Huns and deliver the city to them.LordArros 06:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

WHO?

"His death in 434 left his nephews Attila and Bleda (the sons of his brother Mundzuk) in control over all the united Hun tribes. At the time of their accession, the Huns were bargaining with Byzantine emperor Theodosius II's envoys over the return of several renegade tribes who had taken refuge within the Byzantine Empire."

WHO'S DEATH? You can't just start a paragraph talking about some random dude, we need an actual noun! Arthurian Legend 17:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

attila the hun a students story

Attila the Hun Some people say that great warriors are not afraid of anything. But one great warrior was afraid of dying, with no one ever loving him. This great warrior was Attila the Hun. Attila was born in the year 406ad. Then died in the year 453ad. Attila was very fond of magic! He liked the spirits and anything that did not have a reason for it to happen. He even liked it so much that he did magic and voodoo. Attila was the king of the Hunnic Empire and the king of Huns. (The Hunnic Empire stretched from the steppes of Central Asia into modern Germany.) Attila went through many battles and killed many people. No one knows how he died, but he probably died in war from feeling unloved. Attila, people say, used to tear peoples arms and legs off because he felt unloved. He killed his own brother so he could become king because he probably felt unloved. That is amazing that he felt so unloved by his own brother. That he would kill his brother, that he fought in war with, just so he would not feel so unloved. But in doing that he became king and had no one to love him. I feel and think that if you are not loved by someone then, it could probably lead you to hatred. A lot of people who are unloved then blow up and when blown up, your feelings can get out of hand and lead to violence. I think that’s what happened to Attila. He was so unloved by his family, that led him to killing his family. Then, since he did that, he had no one to love him. Many people feel unloved and have things against themselves. Attila was one of those people. Think about your parents never saying to you once “I LOVE YOU.” Try to put yourself in Attila’s eyes and imagine how it feels to be unloved.

Hello, are you the same person who added the phrase 'He also believed in dark magic and ripped people apart.' in the article? Would you in the future please refrain from adding strange nonsense in the article? (I think it's okay to speculate about unprobable things in the talkpage though). By the way, probably Attila died from a nosebleed due to drunkenness in a weddingnight (I thought the girls name was Hildico or something). Krastain (talk) 03:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Attila may have never existed

I have heard he was just a created enemy by the Roman church. All those tribes more or less existed indeed, like the Huns... but those "battles" are more a process of conversions towards christianity and therefore are metaphoric. If you read how much people that died in those battles, you start to wonder who survived in those days. You simply cant trust christian resources, the truth is probably different. Don't ask me for sources, I have none. But as you know history is written by winners. You must admit that the history of the migrations is a little TOO legendary to believe and hold for truth... But of course I can be wrong, any suggestions?(N33 08:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC))

The image of Attila probably was created by the church (the famous 'Attila Flagellum Dei'), but that doesn't mean a real Attila didn't exist. There is plenty of material on him, including old Norse (pagan) legends about him. Krastain (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much like Osama Bin Laden nowadays.--N33 (talk) 07:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that's a good (or wise) comparison. Krastain (talk) 05:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Priscus as emissary to Attila

The article mentions that Priscus was sent as emissary, but in truth it was Maximin, and Priscus was just invited along. In fact, I don't think Priscus was there in any official position. I realize that this is largely irrelevant, but just wanted to throw that out there. If no one has any objections I might reword the passage a little. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LordArros (talk • contribs) 06:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Khan title

Wasn't this title first used in Europe by the Avars, which postdates the Huns? My guess is the Huns called Attila something related to Yabghu, but afaik there is no recorded title for Attila. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 17:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

i know he's called "rex" in contemporary or near-contemporary Latin sources, and i think he's called "Βασιλευς" in similar Greek texts (which i don't have at hand, so don't quote me); calling him "Khan" is presentism, nunc pro tunc. There's certainly no reliable record of him applying that title to himself. 71.248.115.187 (talk) 02:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandals

Why is baseball mentioned in teh Background Section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.14.76.50 (talk) 08:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandals. it's fixed now. VigilancePrime 09:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The date of birth

Where do you have a source for the date of birth - 406 AD? I suspect that this is a pure fabrication. 82.100.61.114 (talk) 05:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No reply? Where does this date come from? I have a simple answer: This is a pure fantasy that has no real support. The only indication of Attila's age comes from Priskos' report - "beard sprinkled with grey". Centrum99 (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Attila in Rome

Did Attila ever set foot in Rome, voluntarily or otherwise? Ryanwiki (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Attila was a Mongol, Asian. I find it funny that many person attempt to tie his reign with a European relationship. The reality is that there was no Europe' or united designation at his time. It as an entity did not exist and neither did a formed Germany as we know it. Germanic peoples existed, but like most living in this region of earth at this time, they were barbarians. Most if not all were illiterate and not religious, thus Roman rule helped bring borders and settlements for what we know now. People are forgetting the dark ages, the age of his reign was due to the 'lack of cohesion between peoples. Whom ever had the bigger sword ruled as we see with the Goths, later the Vikings and much later with Khan. But when people put in modern language to decribe peoples or a geography that had no set designation until centuries later I find it problematic. Please dont turn this figure into a anglo, he was not despite where his throne of pwer was or ended up. He came from the plains of Mongolia and Asia he settled in Hungary. There is a difference. I'm shocked that people transpose artwork for historical and anthropological facts. Yes, kingdoms did exist to some extent, alliances, peoples and tribes; But there was no set place called Europe or Europeans till centuries later. It would help is some people just could except that many nations and countries have been led and conquered by other races and leaders throughout history just as now and in the future. mc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.99.40 (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't put words in people's mouths. And get off the drugs. 202.53.199.72 (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't be too hard on him, this is absolutely priceless.Krastain (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that the speculation about Attila being a child hostage in Rome is not backed up by the evidence. Also, during Attila's invasion of Italy, the article explains that he stopped short of entering Rome. So the answer to my question is probably "no". Ryanwiki (talk) 10:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I have a question, does anyone have an answer???

On this website- www.timelessmyths.com/norse/norseminor.html

they say something about the name Attila meaning "Scourge of God". Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always though that Attila was his given name and that he was just called "Scourge of God" by the romans because of his barbaric behavior. I'm doing a project on him and need to get my facts straight. Does anyone know the truth of the matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.117.60 (-SK) 22:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It's me again, I have another question. I've seen lots of spellings of the same name, (Priscus, Priskos, Priskus...) is there any one correct form, or all they all correct, just different languages??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.117.60 (-SK) 22:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, i feel really stupid for having all these questions, but does anyone know where to find pix of Attila as a child??? I can't seem to find anything by googleing a bunch of variations of "Attila as a child", so does anyone know where I can find anything??

1) You are right, Attila does not mean Scourge of God 2) Priscus is Latin and Priskos is Greek. 3) There are no pictures of Attila as a kid. He lived with his tribe as a kid and they didn't paint or draw him. I hope these answer your questions. BalkanFever 03:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Could Attila have Gothic origins (by moyher or something else)? Attila means daddy in Gothic.

ok, thank you very much! -SK

flagellum dei

Is there any data on when this nickname was coined? Genghis Khan is supposed to have said something like this about himself in Bukhara, and later some people even attributed this self-appelation to Tamerlane. The earliest reference to "flail/scourge/whip of god"-like stuff I was able to find is from Ata al-Mulk Juvayni and refers to Genghis. So, unless somone can give a source for Attila = "scourge of God", I propose we at least change Scourge of God to a disambiguation and change the "confusion" stuff in the lead to something like "one of several rulers referred to as Scourge of God". Yaan (talk) 13:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Khan

How do we know his title was that of a "khan"? I understand he was the equivalent of a king, but why not a Raja or Kiraly or Sultan or something else? Yaan (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

We don't know his title and there is no historical source listing "khan". Someone keeps adding that back in. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)