Talk:Attila

Broken Links to be repaired

The link in Primary Sources is broken and should be replaced or removed

Priscus: Byzantine History, available in the original Greek in Ludwig Dindorf : Historici Graeci Minores (Leipzig, Teubner, 1870) and available online as a translation by J.B. Bury: Priscus at the court of Attila http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/texts/priscus.html(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC).

Khan

See Talk:Attila the Hun/Archive_2#Khan. Yaan (talk) 10:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Age

Why can't you guys figure out that he was born in 406 AD? Or am I missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.36.162.114 (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Attila the Hun was born in 406 A.D. and died at age 47 in the year 453 A.D. Erikowalabear (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Roncoferraro

The exact place where Attila meet the pope is Roncoferraro. Nowadays is few kilometers away from the river Tartaro (at that time it was on its banks). And in latin Tartarus is a noun for Tatar. So even toponomy is supportive of this ancient localization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.233.4.163 (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

We don’t know when Attila was born but he died in 453. He ruled from 434 to 453. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.11.252 (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Son of the Valley of the Images

So, we've got a lot of images again, and still, none of them are contemporary. I would suggest that we pick 2-4 for the gallery, use none in the info box, and move the rest to Attila the Hun in popular culture, where we can treat them individually in their own context. Seems like they do not do much for this article. What do you all think? --Nuujinn (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's not get into another edit war regarding the images, please discuss before reverting. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

This definitely isn't worth an edit war, but I'd personally agree with Nuujinn's proposal We have various much-later depictions, demonic or otherwise legendary, which do have a certain interest of their own. But there is nothing contemporary. The File:AttilatheHunonhorsebackbyGeorgeSStuart.jpg, a recent insertion, seems to be a generic representation of a rider in something like nearly-modern Central Asian Turkish costume. This is a personal choice, and thanks to those who supplied the image, but I don't find value in this sort of thing. I too would prefer to have the individually-notable legendary representations in the gallery (I'm not hung up on how many but my own ideas would agree with Nuujinn's), and nothing in the infobox. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I did not mean to give the impression of an edit war. The image was changed after a call for discussion was initiated. What is the real goal here with images? What is meant by contemporary? Do you instead mean contemporaneous? Such an image would be appropriate in the infobox, but I think no such thing exists for Attila so I agree that it would be best to leave the infobox image-free. I do not see much of an issue with other historical depictions placed in appropriate sections if they inform the associated section. Compare, possibly, with Boudica. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 05:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not think anyone intends for this to become an edit war, and perhaps I should have been more cautious in my choice of words. In the past, this article has bseen contention over the images, and I may have overreacted. But it seems that thus far, we're generally in agreement that we don't need an image in the infobox, does anyone object to the removal of same? Also, I think some historical depictions would be fine. Taking the demonized image that appears in the coins, for example, I think one is sufficient, and it would be better still if we could fine some academic discussion of same. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe remove the image from the info-box?

Do any of you think it's a good idea to just simply remove the image from the infobox? There are too many depictions around and maybe it would just be best to leave Attila the Hun up to the imagination of the reader who reads the article? --Iritakamas (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's the best way to go. We've had a lot of contention about what image best represents Attila, but as far as I can determine, no one really knows what he looked like. We do have Attila the Hun in popular culture where most of these would work well, but the infobox is a particularly prominent placement. The coins are nice, but not neutral, and we just don't have any good images to use there. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Though I wonder if it would be okay to put File:AttilatheHunonhorsebackbyGeorgeSStuart.jpg in the Gallery section? --Iritakamas (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't myself, but I also wouldn't revert it if you want to. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

May we please be consistent? the info-box image caption states that it is a medallion. However, the SAME image (cropped to show only the human form) is repeated at the base of the article and having a caption stating that it is a "statue". It is clearly a bas relief and NOT a statue.

Defeated at Châlons???

Attila was Not defeated at the Battle of Châlons. I do not know why we still use a non-historical account of what actually happened.

The battle was for the defense of the Roman Empire. The Roman general Flavius Aëtius and the Visogoth King Theodoric I were to defend Rome.

The outcome of the battle ended with the Visogoth King dead, and the Roman general fired and not allowed lead another Roman army.

In contrast Attila continued to march on a totally undefended Rome.

If Attila was defeated then Flavius Aëtius would have been able to block Attila march on Rome, which he could not because he was defeated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunnish (talk • contribs) 17:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, where to start? The death of an individual, even Theodoric's, is not the same as the outcome of a battle. The Battle of Chalons has been widely accepted by the vast majority of historians as very important in the checking of the Huns in Europe. Attila's armies were stopped, they suffered very heavy casualties, and as a result, Attila, despite repeated attempts (and further destruction), was not able to defeat Rome. If the battle was a stalemate, strategically it was a defeat for Attila, since only a clear victory would have accomplished his purpose. Until the mainstream thought of historical judgement is changed, I'm afraid you'll just have to agree to disagree. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Hunnish, you really don't know what you are talking about. The battle was for the defense of Roman Gaul. Attila intended to defeat the Romans and Visigoths and conquer Gaul. Instead, after the battle he marched his army in the opposite direction and withdrew his army back across the Rhine. He never returned to Gaul. He made a bold move and invaded Italy, but his losses from the battle, Aetius' harrassment, and possible plague made him unable to march on Rome. Why did you say he marched on Rome? He actually left Italy, never to return, having only pillaged the north. Read a book.--Tataryn77 (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Tataryn, can you provide citations for the material you've recently added? --Nuujinn (talk) 20:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

What new material? I simply made the intro more cohesive by using info already there and info from the article. If I added anything controversial let me know. The intro had no citations to begin with so should we erase the entire introduction?--Tataryn77 (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I think you may be misunderstanding me. You appear to be familiar with the material, so my question was a simple one--ledes that are high level summaries certainly do not require citations, but I think they are a good idea in a lede that is this specific. I personally don't think the lede should be so specific, but if it is, some citations to the sources of the individual statements would be advantageous to readers. Extra eyes are certainly welcome here. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Considering that Finnish people, Estonians, and Hungarians speak the language Atilla spoke which is why they speak Turkic languages so far from Mongolia, we can get a little picture of what Atilla's borders were with the visigoths and the ostrogoths. Hungarians are an ethnic mix of Romans and Huns and Avars (also Turkic people) that still speak a version of Atilla's Turkic Hun language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.49.180 (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The Hungarians are Magyars, and their language is not Turkic, neither is Finnish or Estonian. I wish you'd quit going around sprinkling Talk Pages with Turkish-nationalism myths. Enough. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The legend of Attila as the archetype of barbarian cruelty and terror?

The article is historical but it never discusses the fact that Attila remains today the archetype of the relentless vicious conqueror or who took what he wanted when he wanted and destroyed everything promiscuously. The legend alone is worth discussion, but also the question of its historical basis. Docnixon (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Greg Nixon

I think the description of Attila's military attacks is ample evidence of his wanton destruction for personal gain for he and his legions. If the article accurately reflects history, no one will come away with a wrong impression of him. His raids were for plunder and (apparently) destructive out of sheer sadism; he didn't replace 'conquered' territorial gov'ts with anything constructive, and his deeds were simply the acts of an uncivilized barbarian taking advantage of an old, highly civilized state in decline. HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Hitler was 100 times more barbarian than Attila .if you don't consider hitler s actions as barbaric then you cannot consider Attila as a barbarian at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.251.97.247 (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Hunnic empire map is wrong

we need to reopen this article, the map of the empire in orange are all wrong, we ned to use this map

The Western Hunnic Empire stretched from the steppes of Central Asia into modern Germany, and from the Black Sea to the Baltic Sea.

its the same map we use in the Hun empire article. The reason for this is that the current map shows Denmark and Angel-Saxony in Germany as parts of the empire, and those areas were never a part of it, i know, i am from Denmark and there are no records of huns in Danish history, no conflicts. So please insert the map we use in the Hun empire article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.108.76 (talk) 11:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

done, anyone able to cite Huns in denmark/angel-saxony please revert my edit :) EdwardLane (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll definitely argue with you on these facts. The Estonians and Finnish speak Turkic languages, languages that they speak because of Atilla's Turkic language far from the Mongolian homeland. You might have erased a bit of history, however, the Turkic language of the Estonians and Fins gives me a different picture from what you're telling me.

Looking at the map and considering that Finnish people speak a Turkic language of Atilla, you are leaving out a very big chunk of Atilla's empire. I can see that at the very least least the borders were all of finland, all of estonia, and all of Hungary. I can't see that the Huns would take all of Finland and never even land in Denmark though. The question is, how much deeper were the Huns prior to the retreat or withdrawal?---NODI

Utter rubbish - Finnish and Estonian are not related to Turkic. Please leave pan-Turkic nationalism at the door, and see the Wiki articles on these languages. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Idiotic, when hitler takes over estonia and scandinavia , you consider him as a hero but when scientists mention the turkic language of huns or eastern scandinavians , you call them pan-Turkic nationalists. wow just WOOW . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.251.97.247 (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Only a fool would consider Hitler a "hero" - not sure what point you are trying to make with that sort of crazy-talk - but, Estonian and Finnish are Uralic languages totally unrelated to Turkic, and NO reputable linguist considers that they, or Magyar for that matter, are related to any Turkish language. HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

A good question - all the borders are fairly speculative though we know that Attila regarded the north bank of the Danube as his, with most of the Germanic tribes at the Danube end of their range and a fair chunk of steppe. I don't think that there is any scholarly consensus on anything else. Nobody was drawing maps at that time and place. And we don't really know what language the Huns spoke, though it may well have been Turkic, which the Uralic languages are not. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Huns-1-.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Huns-1-.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Toroklevi, 7 September 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Helo

The true abouth Attila, is not complet. He was the king of Hun Empire and not a ruler. In all cronicels (Cronica Pictata ; Thuroczi Cronicle ; Anonymus: Gesta Hungarorum)it wroten down in latin like this :" regis Atila; Atyla regis ".

Thank you. Levente

Toroklevi (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand your request; can you explain more? Thanks,  Chzz  ►  01:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I think Levente wishes us to describe Attila as "King" of the Huns not "just" the "ruler" - I think it's covered under 'shared kingship'. I'm not clear at what point to distinguish between defacto ruler and King, so I'm not making any change. EdwardLane (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Clothing versus heavy metal

I'm sorry to revert your change, and I'm not trying to argue the relative importance of clothing versus heavy metal. But we do need the clothing link because it's a redirect from a correct spelling of the clothing (and common mis-spelling of A the H}. And the metal band is covered already by the disambiguation link; its inclusion could also be argued to be an example of undesirable WP:Recentism. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Possible Iconography?

I found that The White Stag, a children's book, chronicles (fictionally) some of the ancestry of Attila. Not certain it's worth including on the page here, but thought I'd mention it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicahElliott (talk • contribs) 03:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Attila the Hun in popular culture would be more appropriate. It already has mention of this work. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

77.58.128.113 (talk) 11:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)== ETYMOLOGY OF THE WORD "ATTILA" ==

In Turkish the word "At" means "horse" and "ile" means "together with". Also, "Itil" (volga) river and "li" (from), makes Itil+li, "From Itil". I dare suggest tthat the word "Attila" is derived from these words and conveys the meaning of somebody being incessantly on the back of a horse. This description of Attila coincides with the picture conveyed to us by his contemporary chronographers who describe him as a man who would not dismount even when entering places of worship in the areas overrun by his hordes. Maenchen-Helfer's etymological version that the word "ATTILA" comes from the Gothic word "ATTA" meaning "father" and the Latin diminutive suffix "-ila" is far-fetched. It is true that "ATTA" means "father" not only in Gothic but also in Latin and in Homeric Greek (see Iliad 9. 607 and Odyssey 16. 31). However, I think that the explanation is rather influenced by the manner the Russian tsars liked to be addressed by their subjects, ie "Little Father". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.228.112.94 (talk) 07:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read our policy on Original research and Reliable sources. This is NOT a forum or a blog, and what etymologies you may propose or suggest (as a wikipedia editor), or what you may think about the ones that have already been proposed by published authors, is not only completely irrelevant to our work here, but also, it is permissible to delete such original conjecture and speculation from this talk page. So please, stick to what can be found in sources, and don't use this page as a platform to premiere new ideas of your own. (On the other hand, if you get your own blog or forum somewhere else, you can do whatever you like there) Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

INCORRECT TERMINOLOGY

It is a fact that during the 5th century AD the Asian invaders moving westwards found Europe divided into factions and unable to defend itself against their highly mobile and ruthless hordes. The relative ease with which these marauders entered land after land is indicative of the prevailing divisions of Europe but also a proof of the barbarity, ferocity and brutality of the invaders. They spared no soul and showed no mercy or respect to achievements of human civilisation, because they were incapable of appreciating anything save only what they could plunder. The infamous chief of the Huns, Attila, often bragged that wherever his horse had trotten not even grass was capable of growing. For a period, Europe was, indeed, at the disposal of these uncivilised tribes for the purposes of plundering and looting. To talk , however, of the establishment of a Hunnic Empire it is rather stretching the truth. The creation of an empire entails the setting up of a civil administration and the establishment of a military structure for the defence of its subjects, which was not the case with the Huns. Instead the so-called Hunic Empire had a vast land at the disposal of bandits who enjoyed the liberty of moving across it for the purpose plunder. It would correspond to naming today an area ravaged by the Mob as "Mafia Empire". This of course can be done only as a figure of speech but not as information for historical reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.228.112.94 (talk) 13:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to add that "ATA" is also father in (all) Turkic languages and "il" means "city" in Turkic languages. Furthermore, it is a strong hypothesis that Huns came from Xiongnu, which is also believed to the be area from where Turkic people originated.

Answer to SineBot: History is usually biased. Rarely people say good things about their conquerors.77.58.128.113 (talk) 11:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Difference between Hunnic and Hunnish?

So I've always knew it as Hunnic. But then I see this article trading off between Hunnish and Hunnic. A quick search of google has Hunnic showing up in thefreedictionary.com as the first hit. However Hunnic's dictionary entry shows up about 6 hits down and it is merriam webster saying that Hunnic doesn't show up in their dictionary :/ . So I move to Change all Hunnic instances to Hunnish to bring consistency to this article. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 06:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 November 2012

Hello, and Hi

91.208.4.26 (talk) 10:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: - no edit requested. Begoon ^talk 12:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

. In c 406 attila was born his nickname was flagellumdei he was born in c 406 and his father was mundzuk.attila was the king of the huns attila invaded Italy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.211.46.201 (talk) 00:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Attila The Hun

If he's more frequently refered to as Attila The Hun, as it states in the first line, shouldn't that be the title of the article? VenomousConcept (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

edit request --- character and appearance

Another second hand source of Attila's character and appearance survives from the Bishop Kalan of Pecs who wrote a history of Attila in 1197...He apparently also read Priscus's first hand account history and meeting with Attila before it was lost, he quotes both Priscus and Jordanes

"Yet, Attila, as Iordanes and the aforementioned Priscus the historian narrate, was a king of proud gait, rolling his eyes hither and thither; he was such an arrogant in all his matters, that his boastful pride could be recognized even by some stranger from his body gestures. And even if indeed he was a warlike, he was also circumspect in judgment and temperance, utterly sagacious in character, gracious and easily entreated to those whom he once admitted to his protection. If however someone proved his trust void, he would never show mercy; for he detested, like savage beasts, those who systematically attempted to deceive either him the conqueror or the fatherland with any trick. He had short body, but almost proper stature, broad chest, large head; his eyes were small, his ears long and sharp, his hair shaggy and rough, so it was commonly called doggish by everybody; his beard was thin, but hanging down according to his habit, and also sprinkled with gray hair; he was snub-nosed, ruddy in color, his manners were savage; he was prone to bold actions, and showing the signs and characteristics of his true origin; he had small mouth, but broad lips, with one of his teeth, which was protruding, creating a slight deformity to his face more than is right." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.8.40.121 (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

If you can provide reliable sources of the quote, the execution of the edit request will be possible. FonsScientiae (talk) 05:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been out of country for a while....Hello Fonscientiae, you must of missed this part of my text.."Bishop Kalan of Pecs who wrote a history of Attila in 1197...he quotes both Priscus and Jordanes" If you are looking for an online version, there are none. It is still in it's original Latin form. There is a 15th century copy, Ms. Codex 67 - Ragone, Jacopo - [Regulae artificialis memoriae] : Istoria Attile Hunnorum regis at UPenn, Permanent Link: http://hdl.library.upenn.edu/1017/d/medren/1473941. I have a english translation but it has not been peer reviewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.79.70 (talk) 07:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The only thing it seems to add to what we have from Priscus and Jordanes is poor translation ("doggish") by the good bishop. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Herwig Wolfram ref`

Hello, I have reverted this edit because this data is located in the source that is present with this sentence. How did you concluded that this data is not in the source? Please check this source where it states: The description of Attila by an eyewitness confirms his Asian origin and etc... you can see it in the source the whole text. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 12:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I was referring to the original quotation from Priscus (through Jordanes). The description of the author of what appearance may resemble as Asian is way too subjective and broad, and cannot be extrapolated from the original source from Priscus. Another source describes - based on the same description of Attila by Priscus - the Huns as most closely related to other nomadic steppe peoples who lived in the same area at similar time: [Huns] were closely related to ‘Altai’ horseback nations like the Scythians, Sarmatians, and Alans — who preceded the Huns — and the Bulgars, Avars, Chasars, Magyars, Turks, and Mongols — who all would play a significant part on the border of Europe and Asia after the Huns. Jordanes describes [Attila] as a small but broad man, with a large head, small eyes, a partly grey, thin beard, a flat nose, and tanned skin. Contemporary authors frequently denote the Huns with “Scythians”, mainly because the Huns inhabited the former Scythian area, but maybe also because they resembled the Scythians. It's plausible that, as far as culture and appearance are concerned, the Scythians and Huns didn't differ that much. source FonsScientiae (talk) 05:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

While I appreciate Adrian's point and his reference, per FonsScientiae I suggest that we should omit secondary speculation not found in the primary sources. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure if this info should be omitted, but if you 2 think so then I guess it can be done. Adrian (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Typo on the medal and Latin text under it

The medal has a "typo" in it, and so does the text under it. Flagellum is spelled/spelt as flagelum, which is wrong. I think that should be noted in that box. At least it bit me. I have copied the text from there (not knowing that it is incorrect). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.172.169.86 (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Story of Attila in headlines

Hi:

What I read about Attila was this:

Attila was born in Kyiv ("Kiev" in Russian Language) and was named in translation from Ukrainian/Old Slavic "Gattylo" meaning: "one who hits strong as with a large log". There was a story when he was young and cleared a few saddlers, who attacked him, from horses with a few swings of his "dowbnyia" - log. So from this verb (actual Ukrainian word pronounced as "gatyty" - to hit hard) and his giant stature, he was named Gattylo - and the accent of other nations pronounced him Attila, including English. While this might not be important, what is important is that Attila was born in the Great Kyiv, and was a son to a tsar, went out to steppes of Tatars and Mongols and won big victory there and, then he went west to the other side of Carpathian Mountains all the way to Rome, and did not take the Rome not because he could not, but because of negotiation between Attila's army and Romans, war did not occur. I do not remember clearly and do not have the chance to review the book; though, as far as I remember, Attila with his army lost many soldiers at Constantinople; though, was not defeated and did not loose the battle.

I think this, maybe reworded, should be in the head passage about Attila on the Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mops 11 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it should. All we need is to demonstrate a consensus among reliable sources. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Czech point of view.

http://geolib.geology.cz/cgi-bin/gw?ST=03&SID=0039F9ACDA&L=02&KDE=037&RET=Raman+spectroscopic+provenance+determination+of+garnets+from+the+scramasaxe+scabbard+%28The+treasure+of+Barbarian+Prince+from+C%C3%A9zavy%2DBlu%C4%8Dina%2C+Czech+Republic%2C+late+5th+century%29%2E+%5C%5CRIV%2F00023272%3A%5F%5F%5F%5F%5F%2F09%3A%230000893%5C

http://templ.net/english/texts-sword_from_blucina.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu%C4%8Dina_burial Good day, my written English is not the best. So can someone please update this Atila the Hun. This is the only atifact that I know about that dates from Atilla the Hun, and the AVAR period 5th to 8th Centry. It is located 8kn from Brno Moravia. No aritfacts have ever been found on Bohemian soil to my knowledge. But maybe someone should read history more carefully. Because I am far from an expert. But didn't Atilla the Hun and the later Avar's first enter Europe through the Silk road to raid the Roman Empire. It's written in Latin and Greek but there are many citie's and rivers named. None are on todays Czech Lands, http://www.cs-magazin.com/index.php?a=a2011021048 . The rivers named are the Volga, Rhina, Danube. Also the chronicle of fredegar "slavic" "Befulci" can mean many things page 149 here: http://www.ffzg.unizg.hr/arheo/ska/tekstovi/fredegar_paul.pdf :https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/api/datastream?publicationPid=uk-ac-man-scw:1m1955&datastreamId=POST-PEER-REVIEW-PUBLISHERS-DOCUMENT.PDF or even google:define:Benfulci. If anyone can help in updating I will be greatfull. Casurgis from Sydney — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.0.254 (talk) 04:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

This is interesting, may I suggest that you add further details to Blučina burial where the sword is clearly relevant? Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources --- edit request

First there are no primary sources regarding Attila.

What you read today is fragments and quotes of Priscus's writtings. The primary sources you quote are very misleading. Both Dindorf's and Bury's comes from other historians and from the books De Ceremoniis, De Administrando Imperio, De Legationibus Romanorum written by Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos in the 10th century. He copied some of Priscus's writtings, and wrote the books so his son would know how to rule the empire. "Priscus at the court of Attila" is directly from these books.

As to Jordanes, what you see today is not the original writtings, It was heavily modified from it's orginal version in 11/12 century. As an example the battle of Catalaunum fields aka, Chalons,was originally the Mauriacian fields. But the Bishop in charge of modifying Jordanes just happened to come from Chalons. There is only one 8th century version of Jordanes still in existance.

R.C. Blockley, in his Fragmentary Classicising Historians of the Later Roman Empire: Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus and Malchus, explains this very well. If any source on Attila is considered it should be Blockley's translations, who clearly tells were the fragment and qoute comes from.

But none are primary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.79.70 (talk) 09:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Categorization as Turkic

I've just reverted my last overenthusiastic edit, but there is no scholarly consensus that Attila's Huns "were" Turkic, though something related is certainly a possibility. We don't need to make these confident statements. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. There is no scholarly consensus that the Huns were Turkic. I believe you will find that this "new" editor Erim Turukku[1] is actually user:EMr_KnG[2], who was previously pushing a Turkic/Turkish POV over numerous articles. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request - Bad Source - Sarcouhagus

I can't fix this because it's semi-protected, but the latest revision " 20:14, 26 March 2014‎ Esprix (talk | contribs)‎ . . (48,134 bytes) (+252)‎ . . (→‎Invasion of Italy and death: Added reference to discovery of grave)" and it's reference to the finding of the tomb is from the world news daily report, an unlabeled satirical source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.1.81.178 (talk)

I am an inexperienced editor, so I am hoping a more experienced one will see this. There is a reference to and citation of an article about his grave. It is citing a single news source, World News Daily, that is a known tabloid type site that fabricates stories. No other credible news agency has mentioned the grave being found. It would be globally significant news. Wildwose (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Location of Death Discovery/False

The tenth paragraph under Invasion of Italy and death reports a false citation from known satire news agency World News Daily Report. To date, discovery of tomb is unknown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelLux (talk • contribs) 22:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2014

Neonoir99 (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Chech Republic was part of Germania Magna. Look at Potlemys maps no cites or rivers are named.

http://geolib.geology.cz/cgi-bin/gw?ST=03&SID=0039F9ACDA&L=02&KDE=037&RET=Raman+spectroscopic+provenance+determination+of+garnets+from+the+scramasaxe+scabbard+%28The+treasure+of+Barbarian+Prince+from+C%C3%A9zavy%2DBlu%C4%8Dina%2C+Czech+Republic%2C+late+5th+century%29%2E+%5C%5CRIV%2F00023272%3A%5F%5F%5F%5F%5F%2F09%3A%230000893%5C

http://templ.net/english/texts-sword_from_blucina.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu%C4%8Dina_burial Good day, my written English is not the best. So can someone please update the so called Migration Period. This is the only artifact known that dates from Atilla the Hun, and the AVAR period 5th to 8th Century (Blucina Sword note German man). It is located 8km from Brno Moravia. No aritfacts have ever been found on Bohemian soil to the best of my knowledge. But maybe someone should read history more carefully. Because I am far from an expert. But didn't Atilla the Hun and the later Avar's first enter Europe through the Silk road to raid the Roman Empire. Documents at the time were written in Latin and Greek and many citie's and rivers named. None of these are on todays Czech Republic's Lands. http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/photo-gallery-ptolemy-s-geography-fotostrecke-59994-2.html , http://www.cs-magazin.com/index.php?a=a2011021048 . The rivers named are the Volga, Rhina, Danube. Also the "Chronicle of Fredegar" "slavic" "Befulci" can mean many things page 149 here: http://www.ffzg.unizg.hr/arheo/ska/tekstovi/fredegar_paul.pdf :https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/api/datastream?publicationPid=uk-ac-man-scw:1m1955&datastreamId=POST-PEER-REVIEW-PUBLISHERS-DOCUMENT.PDF or even google:define:Benfulci. If anyone can help in updating I will be greatful. Casurgis from Sydney — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.12.8 (talk) 01:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)