Talk:History of the Huns

Doesn't this just duplicate what already exists in Huns? Adam Bishop 04:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a bit weak. Is there anything of independent value, and if so could it be moved to the main Huns page, with a view to deleting this one? Richard Keatinge 11:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Map

Who drew the map? Why is Danmark, the Baltic region and southern Sweden under Hunnic rule? Where is the evidence for this? Krastain 09:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

-I guess this map suggests that since the German peoples were under Hunnic rule, so must have been their territories. However, in the particular areas that can be disputed as being Hunnic, the German peoples must have left during the Migration Period and there wouldn't have been any real dominant peoples, except for the Huns.

I seem to recall Attila claiming rule over the northern islands, presumably on the grounds that he was boss of all Germans anywhere. But the map is definitely dodgy. I note the Jutes are placed in Yorkshire for some reason. Bede puts them on, or off, the south coast. Richard Keatinge 11:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed the second map is grotesquely inaccurate. At the time of the battle of Chalons Kent Anglia and Ebrauc (York) would all still be in Brythonic hands, The Amoricani who where affectively independent at this time (who participated in Chalons) are also falsely recorded as being under Visigoth hands. This particular rewriting of history presumably by Saxonophiles goes beyond even the half fiction history recorded by Gildas centuries later. 70.187.156.140 23:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Bloody Sacha 7/17/2007

Name is wrong

There are

Big Hun Imperial State and European Hun State

This article is European Hun State Aceflooder 08:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Category: Nomadic Empires of Central Asia

Ive restored this category as both this article and Huns refers to the people as being "of Central Asia". Aside from the Category itself being misnamed (i.e. the empire was not nomadic) what reason is there for it being removed? Is the category itself being emptied or changed? István 20:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

the travel

The huns were traveling with hores and boads to the other countries. The went with boads over the black see so that they could come to >Europ and be there. So they came from Mongolia in to Hungray and then from there to the yet Germany adn the gaul that's now Fance. But when they were on land they went with their horses to other countries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.233.32.85 (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Really? Oh wow...

Bulgarian Empire

I strongly object to the comment that Bulgarian Empire was created by remnant Huns. This theory was rejected at least 10 years ago. Please do have in mind that Bulgarian people were nomadic, yes, equstrian, yes, but their participation in Hunnic raids is strongly disputed, to say the least.

```` —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Naurinho (talk • contribs) 10:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Bulgarians were in fact Turkic people who came from Central Asia near a mountain called Bolkar mountains it means a lot snow mountains... They came to Europe with the Hunnic movement and after the decline of Hunnic empire, they were slavacised... Today they think it is not cool to be Turkic and they completely deny their past... Bulgarians are not really trutfull about their history... They are rather political about that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.185.107 (talk) 09:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There were old Hunno-Turkic states in the old days called European Huns,Golden Horde,Tatars,Avars,Chuvashs and Bolkars (Bulgarians)... they built nations in Eastern part of Europe even before Ukraine, Poland,Belorussia, Russia had existed... and Slavic people were living under their rules... So mixing-up was inevitable... So you have to think about this... where all that people did go?... nothing suddently disappears in the universe...:)

But that probably it explains why Eastern Eropean people in fact look more different than western Eropean people... I dont think anybody enjoys with the fact that they did have a Mongolian grand father... they much rather would like to believe that they came from a viking... I suppose it feels cooler that way...:))))

Also, After the deline of Hunnic empire and so the other Turkic states, Hun population had been disolved and been converted into Slavs... Because, they were either forced or given an inferiority complex with the way they looked (Mongoloid)... So many people who call themselves slav today... are in fact Hun or Turkic in origin... but they will deny it... because it is not cool enough for them... I havent even mentioned yet how many more Turkic states exists under Russian Federation... I believe we shall not temper with the history for our racial and political purposes... Reality bites... I think Slavic people have to come the terms with their pasts... They are in fact not pure Slavs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.185.107 (talk) 10:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

== Mongolian == he was Mongolian = It called Turkic not Mongol

hey funny fucks... why does it state nowhere else that the Huns are supposed to be Turkic
? maybe cause the other articles are locked and you cant edit them with your funny little turkish propaganda? HEHE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdfking123 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

We call them bustards who forgets where they come from!

All the wikipedia sources clearly states that Huns were Turkic Tribes. Therefore it is sensless to arguea about that. But in this article it is not clearly stated. Wonder why?

About the Bulgarian empire - Bulgar tribes Utigurs and Kutrigurs were a part of the Hunnic tribal alliance. Later they just made a new union which was the Bulgarian state. But it was not a 'remnant' of the Hunnish empire which disintegrated two centuries ago.195.114.112.177 (talk) 09:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

I have protected this page from editing until the present dispute is resolved as all I see is edit warring without any discussion. Please try and reach a consensus for how this article should read through discussions on this page and go through the dispute resolution process if necessary. Once you are in agreement you can request unprotection at WP:RFPP. WjBscribe 16:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously this was the only solution to stop this edit-war. As one of the two participants has asked me for help today, I had a short look on the problem (which was till now not my favorite topic in Wikipedia). Before turning to the facts: I regret, that asdfking did not know the right manners for Wikipedia, as after some edits its the normal procedure to start a discussion HERE on the talk-page, bringing some facts and sources (instead of starting an endless edit-war). Unfortunately he got in rage, and did things which obviously do not fit well in here. But that shall not cover the fact, that his main intention - the removal of a turkish POV - was maybe much better than his manners, and we should clear the facts.

About the topic itself: Its obviously a discussion about the question, if Huns were also Turkic peoples or not. First of all: Those people who think so, should bring some reputable sources which can be consulted by other Wikipedia-Users (a quite normal procedure here). I made a quick research in the references of this article, and the The Columbia Encyclopedia has an interesting entry in which I found no statement about a direct connection between Huns and Turcs, quite contrary its said:

"Despite the similarity of their tactics and habits with those of the White Huns, the Magyars, the Mongols , and the Turks, their connection with those peoples is either tenuous or—in the case of the Magyars and the Turks—unfounded"

But maybe someone has better sources? -- Rfortner 19:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If you check the main Huns article, and the Hunnic language article, all the relevant sources, regarding the Turkic origin of the Huns are there. The Colombia encylopedia article you mentioned, if you continue to read onwards, is self contradictory, which is why it is not used in any of the articles regarding the Huns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.66.144 (talk) 11:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you be so kind to give us a more detailed reference (with a source which is accessible for us via Internet) instead of refering quite general to looooong articles with a very diversified reference list. I brought a concrete citation. Also I dont see any sign for the Columbia Encyclopedia to be "self contradictory", so please bring also a concrete quotation which proves this statement.

And first of all its more serious for me to discuss such a delicate ("political") topic with an established user as with an anonymus IP. -- Rfortner 11:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The references are numbered so if you check the references according to numbers in each of the articles, you can tell which reference is for which part of the article :) I do not have the time to list every single one of them for you at the moment. Just check the Huns article, there is one section in the Origin and Identity part which tells you about the Turkic origin, all the references are labelled there. Same goes for the Hunnic language article. 58.110.66.144 12:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"I do not have the time to ..." is not an appropiate argument when editing articles in Wikipedia. If you have the time to make edits, you will also have to have time for proving your sources in an appropiate way, otherwise your edits are at worst worthless for the Wikipedia-community. There are some rules her in Wikipedia, especially about NPOV, and a discussion like this is always the first step to decide if critical edits will survive or not. And its not up to ME to check your sources by searching articles - I am not the Sherlock Holmes of Wikipedia. Its up to YOU to prove your sources in an appropiate way!

By the way: Maybe the Huns-article is also POV-influenced and needs an in-depth check of its sources? We dont know it, but in the long run nothing rests uncovered in Wikipedia ;-)-- Rfortner 12:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: Please learn to structure the discussion by using an appropiate number of ":"-signs.

Category:Former empires

{{editprotected}}

Could an admin please change the category for this article from Category:Empires to Category:Former empires. Thanks. I am sorting out the entries in the empire categories. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Timeshifter (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You guys should look at the Aetius page. If you want to call him a traitor here, maybe you should harmonize that. If not, maybe you should make clear there is a radical difference of opinion. If not either, maybe there should be a warning on wikipedia pages that one should take everything said as probably mostly bullshit written by half-educated undergrads? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.62.191.121 (talk) 09:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with this page

this page gives adequate information on the history of the huns.and should be left alone —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atilla hun (talk • contribs) 16:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This page misses the beginning of the Hunnish Empire including the wars with the Tsin dynasty and against the great Wu-di. It is important to go back to some sound research such as Early Empires of Central Asia by William Montgomery McGovern published in 1939. He was raised in China and Japan and could read the original sources without translation. It would be important to discuss the defeat of the Huns by the Chinese in the third Century BC which forced the Huns to go west across the empty land. If the Huns had defeated the Chinese, then they would have moved South into China and been uninterested in the wastelands to the west. ----

Yes thats correct... we should mention what happened in the central Asia with the Huns... We shall also mention that... The great wall of Chine was in fact built to create protection against Huns by the Chinese... Because Chinese were not skillfull warior as much as Huns... The defeat of Hun empire in Centar Asia did happened because Hun empire was devided between two brothers... and when they start fighting each other... Chinese usued this opportunity to attack eastern Hunnic empire to defeat them... not because Chinese are skilled warriors, but rather opportunists in the history... (there goes the argument) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.185.107 (talk) 10:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge with Huns and delete?

There is a discussion whether the Hunnic Empire article should be merged to the article about the Huns. There are several arguments for and against the merge, but the matter is still not concluded. In order to resolve the stalemate situation, we are seeking additional opinions. Please, help us with your ideas. Koertefa (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Support - there is almost nothing of independent value here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Support - Agreed, merging this article with the Huns article would be the best thing to do. --Iritakamas (talk) 03:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

[Oppose] It sounds as non-sense as merging "United Kingdom" to "British people", or "Byzantine Empire" to "Byzantine Greeks", or "Frankish Empire" to "Franks". Anatolian1071 (talk) 21:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

delete: two generations of a nomadic people terrorizing occupied land with no state administration, no state-related people (identifying with the oppressor), and not even a seat of government is not worth calling an Empire (and thereby suggesting a statehood). 12:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.100.207.122 (talk)

Ever heard about nomadic empires, genius? Anatolian1071 14:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

You are right!Fakirbakir (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Since the first suggestion of re-using material and redirecting this page to Huns some useful text has been put in here. I have added that material to Huns; this page now has no useful material not included in Huns. I propose to leave this page for a few days, to allow for comments, before I turn it into a redirect. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC) Or in view of the comment above, if anybody feels strongly enough, we could have a redirect to the reign of Attila, during which the Huns really did form an empire. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Supprt 203.10.55.11 (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

weak merge: I'm inclined to agree that the article should be merged and redirected to Huns#Unified_Empire_under_Attila. I disagree with the idea that there was no state administration and reject the idea of a missing seat of government (please read Priscus), but the Huns do not appear to have been a centrally organized force until Attila became king. Unless there's some expert scholarly consensus referring to this historic period of time as a Hunnic Empire, I see little reason to invent one. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 03:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the above is enough consensus and justification for replacement with a redirect, so that's what I've done. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose It was a kind of state. We have to distinguish between state and people.Fakirbakir (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• I also oppose the merge, based on the arguments presented by Anatolian1071. Koertefa (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there was a state, but it was centered around Attila and didn't last beyond his death. Are there some scholarly articles talking about a Hunnic Empire beyond Attila? Was there a centrally organized state identifiable in the historic record prior to Attila? The United Kingdom didn't cease to exist one generation after its founding and the Byzantine Empire existed well beyond its founding. There was no centrally organized state before Chingis Khan yet the state he established warrants a separate article since it lasted well beyond him. Attila didn't have such luck. There are practically no defining features that distinguish the Hunnic state from the Huns article or the Attila article. I fear that breaking the Hunnic state out into its own article can appear like an attempt to push a particular point of view; one that seeks to glorify the Huns beyond what the historic record tells us. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 06:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

My point in asking about scholarly articles detailing the Hunnic state is that this article, if it were to continue to exist as a separate article, should have the potential to be improved with distinguishing information. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

If we create pages like "Serbian-Hungarian Baranya-Baja Republic(existed six days)" or "Carpatho-Ukraine(existed only 1 day)" page of Attila's Empire will have a right to exist. The Hunnic Empire was a nomadic state, a pagan "principality".It was similar to the Avar Khaganate or state of the Golden Horde. The principality does not have to be "western type", for instance, the Asian medieval states were entirely different compared to the European states.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The only approximation to a unified Hunnic "state" or "empire" was the realm of Attila, and its seat was wherever he sat at the time. I am aware of the place of Huns in general, and Attila in particular, in some modern nationalist myths. But that seems to be the only reason to have an article entitled "Hunnic Empire" at all. I don't think that's a good reason to keep it, especially as all the information now sits well and naturally in Huns. Do we need a formal RfC? Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice that length of existence was only one side point I brought up. Fakirbakir did little to address my main questions: are there some scholarly articles talking about a Hunnic Empire beyond Attila? Does this article have the potential to be improved with information that does not belong in the Huns article? I'm not arguing about western vs. eastern type of states. Avar Khaganate doesn't even appear in the 'History of Empires' template! I think we need a formal RfC on this matter. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Talking about "nationalism" is a cheap shot. I also fail to see that even if the Hunnic Empire collapsed after the death of Attila, why is it not enough if the empire existed during his time? In addition to the excellent examples provided by Fakirbakir, take a look at, for instance, the article about the Hungarian Republic of Councils (a.k.a. Hungarian Soviet Republic), it was a very short lived communist state (it existed only few months) and it had only one leader, Béla Kun, still it has an own article. Should we merge it to the article about Béla Kun, or the article about Hungary in WWI? I do not think so... Koertefa (talk) 02:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

There are thousands of scientific books that talk about the "Hunnic Empire" [1] or the "Empire of Attila" [2], therefore, it is out of question that using the word "empire" is adequate, even if the social and economic structure of this empire was different from, for example, the structure of the Roman Empire [3]. Moreover, the Hunnic Empire was, of course, not only inhabited (and ruled) by the Huns but, for example, also by Gepids, Ostrogoths and Germanic tribes, etc. [4]. Consequently, talking about the Hunnic people is not the same as talking about the Hunnic Empire, while, of course, this latter empire should be surely mentioned in the article about the Huns. Koertefa (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I should point out that Khazaria, Khazar Empire, Khazar Khaganate, etc., all were merged into the Khazars article most probably for the same reasons as our discussion now. There just doesn't appear to be enough information in the historical record to create a full article with depth on both the Hunnic Empire and the Khazar Empire, unlike the case with the other small states that have been mentioned above. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 04:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually it was a bad decision to merge Khazaria into the Khazars in my opinion (page of Khazars has former country infobox?!?! How does it work? ). Khazars were Turkic people, and the page of their state should have to be separated. There are lots of historical book and !primary source! about Khazaria. I think it is not good reasoning to say that there are no informations available. Less known states ((Sarir for instance) have own articles with the "same" or less amount of historical data. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding available information on the Hunnic Empire: there is even an entire book dedicated to this empire [5], not to mention the dozens of other scientific books focusing on Attila and the Huns. If there is enough data to write a book about it, then there should not be a problem to write a brief article on the topic. Koertefa (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The book looks really new and someone would need to devote some time to it to evaluate it as a source and improve this article. Yesterday I attempted to solicit input from WikiProjects Former Countries on this matter. They have some structure they apply to other articles that might be utilized on this article in order to improve it so it doesn't just replicate information that fits in Huns. It can be said there's a larger issue on separating state from history as evidenced by the Khazars article and I'm hoping someone from that WikiProject can comment. Some of the other short-lived state articles referenced above do seem to separate the state from history. I support a weak merge because I do not see any way to separate the state from history, that there isn't enough information to do so. Given the current quality of this article, the Hunnic Empire article still seems more like a rehash of the other articles with no features distinguishing it from the other Hun articles. I would support keeping the article if it were able to be improved beyond what we know of Attila's history. I hope my latest comments help clarify further the point I've been trying to make from my first comment. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it will be particularly difficult to say anything meaningful about the "Hunnic empire" because, apart from Attila's personal supremacy and, possibly, arguably, a vague sense of ethnic unity, we have no evidence of any state mechanisms, or indeed of any state. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I won't assume it is particularly difficult to say anything meaningful, especially since I haven't read the new book Koertefa found. I rewrote the introduction since it was about the Huns and not the Hunnic empire in an attempt to lead the way forward. The whole history section needs to be rewritten to align it with the topic and geography, demographics, and state administration structure and people needs to be detailed. Is it possible to do? I don't know myself since the information I have on the subject is minimal. I'm just a bit disappointed that, after two weeks, no one who supported keeping the article has so far tried to improve it or discussed improving it. I can't say I'm surprised. To me it shows that it _is_ particularly difficult to say anything meaningful so as not to have a stub-like article full of redundant information from other articles. It should still be merged at this point because it's just a pitiful article. If the situation changes, the Hunnic empire can always have its own article again. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 04:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The book that Koertefa found is our article, printed on demand - save your money. Here, it is a self-reference. Back to the main point, this article cannot be written properly because we have no evidence that the elements of a state existed, apart from Attila's personal supremacy. For the rest, we might with equal validity write about a Proto-Indo-European empire or a Comanche empire, both equally and clearly not useful concepts. I am genuinely sorry; I feel sympathy for those who would like such an empire to have existed, and for the sake of consensus I would like to oblige them, but it still isn't a good way to write an encyclopedia. Like Sborsody I remain mildly, but definitely, in favour of a merge and redirect. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

as koertefa states below the book mentioned is CLEARLY not "just a reprint of our article"! & i am left uncertain as to how to assess the above user's comments, since he has chosen to neither retract, nor modify this demonstrably false claim, in >1 month :\ Lx 121 (talk) 14:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

as to the broader question; call it an empire, a state, a domain, whatever. the huns ruled a territory, considerably larger than (& removed from) their "ethnic homeland". they ruled over MANY "subject peoples". they were a significant power in the region for ~ 100 years (with their "peak" during Attila's rule). the "state" is not identical to the "people".

we do, in fact have separate articles discussing the proto-indo-europeans as a people, their language, & their (uncertain) homeland. we have separate articles for the comanche as a people-ethnicity, their language, & the territory they control(led). the analogy is weak however, because, in both of the cited examplees, their domain was more of an "ethnic homeland". the huns left their homeland behind, & conquered & ruled (briefly) over a large, multi-ethnic realm. Lx 121 (talk) 14:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't get it, Richard. What have you meant by "The book that Koertefa found is our article". Do you suggest that the book which has over 100 pages is based on this Wikipedia article, or what? And what have you meant by "printed on demand"? For example, here [6] they say that "available quantity: greater than 10". I am also genuinely sorry, but your private opinion (that the Hunnic state was not an empire) does not really matter (unless you back it up with scientific references), since Wikipedia is no place for original research. As I have already pointed out above, there are 1000s of scientific books that talk about the "Hunnic Empire" [7] or the "Empire of Attila" [8], even though nobody argues with the fact that this empire had a different social and economic structure than, e.g., the Roman Empire. Regarding extending the article: I agree with that, this article should be extended. I argue against the merge since I think that this article can be extended (based on, e.g., the cited book). This, of course, does not necessarily mean that I will be the one who extends it. If this article was merged with the article about the Huns, it would make almost impossible for people with suitable knowledge to improve it. I may agree to put a tag before the article that calls for attention from experts, asks for more citations or we can classify it as a stub, but I strongly oppose the merge. We should give a chance to the article to grow. All the best, Koertefa (talk) 03:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

(unindent) VDM Publishing prints Wikipedia articles. The snippet on Google Books is an old version of our lede. I guess that the other pages are our other articles on the Huns but I really wouldn't recommend that anyone spends money on checking.

whatever the academic merits of the work, or the credentials of the publisher, wikipedia does not have 114 pages of material on "the huns"; even with significant "padding" & many pictures, there is no way the book could possibly be "just a reprint" of wikipedia's "hun" material. unless you are prepared to provide a full copy of the book as proof, the allegation is ridiculous. 14:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC) (signing. i thought i already did, but it seems to have "disappeared"; my bad) Lx 121 (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems pretty obvious to me, but it's not worth arguing about and spending money to find out is definitely something I'll leave to others. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

It is now over five years since an editor suggested that this page duplicated Huns. No significant improvement has happened since then, there is no source material to base any improvement on, and the case for merge-and-delete strikes me as unanswerable. I wonder if we need an outside view? Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, thank you, and I apologize. I did not know that VDM Publishing (and Alphascript Publishing) sells Wikipedia articles in edited volumes. Moreover, they do no have peer reviewing. In this case, this book clearly does not count as a scientific publication and should not be referenced anywhere, especially not here. My fault. Koertefa (talk) 11:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

However the term of "Hunnic Empire" is widely accepted by historians. [9] Moreover If we can talk about ancient African black kingdoms we will have a right to use this word "empire" in connection with Huns. The Comanche example by User:Richard Keatinge was wrong in my opinion, because the historiography uses this term Comanche state (because it was a kind of state, a realm, an empire....) . [10] Fakirbakir (talk) 14:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a book about the "Comanche Empire": [11]Fakirbakir (talk) 14:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Your example does make a point; it degrades the term "empire" to mean "an ethnic group with a vague sense of unity", where the term becomes useless. In no other sense were the Comanches an empire or a state. An article on the "Comanche empire" would make even less sense than this article. I think we need fresh opinion, does anyone want to set up a RfC? Thanks by the way to Koertefa for his graceful remarks. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with asking for a fresh opinion, for example, RfC. I still hold my vote that this article should not be merged. Below, I collect the main arguments for and against merging the "Hunnic Empire" article to the article about the "Huns", in order to make the issue more clear. This may also help to form a third, neutral opinion.

Pros (supporting the merge):

• The article about the Huns already contains all information that this article can offer.
• There is not enough information in the historical records to write a separate article about the Hunnic state.
• This state was short-lived and disintegrated soon after the death of Attila.
• It was not an "empire", there is no evidence of any state mechanisms, administration, etc.

Cons (against the merge):

• There is a difference between state and people, e.g., the Hunnic empire was also inhabited by German tribes, Slavs, etc.
• The "Hunnic Empire" is a well-established scientific term, thousands of scientific publications mention it.
• There are many other articles about short-lived states, even about very-small ones that existed only for a few days.
• It was a nomadic empire: it had a different social and economic structure than classical empires.

Please, feel free to extend or correct the list. Cheers, Koertefa (talk) 04:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, here's my version:

Pros (supporting the merge):

• The article about the Huns already and appropriately contains all information that this article does or can offer, including what little information is known on the development of Hunnic overlordship on the European steppes.
• The unified Hunnic state existed only from 445, when Attila became sole ruler, to Attila's death in 453. His article already and appropriately contains all that can be written about the Hunnic state.
• There is no evidence of any state mechanisms, administration, etc. beyond personal obedience to Attila and therefore almost nothing can be written about a Hunnic state separate from the article on Attila. An article on the "Hunnic empire" can only be redundant - though the title is not meaningless and should redirect to Huns and/or Attila.

Cons (against the merge):

• An "empire" does not need to be a unified state, and by the time the Huns arrived in Europe they had already subjugated Alans, Germans, and others. Despite their political disunity they were in some sense an empire already.
• The realm of Attila fulfilled every necessary criterion of an "empire" even without the organizational mechanisms that settled classical empires possessed; it is a classic example of a nomadic empire.
• The "Hunnic Empire" is a well-established academic term, thousands of academic publications mention it. (I'm not sure that this is true and it would need referencing, with a more precise description of exactly what these publications mean by "Hunnic Empire".)
• There are many other articles about short-lived states, even about very-small ones that existed only for a few days.

Comments? Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You both sum most of the arguments up well. I disagree with the implication in Richard's third pro argument that it wasn't a state. My concern more hinges on the ability of the article to be improved, that not enough material is available: a conclusion of the first two pro arguments. Let's try to solicit for further comments. No one from the Wikiproject Former Countries spoke up. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I have lodged an RfC (see the beginning of this section). Koertefa (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support Merge - Yes, there is a slight distinction between the people (Huns) and the geo-political entity (Hunnic empire). But I've done some looking around, and I think merging would be best for readers of this encyclopedia. My reasons are (1) very few sources discuss the "Hunnic Empire"; (2) those source that do discuss the Hunnic Empire invariably do so within the context of discussing the Huns; and (3) the Huns were nomadic, and the geo-political entity never really had a solid identity. Bottom line: Merging the two would be best for readers of the encyclopedia. --Noleander (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• (here for RfC) Merge to Huns and to Attila article - since as has repeatedly been demonstrated, there is no meaningful entity to which the title refers; and the fact that some modern writers are systematically abusing the term "Empire" (apparently b'cuz it sounds sexy, y'know?) does not justify our contributing to said abuse. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC ended

We have comments. Do we yet have a consensus? Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

In view of the comments above, I propose to delete this page and replace it by a redirect. I'll leave it for a few days to give others an opportunity to comment. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, the RfC has indeed ended, but I am not sure whether we are closer to a solution than before. I am grateful to users Noleander and Orange Mike for taking time to contribute to the discussion, but I do not think that they could come up with anything really new. The only novel thing that we have heared was Noleander's claim that "the Huns were nomadic, and the geo-political entity never really had a solid identity", which I think is simply not true, or at least questionable. I do not see why cannot have nomadic people a solid identity? And even if they could not have, they would still be able to have an empire, wouldn't they? Orange Mike's arguments that "some" modern scholars "abuse" the term "empire" is also not a new argument, we had it before. There are thousands of sources [12] that talk about the "Hunnic Empire", which was a nomadic empire, not a classical one. Since Wikipedia is no place for original research, we should not say that all those authors that use the term "Hunnic Empire" are abusing the word. Therefore, I do not think that we have a consensus, yet. Even if we have received two additional "votes", unfortunately, we have not received significant additional arguments. In my opinion, since we could not reach a consensus (the pro and contra arguments are in some kind of equilibrium), the article should not be redirected. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 05:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The argument is not about the existence of some sort of empire/state. The problem is that we can say almost nothing of it beyond what is already (and better) in other articles, so this article is redundant and requires extra maintenance. How can we achieve consensus? Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

with all due respect, we quite clearly DO NOT have consensus here (& in spite of the VERY long-running merge proposal, there have not been a very large number of participants in this conversation. i am "new" here, myself).

my basic position is that "huns" (as a group of people) belongs in one article, & "territory controlled/conquered by the huns" (during their "period of greatness") belongs in another article. i have no strong emotions on the question of whether to call it an "empire" or not, although that does seem to be the standard terminology; both on wikipedia, & in the historical record ("empire of Attila" etc.).

the arguement about "extra maintenance" is, to me, spurious/irrelevant. the "burden" of maintenance is not significantly greater, whether the material is on one page, or several.

what matters is "what is the best way to arrange the information?"; & "glomming" everything together into "one big article" is not the best option (imho).

as regards the merits of the "empire" article "as-is", & the potential for expansion:

i. the article is more than just a stub (although i would still favour keeping it, even if it were a stub); it does a decent-basic job of describing the "domain" ruled by the huns.

ii. there is significant room for expansion, i.e.: details of territorial changes over time, subject peoples, diplomatic relations, notable personages.

an in-depth piece could consider what information there is about "hunnic rule", more/new archaeological discoveries, etc...

---

returning to the basic question:

among other problems with the "merge" approach (in general), there is an unfortunate tendency for certain articles (or certain parts of certain articles) to get "disappeared" during such "merges"; effectively a deletion-by-merge.

& (again, with all due respect) some of the comments in support of the merge could reasonably be defined as "nnpov"; historical opinionating.

diverse & differing opinions about the significance, nature, etc. of the "hunnic realm" belong on the talk-page for the article (&, when properly written, within the article itself), but do not constitute a legitimate basis for eliminating the article; not when the basic historical facts about the existence & notability of the "hunnic state" are NOT in serious dispute.

the "hunnic empire" (call it what-you-will) existed; it was a VERY important "state" in western eurasia during the late-300s-to-mid-400s AD.

this "state" & the "hunnic people" are 2 clearly distinct & separate subjects-topics-entities; they are closely related, but they are not one-&-the-same.

in the "bigger picture", if we are going to make a significant change in wikipedia practices, as a "general policy"; either a change favouring "all-in-one" mega-articles, OR a change eliminating "empire of-" articles (& presumably merging the material into the relevant "peoples-ethnicity" articles); it should properly be considered in a "general discussion" by the whole community, not here.

therefore, please consider this a respectful oppose merge vote

Lx 121 (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe we have a good consensus either way. Support for the merge is only slightly ahead (and even less so if Lx 121's post-RfC vote is counted). An actual merge would remain controversial. To those who think this article can be improved towards focusing on the subject of the state, please do so. Lx 121 is coming into this discussion _after_ my own attempt to align the article with the state as the subject (Lx 121, the article did not even define "Hunnic Empire" in the introduction, but defined the Huns!). I believe this article actually needs a lot more _stripped out_ of it to become more about the state. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Support. I don't suppose that Wikipedia will collapse because of one redundant article, but this one should focus carefully on what little is known of the development of statehood and its rapid disappearance. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Less known short lived states have own articles(Slovak Soviet Republic, Serbian-Hungarian Baranya-Baja Republic, Carpatho-Ukraine etc...) Hunnic Empire deserves an own page.Fakirbakir (talk) 13:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. The argument isn't about "deserving". It's about whether we can say anything about this empire that doesn't already appear elsewhere. Let's do our best. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

As state of European Huns

Fakirbakir,

I appreciate your good faith edits to improve the article. I think you should be careful when adding in the Xiongnu to the article. I think it is fine to mention the theory of Hun continuity with the Xiongnu, but the _state_ is not contiguous with the Xiongnu state in the east. It was not founded in the 3rd century BC, for example, but sometime in the 4th century AD. The Xiongnu state in the east had a definite end and the Hunnic Empire had a separate beginning. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I have corrected it, partly. Indeed, it was confusing. However I leave the first sentence because the scholar Brook states that: "The original Hunnic Empire was established in inner Asia in the third century BCE by the military commander T'ou-man". Fakirbakir (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Introduction

The Intro to this article seems to have more to do with the Xiongnu Empire (with has its own article), instead of the short-lived empire established under Attila. The link between the Xiongnu (also called Hun-nu) and the Huns is a hotly debated topic still. --chinneeb-talk 05:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Map

Can someone find a map that is very close to this one and doesn't show a capital?