Talk:Attila/Archive 5

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2017
{{subst:trim|

Hun Hawn Khan-kubla tamogin hawn-to understand this kids herds inspect the water of the other tribe---key word for mother missing i use Tam-o-gin---kubla hun   Tam-o-gin hawn---reference river sticks ancient greeksits child water herdsone way to gather information of other tribes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.164.198.85 (talk • contribs)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  15:59, 4 February 2017 (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 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)

Actually there are many credible researchers and scientists that have determined that the Magyar language is related to the Turkic language...not necessarily Turkish as you put it (there is a philosophical difference) i.e Gyula Laszlo, Makkay Janos, Kiszely. Research on a limited source from a western point of view has always been the influence from a political side of the effects in certain text books. The language and linguistic research hypothesis of the related peoples of the Turkic branch in history has been many times erroneously "adjusted" based on political point of view outside of the affect people's agreement and many times dictated and accepted only based on the strength of the current dominant countries and not on proper research methods and historic documentation. Politics is NOT a good influence on science. Sources based on non-Turkic and non-Asian and non-Mongol and non-Magyar and non-Finnish is always only half or less than half of the story since politics of the stronger influencing country can and does influence the "accepted" or "not accepted" pieces of research as relevant or not. If you were to read and dive into more sources written from countries and peoples that are directly affected by the theories, then you would have a better picture and a more complete thread. It always amazes me when people will take the most influential nations research over the host nations research representatives. Regards... "an observer" 16:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, there are not - only nationalists with revisionist views trying to promote pan-Turkic nonsense.104.169.28.35 (talk) 06:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Primary sources --- edit request
First there are no primary sources regarding Attila.
 * Of course there are - what rot. You apparently don't understand what 'primary source' refers to.  Good God.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.28.35 (talk) 06:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

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)

Origin?
I think its better if we put Attila’s and the Hun’s origins of “coming from the Eurasian steppes” since its still debatable if they actually are Xiongnu or Turcik origin (like it is said in the Huns page) Godzilladude123 (talk) 06:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Attila. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140221065932/http://www29.homepage.villanova.edu/christopher.haas/embassy.htm to http://www29.homepage.villanova.edu/christopher.haas/embassy.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit request - Could someone go in and rewrite all the blatantly ungrammatical sentences?
Because the article is locked, I can't correct horrendously ungrammatical sentences like this one: "Only credible Germanic etymology have Attila's blood relative Laudaricus, and certain Hun-Goth Ragnaris."--74.103.157.38 (talk) 09:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Heh. I just did, without having seen this comment. But see, below. --Thnidu (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

List-defined references
I have moved all the references out of the body of text and into the "Notes" section. This organizes the references alphabetically be reference name, reduces clutter in the article text, and allows for easily specifying the page number(s) being cited. While not all references are used multiple times, it is much shorter to put a named reference in the text than cluttering it up with the entire citation and making editing the actual article text more difficult.

Instructions for the list are in a comment in the "Notes" section. For more information about List-based references, please see Help:List-defined references.

To insert a footnote in the text, use the r template. This is an abbreviation for, where   is the equivalent of.

To specify a page number or numbers, add  to the footnote, as.

The resulting display will show the footnote in brackets followed by the page number: [4]:182–183. This indicates pages 182–183 of Jordanes; subsequent notes cite different pages, as in [4]:254–259.

This took a massive amount of time to do and this is the second time I have done this. Please do not revert these changes without discussion here first. Wikipedia encourages a single method of citation within an article, my edits have accomplished that and eliminated the mixture of inline citations, short footnotes, and reference pages (rp); choosing the list-based method with utilization of the r template to further shorten text disruption and adding the  to indicate page number(s).

Thanks.&mdash; D'Ranged 1  VTalk  08:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Comparisons of what an editor sees
Note that an editor sees when using list-defined references (LDRs) is much different. Here's a paragraph before switching to LDRs: Otto J. Maenchen-Helfen considered an East Germanic origin; Attila is formed from Gothic or Gepidic noun atta, "father", by means of the diminutive suffix -ila, meaning "little father". The Gothic etymology can be tracked up to Jacob Grimm and Wilhelm Grimm in the early 19th century. Maenchen-Helfen noted that Hunnic names were "not the true names of the Hun princes and lords. What we have are Hunnic names in Germanic dress, modified to fit the Gothic tongue, or popular Gothic etymologies, or both". Peter Heather, who strongly considered Germanic etymology of the name Attila and some of noble Huns, stated that the possibility Attila was of Germanic ancestry cannot be ruled out. The names of Attila's brother Bleda, and most powerful minister Onegesius, also have hypothetical Germanic etymology. Only credible Germanic etymology have Attila's blood relative Laudaricus, and certain Hun-Goth Ragnaris. Here is the same paragraph after the change: Otto J. Maenchen-Helfen considered an East Germanic origin; Attila is formed from Gothic or Gepidic noun atta, "father", by means of the diminutive suffix -ila, meaning "little father". The Gothic etymology can be tracked up to Jacob Grimm and Wilhelm Grimm in the early 19th century. Maenchen-Helfen noted that Hunnic names were "not the true names of the Hun princes and lords. What we have are Hunnic names in Germanic dress, modified to fit the Gothic tongue, or popular Gothic etymologies, or both". Peter Heather, who strongly considered Germanic etymology of the name Attila and some of noble Huns, stated that the possibility Attila was of Germanic ancestry cannot be ruled out. The names of Attila's brother Bleda, and most powerful minister Onegesius, also have hypothetical Germanic etymology. Only credible Germanic etymology have Attila's blood relative Laudaricus, and certain Hun-Goth Ragnaris. Using LDRs makes what the editor sees a little longer than what a reader of the article is seeing, but not by much. It is much easier to spot syntax and other grammatical errors when one doesn't have to wade through many lines of coding for a reference. It is an adjustment, granted. One thing I have found helpful is to open the article for editing in two separate windows, with the first window editing the article itself, and the second window editing the Notes section. That way, I can easily add the actual reference to the Notes section and insert the shortened LDR code in the article itself. It's best to save the window with the Notes section first, then the window with the article. Regardless of which order you do it in, there will be errors displayed after saving the first of the two windows, but they should disappear once you save both. I'm happy to answer questions! &mdash; D'Ranged 1 &#124;  VTalk  :  13:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I do a lot of editing, mostly on a smartphone, where the problem is even worse than on a desktop. --Thnidu (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2017 (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 &thinsp; 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)


 * In case anyone cares, flagellum dei is Latin for "whip of God", which seems quite unlikely as a child's nickname, but reasonable for a warlord such as the adult Attila. But this is no good for the page without a reference to a reliable source. --Thnidu (talk) 15:44, 4 December 2017 (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)


 * Not necessary. Attila The Hun already redirects here, and nobody else famous is called "Attila". --Thnidu (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Attila the Hun
I can see no discussion here about the name, but it is indef move protected. Does anyone know why? Attila the Hun is what he is essentially always referred to as. Putting just 'Attila' is unsightly and unseeemingly. It's probably on some level trying to be historically accurate, but that is certainly no excuse. This is weird. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ  14:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Already discussed. See, above. --Thnidu (talk) 16:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Gerd Althoff
In the section etymology it says: "Gerd Althoff considered it was related to Turkish atli (horseman, cavalier), or Turkish at (horse) and dil (tongue).[12]" I immediately checked this out, as Gerd Althoff is not known as a linguist. The source cited actually refers to an "H. Althof," with one f. This should be corrected.2601:85:C202:150:7D45:F0CD:99F9:2357 (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I fixed this.Ermenrich (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

---* WARNING ! * ---
At the page of Attila, section of Etymology : "

The origin of the name "Attila" is unclear, and there is no consensus among scholars.[10]:177

Otto J. Maenchen-Helfen considered an East Germanic origin; Attila is formed from the Gothic or Gepidic noun atta, "father", by means of the diminutive suffix -ila,[11]:386 "

Otto, pointed this idea under the " Germanized and Germanic names" topic of his book. Then he pointed about Turkish (which is wrong, correct is Turkic) etymologies.

"Atta" or "ata" is common word also in Turkic. Its not specific source

You have to change priority of claims under that section ! Turkic ones have to be at first. You canalizing people to wrong ..

Its the request of logic.

PS: Im not a nationalist. So dont move on nationalist ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.0.32.233 (talk) 11:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You've failed to explain why we should give priority to Turkic origins. Because some people think the Huns were Turkic-speaking? Reliable sources are divided on the origin, Wikipedia reflects that. Also, why would any nation want to claim Attila the Hun? It never would've occurred to me that someone would want him to be Turkic for nationalist reasons, as you say.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a sock of blocked User:PavelStaykov, vandalizing multiple articles.Jingiby (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

We should give priority to Turkic because ,

1) All Hunnic dynasty personal names can be explainable as Turkic, you cant explain all of them in Germanic or Mongolian or Iranian.

2) Geographical names : Ptolemy had called Ural River Δάϊκος (Daïkos) in the 2nd century ad. Its Turkic, translation as "Jajyk" . If you have more geographical names that wroten by this time and to refers* to Huns , tell us so we can research.

3) Huns came from Western Asia (not East Europe), so they cant be Germanic . Its so simply. So you have to compare Turkic , Iranian and Mongolian. Mongolian cant be because they were at East of Mongolia during this time. Iranian cant be because you cant read all Hunnic dynasty as Iranian etc.

4) Most of academians refers Huns and Attila as Turkic. Go and research . There are so much academical sources.

-- A nation want to claim Attila the Hun because he is so popular. Thats simply.. And people want to claim their history to more older. Im claiming because we have to show the truth to people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.0.32.233 (talk) 08:36, 11 July 2018 (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)
 * That's a personal definition of 'empire' and won't hold up in court, sorry.104.169.28.35 (talk) 06:42, 25 June 2017 (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)
 * There is no "SineBot" - that text refers to the programming bot. And history is never "biased" - nationalist historians are biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas.W (talk • contribs) 12:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Problem with citations
Many of the citations are written incorrectly in this manner: [9]:386–387

Page numbers are supposed to be included in the form used for references. These should be fixed. Thank you. Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 03:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * All "Notes" and "References" ie. citations are not made most clearly, it should be more simple and reasonable. Will work on it.--Crovata (talk) 18:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Per Citing sources, it is perfectly acceptable to use the rp template to add page numbers to a reference so as to not repeat the entire citation every time the page number(s) being cited changes. In the illustration given, pages 386–387 of the source at [9] are being referenced.&mdash; D'Ranged 1  VTalk  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas.W (talk • contribs) 12:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Attila as Roman hostage in Early life section
The "Early life" section is much more about the Huns rather than Attila. An important event is that in 418 as part of a peace treaty between the Romans and the Huns Attila was sent to Ravenna, to Honrius' court as a child hostage and spent his teenage years there. As part of a hostage exchange deal,the Huns received Flavius Aetius. This is important because obviously Attila had the chance to learn the Roman language, culture and warfare. Kolorado (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's an incredible stretch of imagination. That a central Asian turkic-speaker would be able to learn Latin in so short a time - an Indo-European language far, far removed from Turkic - would only be possible if he were some sort of savant. Being exposed to culture is not the same as learning it, and his later actions were those of a murdering, destructive megalomaniac steppe-barbarian - not even a veneer of civilization or Mediterranean culture appears to have been acquired. Nor have I any historical RS that states anything like that. 50.111.3.227 (talk) 02:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Khan
See Talk:Attila the Hun/Archive_2. Yaan (talk) 10:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC) hun, han, khan, xan, xander, alexander. they're all titles. meaning "protector of it's peoples".89.205.59.148 (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Utter rubbish.50.111.3.227 (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2018 (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)
 * No. No, no, no. Tartarus was the Greco-Roman term for a sort of 'hell' - in the Middle Ages, the Mongols were called "Tartars" by Europeans because they were thought to have come from hell. The strange coincidence of the east-Asian tribe "Tatar" is just one of those things. Apparently, the Tatars were not Mongolic speakers. Not that it is relevant, because this all took place over six centuries before the formation of the Tatars or the Mongols.50.111.3.227 (talk) 02:33, 29 December 2018 (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)

100% Mongolian origin
He was of Mongolian originin, very similar to Central Asia, not East Asia. Central Asia, especially Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russian Far East especially Buryats, Yakut, etc. do look the same. Because the Huns in Western campaign had moveable yurts (with wheels)which Turkic people never had, because the Huns sang urtiin duu (song especially in todays Mongolia) also epic poems and their religion was Tengri(sm). They were from todays territory of Mongolia (including Inner Mongolia, Buryatia) there is historically, geographyically strong evidence, which some scientists would not like to see. Also through thousands years of history, Mongolians (=Huns, Xianbei, Rouran, Avar depending on century) were elites in most of their outer campaigns. Because of their sparse population (then and now) Mongolians were never the majority only the rulers, elites. Seeing only the majority of mercenaries, warriors, slaves which were in fact ousiders, leads to the problem of heterogenity.The elites were homogen, the infantry heterogen.

Evidence for Attila as an Central Asian especially coming from the territory of present Mongolia: - appearance - burial ceremony - moveable yurts with wheels (only Mongols, not Turkic people) - Huns sang typically mongolian Long song=urtiin duu(only in Mongolia) - language - war tools/marks (like Tug banner=tug (same in Mongolia tug= туг)) - religion (=tengrism) - etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.166.242 (talk) 11:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If he was of Mongolian stock, then he'd be "east Asian," not central Asia - which would indicate a Turkic or Scythian/Sarmatian origin - considering the ancient sources description of his physical characteristics, in general he doesn't sound much like an Iranian, so central-Asian Turkic ancestry seems likely. "East Asian" would also lean towards the Huns being a branch of the Hsiung-Nu, and that is still being debated.50.111.3.227 (talk) 02:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

"Some modern scholars have suggested that this description is typically East Asian"

"Short of stature, with a broad chest and a large head; his eyes were small, his beard thin and sprinkled with grey; and he had a flat nose and tanned skin, showing evidence of his origin."

Broad chests are not associated with people of Asian origin at all. A lot of Asians, especially East Asians also have pale complexions, not 'tanned skin'. It seems more probable that he's a mix of Turkish and Asian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.10.150 (talk) 03:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Broad chest exists in every race and ethnic group. It is extremely common characteristic to find Mongoloids/East Asian with broad chest but the same goes with every other race, the only difference is the Asians with broad chests are usually skinny and smaller on average otherwise the shape of the chests are all the same. Tanned skin is also very common in Mongolian, Tibetan, Chinese, and also in many Koreans, Japanese and many Turkic Siberian tribes.  We don't know for sure what he looked like.  We don't know for sure if he's Mongoloid, mix race, Caucasoid. What we do know the description easily fits the profile of Mongolian and East Asian, or Siberian Turkic people like Yakuts, Tuvan. Or maybe  mix of Turkish and Asian like you say like a Central Asian Turks, however despite Kazakhs, Kyrgy strong East Asian appearance they also have really big and long noses, very long beard growth, and usually just as tall as Caucasian on average, they also have much thicker and bigger broad chests.  Although some of them do have flat noses and especially many small eyes they fit nowhere close the combination of Attila's physical traits, is basically all very complicated. Is not even known for sure if they were Turkic and many scholars to this day still claim original Turks were Mongoloid and that Caucasian Turks were the result of Turkification and admixture with Mongoloid Turks.   So the truth is still a miles away from ever uncovering. Spiritclaymore (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe it is pointless to further speculate and argue about Attila's appearance and ethnic origin beyond the description provided by Priscus. I personally believe that the description could fit people of very different geographical origins. Whether he had East Asian or Western Asian origin, or was of mixed origin is beyond what we know and I do not think we should included anything speculative in the article. 147.129.136.33 (talk) 06:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Goth are the same as Geths / Dacians. So Attila it is Thraco - Scythian origin. There are plenty clues for that. Please state your view over it:
Goth are the same as Geths / Dacians. So Attila it is Thraco - Scythian origin. There are plenty clues for that. Please state your view over it. There are plenty sources which name Attila and the Huns as Scythians. In other sources, the Bulgarians were called "huns" or in some - "scythians". About the Gothic connection - the goths alone, were inhibiting Thace, and Moesia. The both sides of Danube. The most relevent modern people connected tohe--87.126.0.66 (talk) 11:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, my ... the pain. Goths were Germanic, and the Dacians most certainly were not.50.111.3.227 (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Attila's image
The discussion of this section is whether should article's infobox include an image of Attila. Recently the by Delacroix was moved to "Depictions of Attila" section because "painting isn't a "portrait", and belongs in the "iconography" section. No depiction exists that would be suitable for the infobox". The depiction by Delacroix is perhaps one of the most or the only which has quality and "strong" impression, but would it be "suitable" to represent Attila? If we analyze the depiction, and put a side the unrealistic appearance of horse during that time, Attila's war-outfit could represent that time period, especially the cloak, but Mace-Flail weapon is doubtful. The appearance of Attila is also doubtful, it looks more like a Goth or brown-red bearded Viking, which could label as German Romanticism - and note that Brothers Grimm made up Gothic etymology in the early 1800s - than "his [East Asian] origin" as Priscus described him. Of all images we have, the only good replacement and more realistic is this. Should this or any image be included in the infobox? Or in ""Depictions of Attila"? And the only representation of Attila in the upper part of article be the work by sculptor George S. Stuart?--Crovata (talk) 22:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * To the Romans, "east Asia" meant anywhere east of Anatolia or Persia - the knowledge of the Far East in the Roman Empire was extremely thin. 50.111.3.227 (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Etymology
About half of this section is some pan-Turkic quest to claim that Attila is a Turkic name. The section needs to be rewritten, so as to say simply: these scholars support a Germanic origin, these scholars support a Turkic/whatever origin. It would be good if we included criticisms not only of the Germanic theory (which doesn't require inventing convoluted etymologies where lots of letters disappear: Attila is a regularly derived Gothic name). The problems with the Turkic derivations are so obvious I'm sure somewhat has remarked upon them. Additionally, various scholarly positions are being cited out of context to support the argument that the Germanic theory is wrong (Maenchen-Helfen on the transcription of names, for instance, has nothing to do with Attila, which he argues is Germanic).--Ermenrich (talk) 14:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support rewriting.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC))

Just fixed a problem noted by Bozcelik, though he seems to have deleted the comment. Now we have M-H insulting just two proposed Turkish etymologies rather than all three.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Appearance
Whoever put "tanned skin" needs to change it. It even states in the article that you've cited stating that he's "swarthy" which is black. I'd change it myself but you guys of course aren't going to allow that are you? Don't change certain things even when you've cited the exact text where it says he's of swarthy complexion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitsuo Kitaro (talk • contribs) 06:30, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've corrected the text. Swarthy is usually seen as sort of insulting nowadays, which is no doubt why someone changed it.
 * You're free to the bring issues like this to the attention of other editors without acting like its an act of great injustice. If you're right, it will be changed.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Illustration of Attila
I have read the discussions about inappropriate images. The page is so poor because of this debate. I would like to suggest a balanced illustration. This is found in the media library: "atyla rex TulipanTamas". Sorry, I can't edit the page.
 * I fail to see how this image is an improvement over what we currently have, particularly as it seems to make Attila out to be holy or something.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2019
Scandinavian sources = Icelandic sources. [Almost all of the stuff written about Atilla in the north came from Iceland (generally not considered a part of Scandinavia). 84.114.67.170 (talk) 10:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.


 * If you mean that you want a change made in the "Historiography and source" section, then you need to propose the exact change, and get consensus for it. Thanks. Begoon 10:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Wife and concubine(s)
At this diff we have some unreliable references, and one that has been misused. The reference to Priscus is a good one to a primary source, mentioning only one wife, Kreka. Study.com is not a reliable reference and also confuses legendary Gudrun with Ildiko, her probable real-life counterpart. The Evening Standard doesn't mention wives and isn't a reliable source for historical purposes. And factsanddetails.com appears to be a very lightly-edited version of an earlier Wikipedia article - this is circular referencing. I have removed the entire section and hope that it stays removed. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

(Parenthetically, the comment about countless other wives comes from Jordanes, writing about a century after Attila's death. XLIX (254) "Shortly before he died, as the historian Priscus relates, he took in marriage a very beautiful girl named Ildico, after countless other wives, as was the custom of his race.", at https://people.ucalgary.ca/~vandersp/Courses/texts/jordgeti.html#attila. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC))


 * I have expanded the text and added more reliable sources. The text is supported by the references. If you have some concerns please do not revert all of my added text. Instead, communicate with me on the talk page. Feel free to reword and expand text to fit the sources better but do not removed properly sourced content. TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 06:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The sourcing is not reliable. Priscus is a primary source and should not be used for any interpretation. Howstuffworks.com, history.com, livescience.com - these are not historical scholarship. Smithsonian is also popular history. The evening standard piece is an opinion piece, it appears, using Attila as a comparison for modern events. And ancientorigins.net is utterly unreliable - see here where it's classified as pseudoscience. None of that was "properly sourced content". Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Babcock
, WP:DUE states Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. Babcock has no academic position, his book was not published by an academic press, and his conclusion - that Attila's natural death in Priscus is cover for an assassination by the Roman Emperor that is found in no ancient source - is way out there. This material should not be included.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you overstate the objections to this work a little. For one thing, Babcock has a relevant academic degree -- a Ph.D. in philology -- & an academic position -- he teaches at Liberty University. That said, one review of the book by an expert (which can be found thru JSTOR) declared that the work would have made a far better work of fiction than a work of history. And having made the mistake of buying a copy of this book, I agree with that reviewer. It is of some use for background, but the thesis that Attila was assassinated by an agent of the Roman Empire is ridiculous. -- llywrch (talk) 06:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Indeed, Llywrch, user Ermenrich overstates both cases. WP:DUE doesn't say to erase minority views, it says to give them balanced coverage; less, not none.  Using it to try to sanitize an article comes across as both jobsworthy and pedantic - not at all in the spirit of an encyclopedia for the masses that at least once advertised itself as "The encyclopedia anyone can edit".  Likewise, though user Llywrch may also disagree with Babcock's thesis, he does not find the man as an academic or author completely meritless.  The reasonable thing to do is to include the content, with perhaps an  qualifying it for those not as knowledgeable as you two on the subject of ancient history (at least as regards Attila's death).  Which is not an invitation to bash it, just put it in an appropriately neutral context.  Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Agreeing with all the methodological points made so far, I'd suggest that Babcock's amusing speculation really isn't sufficiently well-founded to justify mention in our article. At this edit I have reduced it to a reference. I hope that this is helpful. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * First off, I would be suspicious of anyone connected to Liberty University, which is a self-described evangelical Christian university. Here are some of his other impressive scholarly tomes, which make me very confident in his philological rigor: Heaven, Heavenfire, Fire: The Coming of Elijah the Prophet and the End of the Age, in which he interprets biblical prophecies (beginning of chapter 1: From foretelling the rise and fall of mighty world empires, to describing minute details in the life of Jesus of Nazareth centuries in advance, the Bible has proven itself over the millennia to possess unqualified perfection in its prediction of future events.); How can I believe when I have so many Doubts, a work of Christian apology; and Unchristian America: Living with Faith in a Nation that was Never Under God, in which he rails against secularism in the United States. Does he have any qualifications to write a book about Attila the Hun? Since he appears to have been fired by Liberty and I don't want to join LinkedIn to see where he got his degree, it's pretty difficult to know. What's his PhD in?
 * Second of all, the position is so ridiculous (and held by no other scholar) that including it here makes it sound like it's a position held by actual scholars rather than one snickered at by actual scholars. There is nothing pedantic about removing what amounts to a conspiracy theory about Attila's death. Here's the number of citations Google finds for this book - zero. I haven't been able to located any academic book reviews of it, perhaps llywrch can show link to the one he mentioned. It's hard to show that scholars don't agree with something if they're ignoring it, but including this strikes me as a case of wp:FALSEBALANCE. We're an encyclopedia anyone can edit, but to use that as justification to include just whatever anyone's said is obviously against policy.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There two points in my comment above, which I suspect might have misunderstood. But before I expound on either of them, I want to make it clear that in no way am I defending Bobcock or his book. His thesis is fantastical, & I suspect the only reason it was published was because it would attract sales with its sensational implications.First, Babcock does have a Ph.D., in Germanic philology from the University of Minnesota, where he studied under Prof. Anatoly Liberman; according to Babcock, this was the only place in the US one could get such as degree. So we can't dismiss him for lack of training. Further, we can't dismiss his thesis for teaching at Liberty University, as much as I would like to do so -- unless it is decided at WP:RSN that everyone who teaches or has taught there is an unreliable source. This may appear to be a technicality, but it is much more than that: it is a good rule to prevent the usual kinds of people pushing their agendas into Wikipedia & impairing its reliability. Lastly, we can't attack him based on his publisher -- although it is problematic that Babcock shows no sign of getting input from his peers in writing this book. Many reliable sources are self-published, or come to us in questionable media. In those cases, we need to look to the authority of the author (who in this case has academic training, & teaches at an institution that is somehow credentialed). These are all arguments that can be thrown in our faces by a determined editor who is either misguided or disingenuous. So how can we minimize, if not excise, the presence of this work by Wikipedia rules? This leads to my second point.IMHO, one of the weaknesses of philology in the study of this period is its emphasis on language & text, ignoring the other tools of the study of history. One such tool is to look for similar examples of a given behavior. Babcock claims Priscus was sent on a mission to travel deep inside enemy territory to assassinate a foreign ruler, basing this on inconsistencies in Priscus' account. One is forced to ask: just how often did the Romans send secret agents to perform cloak-&-dagger operations like this? If Babcock is right, then this happened exactly once in the history of the Roman (& if my memory is correct, also the Byzantine) Empire. Yes, Emperors were known to have various individuals murdered in their own homes; these individuals were, however, resident in the Roman Empire, & the executioner was (when we know this) either a centurion or another agent of the Emperor. This was an extension of the imperium of the Emperor. The only exception to this I can think of was Didus Julianus' repeated attempts to send assassins to kill Septimius Severus; even then, this was all within Roman territory & Severus was another Roman, not a foreign ruler. Targeted assassinations were simply not standard Roman practice. The only case I can think of from this period of an agent of one ruler being sent to assassinate another ruler in his own home is the instance when Edwin of Northumbria was attacked in York by a follower of Cwichelm of Wessex -- which ended with the death of the agent. And neither party were Romans; they were Germanic Saxons who lived according to a different ethos entirely. This kind of operation was simply not done, in part because it was underhanded, but mostly because it was wildly impractical. Any such agent would die in the attempt, whether or not he succeeded in murdering his assigned target; Cwichelm's agent knew that, but carried out the task out of loyalty to his lord. (Targeted assassinations of foreign rulers only became a more common act with the late medieval Order of Assassins of the Middle East, if memory serves me.) To repeat myself, Babcock is arguing that something completely unparalleled &  otherwise is unattested, actually happened. This is how we handle this case: by pointing out its implausibility.So while we may be forced to mention Babcock & his implausible thesis in this article, we must then also note that this would be a rare, if not the sole, example of it. And let the reader decide if Babcock is a reliable source. -- llywrch (talk) 09:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


 * As Llywrch says, we can't dismiss Babcock as totally unqualified; he does have a PhD, though not a very relevant one. And good work may occasionally come out even from institutions such as Liberty University. These are warning signs and not, on their own, reasons for exclusion. The main reason for omitting his amusingly far-fetched ideas is that they are so far-fetched, and that judgement is supported by the fact that the relevant academic community doesn't appear to take him seriously. We now have him in as a reference, and I suggest that's quite enough prominence. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Is the book self published? If so I have to correct you, per wp:SELFPUB self published sources are generally unreliable. Since I’ve shown you Bancocks other publications, I can’t find any evidence he’s previously published in RS in the field that would qualify him for the exception for relevant experts who have previously published in RS mentioned there.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems that Berkley Books are an imprint of Penguin. They seem to specialize in sci-fi, technothrillers, and erotic romance. Again, not a reason to ban them completely but another serious warning sign. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , I did stumble across another publication in this field by Babcock -- The Stories of Attila the Hun's Death: Narrative, Myth, and Meaning (2001). I don't know anything further about this work. As for the issue of self-published...I must confess something: in the distant past, I was involved in setting up some of Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources, & after years of witnessing their implementation I feel we failed to perform sufficient research before agreeing to them, after which they were set in stone & now appear to be unchangeable. One of them is to dismiss entirely all books that are self-published. This is such a broad & inclusive term that we often fight to include works that should otherwise be included. Some very reliable works have been self-published, more often then not because publishers perceived there were not enough customers for the work. For example, a lot of local histories are self-published. The standard grammar for the Ancient Egyptian language is effectively self-published. (The cost of typesetting hieroglyphs was so expensive that Gardiner had to fund a trust to subsidize this.) I've found that some of the earliest studies on Afro-American studies were published by a vanity press, because racism. I expect eventually we will encounter someone protesting the use of government publications because they are "self-published" (One reason I dislike the Foundation's campaign about civility is that it will prevent the best retort to this objection -- "Are you trolling us, or are you simply an idiot?")As for the publisher of this book, industry consolidation has reached the point where the imprints have lost much of their meaning. "Berkley Books", as a subdivision of Penguin, aka Penguin-Random House, aka Random Penguin (as some in the business call it) is just as likely to publish something in the field of ancient history as any other subdivision of "Random Penguin". All they care about is sales, not accuracy. Sometimes there is an editor who knows something about the subject & has the clout to push a book that advances knowledge. (And sometimes a book that is new & fresh ends up released by an unexpected publishing house because it presents ideas that are at odds with the establishment.) In short, self-published books are acceptable if we understand why they are self-published.That said, a glance at my collection of books on Roman history shows the only publisher that is not a University Press (e.g. Oxford/Clarendon Press), or an academic publisher (e.g. Brill), is Routledge. Except for this one book by Babcock.So if we throw out the criteria concerning publisher, how can we judge if a book is reliable? At least for ancient studies?I mentioned one criterion above: evidence that it has been peer-reviewed. With few exceptions -- such as works published in the 19th century & before -- every serious work in this field begins with acknowledgements to other experts who provided input on the work. I want to emphasize this is important, & probably more so than the identity of the publisher: no matter who the author is, for it to be considered reliable, the book needs a clear indication the author asked his peers to provide input on it. Babcock's has no such explicit acknowledgement. (He does thank his late mother-in-law for helping to promote the book by telling everyone about it.)Another criterion is the presence of a bibliography. This Babcock's book lacks entirely, although it does have endnotes. I have encountered only two other serious works by experts that lack bibliographies: one is a German monograph written in the 1920s or 1930s; the other, which also lacks footnotes, is Franz Babinger's Mehmed the Conqueror and his Time -- which is a serious flaw in the work, & as a result I have been forced to be careful in using it. (IMHO Babinger got away with this because he was considered an expert in the topic, & the lack of other books on this subject. And his translator did offer some material to address this weakness.)A third criterion is obviously the plausibility of the author's theories. But hopefully by failing the other two criteria -- as well as being published under an unexpected imprint, & the author failing our test for reliability -- we don't need to take this on. But it can decide the matter for edge cases.I'm sorry if it sounds as if I've been beating a dead horse here. We're all in agreement that Babcock's thesis merits at most a footnote. However, I want to make it clear that simple tests (e.g., the author taught at Liberty University; it was not published under an imprint with a known reputation in the field) aren't always the best. A tendentious editor can -- & will -- use the rules to try to get his way; so it's sometimes best to ignore the simple tests & resort to less simple ones. -- llywrch (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2021
Change "Genseric" in See Also to "Gaiseric". It redirects to Gaiseric in any case. 138.88.18.245 (talk) 19:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ — Lauritz Thomsen (talk) 10:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Atilla is named after the Itil river
I thought this was a widely accepted etymology of his name. I started to read the etymology section and was surprised to see it not mentioned first, or at all. Has something changed? 64.223.110.63 (talk) 00:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)John Dee
 * The only widely accepted etymology is that it is Gothic for "Little Father" - because this is transparently what the name means. No Turkic etymology is widely accepted. No one proposes he was named after the Volga river (Itil just being another name for it), because why would they name him after a river not even in Hunnic territory, though some have suggested that they share a Turkic etymology. This is the Pritsak etymology with "es" and "til" and "-a" meaning "oceanic/universal ruler", which is listed first in the second paragraph. Note that although Pritsak proposed the es-til etymology for the Volga, according to our article on it (which cites this appropriately) the name "Itil" was still seen as of unknown origin as of 2001.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)