Talk:Mundus (magister militum)

Content removed from article
Ermenrich, you should assume good faith and stop with this paranoia that everything is Turkish-nationalism related (1,2).

The content you just removed after our heated topic-related discussions elsewhere has been here for quite a while. The op rightly skipped the mention of Pristak, outright ascribing to the name Turkic origin, because such origin is accepted (actually, it is the only proposed etymology; which was never discussed), and the relation is pretty clear even to laymen (Mundzuk->Mundus).

Then, Giesmus, his father, does not have an article, and it is perfectly legit, and logic, to include a mention of his name's etymology in this article. By deleting that part you removed valuable information from Wikipedia, and if hadn't had this page in my watchlist it might have been lost forever. Giray Altay (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The etymology of Giesmus as proposed by a single scholar, Pritsak is not relevant to this article. This is not a "common fact" about him and serves no purpose here whatsoever. As for Mundus, whether Pritsak's is "the only proposed etymology" is irrelevant - we still need to attribute it as something potentially controversial. If this etymology were widely accepted, it would be cited elsewhere.
 * The OP was likely user:WorldCreaterFighter or any number of other pan-Turkic sock masters haunting this area. --Ermenrich (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Can I get an opinion on this and ?--Ermenrich (talk) 00:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * First, notice that you have been reported to the administrators for, among other things, WP:Canvassing.
 * Then, what does it matter that the etymology is "proposed by a single scholar"? Many parts of the article Huns are based on a single scholar (Maenchen-Helfen). Is the source reliable? Yes, and that's it. But then, Pritsak is a a very important scholar on the topic, and his Turkic etymologies for Mundus and Giesmus have been accepted. Further, it is our responsibility as editors to put in articles what makes sense, and even a child could see that Mundzuk and Mundus must be somewhat related.
 * we still need to attribute it as something potentially controversial by definition, controversy means disagreement, which requires at least two contrasting views.
 * Nobody questioned Pritsak because the etymology is pretty clear in this case.--Giray Altay (talk) 12:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We should always attribute something like a single scholar's proposal of an etymology. Many of Pritsak's etymologies are disputed and his overall conclusion on Hunnic language (It was not a Turkic language, but one between Turkic and Mongolian, probably closer to the former than the latter. The language had strong ties to Bulgar language and to modern Chuvash, but also had some important connections, especially lexical and morphological, to Ottoman Turkish and Yakut") is not shared by most scholars. Why, then, should his etymologies be treated as facts rather than the scholarly proposals they are? Also: the fact that two words look similar does not mean they are related as "even a child" can tell you.
 * Since the two of us are not going to solve this and Erminwin and Krakkos are AWOL, I'll post a link to this discussion at WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome and WikiProject Middle Ages.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * First, I wish you don't make anymore accusations against me at least at public articles' pages, since, for example in this case, it might cause other editors to build a prejudice against me and argue in your favor. I remind you that your edits are being discussed at ANI now.
 * This is not the place to make an harangue against Pritsak. What matter is that his source is reliable.
 * But then, Pritsak has a huge influence in the Hunnic topic, especially on etymologies.
 * You would have to provide sources for your statements regarding Pritsak; but I can tell you already that I disagree with your claim that most scholars do not share the opinion that the Hunnic language was ultimately Turkic. And his contour assertions certainly makes sense.
 * But like I said, that's not the point. His source is reliable, and he is a reliable scholar, with a certain importance in the subject's study at that. There is no controversy on these etymologies because no other etymology since Pritsak's propositions have been proposed. Even so, Pritsak idea has been shared by some modern scholars. No scholar that I know of has criticized it.
 * Remember that the chief problem was that you completely removed content from the article (1). Which I prevented. I am happy we got back to how present the content.
 * For Mundus, it may be straightforwardly claimed that the word is of Turkic origin, not just because Pritsak's is the accepted, and only, etymology, but also because of context: the individual was claimed by contemporaries to be of Attilid descend (apparently the Hun king's grandson), and there is a very close similarity between the names Mundus and the name Mundzuk (Attila's father), which Pritsak indeed links together. Giray Altay (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Pristak says clearly that Hunnic was not Turkic but some different language only he has classified (see the quote, directly from his work on Hunnic language, p. 470). This is not a "harangue against Pritsak" - it is stating facts that most scholars do not agree with him about this. Given this fact, we cannot present his etymologies as facts, because other scholars do not share his basic premise.

As for your arguments about Mundus and Mundzuk, this is wp:original research. Ancient sources also claim that the Huns were Scythians. We can only rely on what modern sources tell us.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Pritsak: [Hunnic] was [a language] between Turkic and Mongolian, probably closer to the former than the latter. Most scholars agree that Hunnic was para-Turkic, ultimately Turkic, Altaic or anyway close to it. This fits in that frame. This statement brings Hunnic into the Altaic sphere and close to Turkic, cautiously using the word probably and placing it between Mongolian and Turkic. Again, why are you so determined to argue against the author of the source supporting the content you want(ed?) to utterly remove from the article? Why do you want to remove this content so much? And what difference does it make what Pritsak proposed about the utterly unknown Hunnic language's origin? We are talking about the etymology of Mundus here.


 * There is no more original research in my statements than in your claims against Pritsak. This is a talk page and we are chatting about the Huns. This is not an article. Regarding the article, it is very simple: there was some content you wanted to get rid of forever because of some "Pan-Turkism fears" (1) and I prevented you from doing that.


 * because other scholars do not share his basic premise this is preposterous. It's just a personal attack against Pritsak. The discussed content is about the etymology of Mundus, not the origin of the Hunnic language!
 * ancient sources also claim that the Huns were Scythians. We can only rely on what modern sources tell us. This is even more preposterous! You are equating an ancient synonym for the ethnonym Huns with a declaration of biological descent by a contemporary.--Giray Altay (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you please learn to be more concise. No one is going to join this discussion if you keep posting long WP:WALLSOFTEXT. Please also see WP:NOTAFORUM - we are discussing improving the article, not "chatting about Huns". There is no reason to continue bringing up how unjust I am to Turkish people either or to claim something like saying other scholars don't agree with Pritsak is a personal attack against him. Let's keep this discussion on topic!
 * Pritsak's etymology of Mundus is obviously influenced by his theory of the origin of the Hunnic language. He could have said it was from Latin and meant "pure", he could have said it was from Germanic and meant "hand" or "protection" . I'm sure there are other equally close matches to "Mundus" that he could have suggested were the origin of the name. He didn't because he thinks it is "para-Turkic" and, moreover, that the Huns and other steppe peoples he relates to them can therefore not have adopted names from other cultures (a criticism of some of the Hunnish etymologies brought by Gerhard Doerfer).--Ermenrich (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If we are not chatting about the Huns and Pritsak, then why did you say: Pritsak's [...] overall conclusion on Hunnic language ( It was not a Turkic language, but one between Turkic and Mongolian, probably closer to the former than the latter. The language had strong ties to Bulgar language and to modern Chuvash, but also had some important connections, especially lexical and morphological, to Ottoman Turkish and Yakut" ) is not shared by most scholars.
 * That's beside the point since it has nothing to do with Mundus or its etymology. What I meant to say with This is a talk page and we are chatting about the Huns is just that: this is not an article, but a talk page, so don't accuse me of WP:OR for pointing out to you a few things, already subsumed under Pritsak's etymology for Mundus.
 * You talked to me about WP:OR but then yourself started making a thesis about Mundus with links to the Wiktionary. You are not a scholar. If you are, you can publish a book and we may consider using it as a source for this article. But until then, Pritsak's view is the accepted one. You say you are sure there are other equally close matches to "Mundus" that he could have suggested were the origin of the name, maybe there were, but he chose that etymology for certain specific reasons, such as that Mundus was of Attilid descent, but also a Gepid, not exactly "pure"; that there is no sense for a Germanic man to call his son with an otherwise unattested Latin name; and that -mundō was used in combination, not as a standalone word for a name; OTOH, Mundus' father had a name of likely Turkic origin; he was himself a descendant of Attila, and Attila's father name was Mundzuk. But again, neither you nor I are scholars, so let's just focus on what the scholar(s) say.
 * There is a bit of incoherence in your accusation of Pritsak, because first you say he did not say Hunnic is of Turkic origin, but then, speaking of a name he said to be of Turkic origin, you say that such conclusion was obviously influenced by his theory of the origin of the Hunnic language.
 * It is a personal attack because you are saying "just because Pritsak has this view, his etymology is not reliable". But he is a (important) scholar publishing with established publishing houses and we should focus only on what he has to say about Mundus, not his general view, affiliations, etc. Giray Altay (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Gerhard Doerfer derives Mundus and "Mundzuk" (which is actually attested as Moundiouchos in Greek) from Germanic. We have to include this and thus also attribute Pritsak's etymology. It is disputed, just as I said it would be.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

In fact, Doerfer explicitly says that the etymology is disputed. Umstritten ist auch der Name des Μουνδίουχος (so Priskos, bei Jordanes Mundzucus). [The name of Moundiouchos (thus Priscus, in Jordanes Mundzucus) is also disputed.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

And furthermore: Doerfer says that the name Giesmus is "Germanic or possibly Germanic" as well, p. 29. Given that this page isn't about him, there's no reason to include an argument about the etymology of his name in this article and Pritsak's etymology should be removed.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


 * It is disputed, just as I said it would be but you didn't know it. You know it now. But you should be arguing based on facts not wishful thinking.
 * The fact the name is attested as Moundiouchos doesn't change much imo tbh. The name remains phonetically very, very close to Mundzuk.
 * I take it from your quotes, that Doerfer still connects Mundus's name to Mundzuk's, right?
 * Giesmus etymology should still be included in this article as he doesn't have an article of his own.
 * I would like to read how does Gerhard Doerfer elaborate on the Germanic etymology. But, tbh, Pritsak's etymology is convincing, especially considering context. I've created dozens of articles on the Huns, and when treating etymology I was always very careful. Rarely did I claim "certain" etymology (or rather, did not use cautious "possibly", "likely", "according to", etc.). I think I only did here, with Basiq and Eskam's daughter. Because they really made sense to me, still do.
 * Pritsak is still a more authoritative voice in the topic than Doerfer.
 * I don't know Doerfer very well, but why does he say "Germanic or possibly Germanic"? Can't he just say "possibly Germanic"? Giray Altay (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can stop including snide remarks in your comments like but you didn't know it. You know it now. But you should be arguing based on facts not wishful thinking? It would help the atmosphere of this discussion.
 * Doerfer follows Schramm to derive Mundzucus/Moundiouchos from Gothic *Mundiweihs, from mund- (protection) and weihs (battle), see Mundzuk. As to his wording, he's a cautious scholar covering his bases - just as we should be. Whether an etymology makes sense to us isn't something we get to take into account - we're bound to report what WP:RS's say, not what we think is the WP:TRUTH.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


 * On my read, Maenchen-Helfen seems to regard Mundo and Giesmus as probably Germanic, but Mundzuk as unrelated and certainly not Germanic. Srnec (talk) 04:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Good catch do you have page numbers? My copy of M-H was returned to the library long ago, but we should add his opinions both here and at Mundzuk. And if Maenchen-Helfen also regards Giesmus as probably Germanic, there’s really no reason to include Pritsak’s pseudo-Turkic proposal in this article not about him.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You should not accuse others of WP:OR for explanation on a talk page and then do the exact the same thing. And you should not argue based on convictions you have but on facts.
 * You haven't answered my question, but it appears that Doerfer did link Mundus and Mundzuk after all, though he believed them to be Germanic.
 * If we are to include the Germanic etymology at all, in the article it should be also mentioned that Doerfer, though considering the name Germanic, linked it to Mundzuk.
 * But I am still not sure about the inclusion of the Germanic etymology.
 * As far as I know, Maenechen Helfen did not classify Giesmus and Mundus, whereas he listed Mundzuk among the Turkic names and utterly rejected any Germanic etymology 1. So we have one scholar (linguist) considering Mundzuk and Mundus related, and Turkic; one considering them related but (both) possibly Germanic, and one considering Mundzuk Turkic but not classifying Mundus and Giesmus. Further note: Maenchen-Helfen expressed his firm conviction that Mundus was indeed a descendant of Attila.
 * Also, hate talking about conflict of interest; and I am not making any accusations, but: Omeljan Pritsak was a disinterested Ukrainian observer; Helfen, Doerfer, and Schramm were all German...
 * Do we know what Nemeth, Rásonyi, etc. have to say? You should strive to find any possible etymology for Mundus/Giesmus, not just those in accordance with your preexisting view. Giray Altay (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ermenrich And if Maenchen-Helfen also regards Giesmus as probably Germanic, there’s really no reason to include Pritsak’s pseudo-Turkic proposal in this article not about him, see you really don't get the point. So what, if he didn't regard it as Germanic we should include it? What's the logic? We should include whatever information we have about Giesmus because he does not have an article. Giray Altay (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Care to explain why you have removed properly sourced information from the article? Arguing that Doerfer is German and we should therefore disregard his etymology is not allowed - you’ve shown no sign that there is something wrong with his scholarship and it is frankly odd that you only want to include one scholar's etymology without crediting them.—Ermenrich (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Pages 409–411, which are available here. Srnec (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I would say that I would incorporate it into the article, but I think I'll just get reverted again.
 * where is the logic that we have to include one scholar's Turkic etymology of a figure when that etymology is 1) disputed and 2) this article is not about him? If you want the etymology somewhere on Wikipedia, make an article about the guy (if there is enough information on him to warrant one).--Ermenrich (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course you would be reverted. At Odoacer it was good to revert because I was "still discussing at the talk page"; here,OTOH, you yourself decide when the conversation is over? Be coherent; use the same meter.
 * I want to include reasonable explanations. I try not to be lukewarm; but to be decided. There are cases in which the etymology is actually really doubtful. But in this case, the name is, imo, likely Turkic.
 * Notice that Srnec misinterpreted Helfen. Just as I thought, he did not classify Mundus and Giesmus. He does not seems to regard Mundo and Giesmus as probably Germanic, as Srnec says, he proposes Mundus'' Turkic etymology and notices the Germanic one, adding that Giesmus, according to him, has a "Germanic ring". He does not express himself about which etymology is correct, the Turkic or the Germanic.
 * But now, thanks to Srnec, we know that also Moravesik supported a Turkic etymology for Mundus.
 * There is nothing really to incorporate from Helfen, since he simply cites other scholars' etymology for Mundus without expressing himself on which is correct. What may be taken from Helfen is that Moravesik supported a Turkic etymology, should nobody be able to retrieve Moravesik's work. Giray Altay (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You would do well to stop bringing up your old grudges here.
 * There are cases in which the etymology is actually really doubtful. But in this case, the name is, imo, likely Turkic. We don't get to decide which etymology is best.
 * "Giesmus has a Germanic ring to it" is definitely an endorsement of the view that the name is Germanic.
 * There is no policy based reason to exclude Doerfer's etymology or not to include information from M-H or Pritsak's name.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * P.S. Notice that Helfen, beside providing Prtisak's etymology, also notices, like Doerfer, that Mundus may be related to Mundzuk. Giray Altay (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * He states that some scholar make that connection, you're leaving out But Mundo's father riea/xoc, (Theophanes 218 22 ), has a name with a Germanic ring (Diculescu 1922, 58) and Mundo itself may be Germanic; cf. Munderichus and Mundila.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * An endorsment for Giesmus not Mundus (!). But Giesmus's etymology is what you were arguing to keep out of the article (!).
 * I agree that there is no policy based reason for that. Though I always try to abide to nemo iudex in causa sua, which is way I would not like to have a host of Germanic scholars straight outta WW2 supporting Germanic etymologies for Mundus. Anyway, we would have to at least include also Moravesik. But there might be more. I need some time to see if I can find some other scholar's opinion.
 * With that being said; if we do agree to insert Doerfer, we will also have to include that, though considering the names probably Germanic, he linked Mundus to Mundzuk. Giray Altay (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You are leaving out the earlier part and not providing context. Letting Giesmus aside for a moment (you didn't want to include him in the article in the first place, so I don't get why he is suddenly so important) Helfen states:
 * Mundo [...] the name of a Gepid of Attilanic descent [...], could be a variant of Theophanes' Mundios, provided that such a name existed. It has also been connected with Mundzucus; to the references in Moravcsik, BT 2, 194, add Pritsak 1955, 66. But Mundo's father riea/xoc, (Theophanes 218 22 ), has a name with a Germanic ring (Diculescu 1922, 58) and Mundo itself may be Germanic
 * He thus provides references for a relation to Mundzuk; a Turkic etymology, but, then again, says that it [Mundus' name] may also be Germanic.
 * Helfen did not choose a side on Mundus. Giray Altay (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You cannot simply keep etymologies you don’t like out of the article. Maenchen-Helfen mentions that Mundus may be an unrelated Germanic name, so should we. Doerfer mentions that Mundzuk and Mundus may have a Germanic etymology, so should we. Pritsak needs to be mentioned as proposing the Turkic etymology and connection here. Giesmus’s etymology is likewise not securely Turkic, so why are we including it as though it is? If you want to find more etymologies, go ahead and do it, but that doesn’t change any of the facts I have just laid out, nor do accusations of German nationalism (Goths aren’t Germans; many of the Turkic etymologies have been proposed by German scholars). Please stop your stonewalling and allow someone to actually improve the article.—Ermenrich (talk) 04:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't accused of German nationalist but I don't rule out a subconscious influence, and most importantly I think that readers may do that, which is why I would rather include even the same Germanic etymologies but stated by some non-German.
 * Still I broadly agree with your points about what we should include. Except there is one thing that you forgot: unless I am misunderstanding him, Helfen initially connects Mundus to Mundzuk (which should be Theophanes' M(o)undius). Giray Altay (talk) 11:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * He does not connect them - he mentions that other scholars have connected them then poopoos the idea by saying that Mundus and his father may have Germanic names.
 * Fear that our readers will think that a scholar has a “subconscious bias” or having that feeling ourselves is not a legitimate reason to keep something out of the article.—-Ermenrich (talk) 12:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Here's a more recent source, Gottfried Schramm (Historiker): Gottfried Schramm, Ein Damm bricht. Die römische Donaugrenze und die Invasion des 5.–7. Jahrhunderts im Lichte von Namen und Wörtern. München: R. Oldenbourgh 1997, S. 27–55 (url: https://www.degruyter.com/database/GAO/entry/RGA-E82_10/html )

Schon Müllenhoff hat den Namen Mundiuch mit Gundiok zusammengestellt. Die Übereinstimmung im zweiten Teil dieser Namen, den er auch im Namen des Merowingers Chlodowech wiederzuerkennen glaubte, verleitete ihn zu dem Schluss, der Hunne habe einen germanischen Namen getragen. Dieser Meinung, die gelegentlich wieder in der Forschung auftauchte, widersprachen mehrere ungarische Gelehrte: Mundiuch sei ein hunnischer Name. Dass diese letztere Ansicht das Richtige trifft, machen zwei ganz verschiedene Gedankengänge wahrscheinlich. [...] Auch das Klangbild hilft uns weiter. Um a. 500 trug der Sohn eines Gepidenkönigs – nach der einen überlieferten Formvariante – den Namen Mundo. Der Name, wäre er ostgermanisch, müsste bei Jordanes auf -a auslauten. Da der Träger als ein Nachkomme Attilas ausgewiesen ist, wird er seinen – vermutlich mit Mundiuch verwandten – Namen wohl diesem hunnischen Strang seiner Abstammung verdanken.

So Schramm rejects a Germanic etymology of both figures and says that the names are "probably" (vermutlich") related - however, he argues that the version of the name we know has been influenced by Germanic mundi-. He also does not provide a meaning for Mundzuk or Mundo. Schramm himself is criticized by Walter Pohl in the Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde (in 2000) for etwas zu weitreichenden Schlußfolgerungen, without it being specified what he's referring to (url: https://www.degruyter.com/database/GAO/entry/RGA_2633/html#RGA_2633.5.56 ).

What we should do is mention both etymologies, attribute them (note that Muellenhoff gives a different Germanic etymology than Doerfer), and then mention the rejection of a Germanic etymology for Mundzuk by M-H but not for Mundus, and a rejection of a Germanic etymology for both by Schramm. We can mention which scholars believe that the names are related as well.

The point is not "to win" or point out the "correct" etymolology, it is to present the information in reliable sources as best as we can.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Exactly, mentioning which scholars believe Mundus/Mundo and Mundzuk are related, regardless of etymology, is important.
 * M-H actually argues that Mundzuk is Turkic (rejecting Germanic etymology for it), does not reject a Germanic etymology for Mundus, does not reject a Turkic etymology for Mundus, and does not reject that Mundus and Mundzuk might be related. Giray Altay (talk) 13:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, you got it right abut rejection of Germanic etymology for Mundzuk. Misread your reply. Giray Altay (talk) 13:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
Do we have a rough consensus for how this should look now? I'd suggest moving it to a separate etymology section.

That still leaves whether or not we need to mention Pritsak's etymology of Giesmus. If we do keep it, can you at least agree to attribute it to Pritsak?--Ermenrich (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * An etymology section is the best solution here, but it should conclude with the observation that names are not reliable indicators for "ethnicity." Let's also not forget that Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia and not a scholarly journal where academic disputation of the highest order should be played out. This does not serve the typical user/reader well. --Obenritter (talk) 12:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the arbitration @Obenritter
 * I would mention Giesmus' etymology for the simple fact he does not have an article.
 * P.S. Though I am arguing based on Jordanes, who would be enough for me,; I would like to know what Malalas and Theophanes actually have to say about Mundo and Giesmus, especially ethnicity-related.
 * I might consider creating an article for Giesmus in the future. He does have article at wp.fr., where they state: "According to Amédée Thierry, Giesmus, described as "Gepid" or "Hun" according to the Byzantine chroniclers, was the son that Attila, king of the Huns, had had from the sister of Ardaric, king of the Gépides". Wondering whether this is what the chronicles actually say. And which chronicle is that. Giray Altay (talk) 12:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The quote from Patrick Amory I added at includes all the chronicle mentions of Mundus's ethnicity. It seems that only Jordanes identifies him as a Hun (depending on the reading of "Attilani"). And I'm certain that French wikipedia is wrong and there is no source that says that Attila had a son named Giesmus - the only named sons of Attila I'm aware of are Ernak, Dengizich, and Ellac.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, I checked the article on Gepids in the Reallexikon, and they say:
 * "At least one of Attila's sons stayed with the Gepids,namely Giesmos, who was married into the Gepid royal family. He was, if one believes Malalas, married to the sister of King Thraustila, who died fighting against Theodoric in 488. At this time Giesmos was already dead, and his son Mundo left the Gepids soon thereafter to start a career under Theodoric and in Byzantium, after his own attempt to found a kingdom south of the Danube had failed. Interestingly, the Byzantine sources emphasize his Gepid origins (Malalas c. 18; Theophanes Annus Mundi 6032), while Jordanes (Jord. Get. LVIII, 301) refers to him as 'de Attilanis quondam origine descendens'."
 * Zumindest ein Sohn Attilas hielt sich bei den Gep. auf, nämlich Giesmos, der mit der gep. Kg.sfamilie verschwägert war. Er war, glaubt man Malalas, verheiratet mit der Schwester des Kg.s Thraustila, der 488 gegen Theoderich fiel. Zu diesem Zeitpunkt war Giesmos schon tot, und sein Sohn Mundo verließ bald darauf die Gep., um Karriere unter Theoderich und in Byz. zu machen, nachdem sein eigener Versuch einer Reichsbildung s. der Donau gescheitert war. Interessanterweise heben die byz. Qu. seine gep. Herkunft hervor (Malalas c. 18; Theophanes Annus Mundi 6032), während Jordanes (Jord. Get. LVIII, 301) ihn als de Attilanis quondam origine descendens bezeichnet (15, 292).
 * So maybe I'm wrong and Giesmos is identified as Attila's son in Malalas. Unfortunately, it's not clear from this reference.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The article on Huns similarly states "The Attila-son Giesmos, whose mother was a Gepid, remained with the Gepids" Der Attila-Sohn Giesmos, dessen Mutter Gepidin war, blieb bei den Gep. They don't give a primary source, but cite that (and info on Mundo) to: Pohl W. . Die Gepiden und die Gentes an der mittleren Donau nach dem Zerfall des Attilareiches, in: H. Wolfram, F. Daim (Hrsg.), Die Völker an der mittleren und unteren Donau im 5. und 6. Jh, 1980 , p. 240– 305.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * , I've edited the lead to emphasize Mundus's unclear/potentially mixed origins (Gepid, Hun, and Goth) rather than calling him just a Gepid based on a source from a 19th century scholar. I think this deserves some comment in the article as well.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

, I've created an etymology and ethnic identity section. What do you think?--Ermenrich (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * - Very concise. It eliminates any need for a lengthy debate. --Obenritter (talk) 13:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * , any thoughts?--Ermenrich (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks fine. I have acquired the Croke paper, but he does not discuss etymology. I wouldn't mind if we mentioned the disputed etymology of Giesmos, since Maenchen-Helfen mentions that it looked Germanic to him and Giray had added an alternative take from Pritsak. I don't think there is sufficient material to sustain a separate article on Giesmos. Srnec (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Any suggestions on how we should best include that?--Ermenrich (talk) 00:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I added something. What do you think? (I think we are not consistent in tense when discussing scholars' opinions...) Srnec (talk) 01:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me - should we add that Doerfer rejects the Turkic etymology for Mundzuk as well (arguing that it should be Bundzuk then) or should we just leave that over there?
 * I haven't been able to look at Croke directly, but he has the fullest description of Mundus's career - it would definitely be worth adding stuff from him.
 * I've requested an article by Walter Pohl on the Gepids that gets cited a lot for Mundus and his origins - hopefully I can add something from it soon.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Mundus or Mundo
What sources describe him as Mundus and what sources describe him as Mundo? I've seen Mundo at Maenchen-Helfen, I believe Pritsak, Doerfer, and Schramm, and the Reallexikon article (url: https://www.degruyter.com/database/GAO/entry/RGA_3839/html ) so far. Do we have this article at the right place?--Ermenrich (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The PLRE does not think that Mundo the Attilid and Mundus the magister militum are the same person. It has them in separate volumes. Croke in his article (which I have not read) apparently identifies them, but the debate apparently goes back to the 19th century. I would be happy to keep one article and simply alert the reader that some scholars see two different individuals in the different sources.
 * It would not seem to me impossible that Mundo and Moundios have unrelated names if they are different persons or that, if they are one and the same, the underlying name was interpreted differently by different sources, making the actual etymology unretrievable. But this is just my speculation. Srnec (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The Reallexikon specifically identifies the two. Hmm... We need to tell people that this may be two different people too, I would say.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The debate is of old. The two are now identified. I think the op did a good job in creating a single article, and no superseded/minority views should be mentioned per WP:FRINGE.
 * Most modern scholars, such as Petr Charvát, Geoffrey Greatrex, Brian Croke, David Olster, Hyun Jin Kim, Herwig Wolfram, Christian Raffensperger, Edward James, Clifford J. Rogers, Kelly DeVries, John France and Antonio Carile, consider them the same person.
 * Only dated sources like Henry Bradley and Thomas Hodgkin discuss the possibility the two might be different persons.
 * The reader would not benefit from experiencing undue doubts regarding the now accepted Mundus/Mundo identification. Giray Altay (talk) 13:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ermenrich tbh, I really don't like your approach. I opened a section at Erminwin reporting the heretofore unnoticed comment by Amory ([ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Erminwin&diff=1125996809&oldid=1124482215 1]); you clearly read the section, but instead of replying there, you (beside opening an ANI case against me) came here to put into the article those same comment by Amory which I had retrieved, published for the sake of transparency, and dismissed.
 * Jordanes' words leave no room for different interpretation; precisely for this reason, no scholar but Amory and possibly Croke (from whom Amory apparently draws this far-fetched and undue conclusion, whom I haven't read, and whom Armory might still have misinterpreted), from Jordanes' time till now, has doubted that Mundo was of biological Attilid descent.
 * Amory's opinion qualifies for WP:FRINGE and must not be included in the article. Giray Altay (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't add anyone's opinion that Mundo and Mundus are not the same person. You reverted my edits without reading them. And you can't expect people to read talk page discussions that are not on this talk page either - this is where you are supposed to discuss article content.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Your constant edits on Hunnic topics, on articles I created or edited, seem to be aimed at making things Germanic rather than Hunnic.
 * Thus at Odoacer (1, 2), the claims he was Germanic should be left and those he was Hunnic removed. Here, OTOH, we should include a single scholar imaging things to make some other points (Amory goofily upset Jordanes' words in an attempt to reconcile Mundo and Mundus, since some have argued that someone of Hunnish descent could not identify as a Gepid--which is crazy, considering that all the ruling elites of the Huns and Germans were mixed to varying extent) just to put into question that Mundo was Attilid ergo of Hunnish descent? Giray Altay (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? I cited Krautschik, not Armory. You are making some pretty serious assumptions of bad faith.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You showed bad faith for me since the first day I met you (1). Even so, I always tried to be practical and discuss with you on articles' content.
 * Now you have finally stopped with the personal attacks and paranoias, just for what, pushing your view into the article? Stop reverting to your preferred version till conversation here is over.
 * You found Krautschik after reading Amory through my section at Erminwin, which you cannot have read but by stalking since nobody invited you. Even so, instead of commenting there, you went and came here to push into the article the view I had retrieved and published for the sake of transparency, but also criticized, mentioning that that is the view of a minority of scholars, and is uncalled for.
 * As explained, a different reading of Jordanes' words qualifies for WP:FRINGE.
 * Maenechen Helfen is at the head of a long list of scholars who considered /considers Mundo of Attilid descent. Giray Altay (talk) 14:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore this long list of accusations and assumptions of bad faith and point out that this section was about establishing whether to use the name Mundus or Mundo for the article. You have somehow made it into whether or not Mundo/Mundus was a descendant of Attila the Hun - we have (evidently) multiple scholars who say that Jordanes could be read differently, and that qualifies for mention per Neutral point of view. It certainly is not a "fringe" opinion.

Why did you revert these changes, , , , ? If your only problem was with stating that Jordanes can be read differently, why did you not simply remove that instead of preventing any editing whatsoever to the article?--Ermenrich (talk) 14:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Noticing that you popped up here (1) right after I mentioned Mundus at Erminwin's (2) is not bad faith, is legitimate doubt.
 * Bothering me for months after accusing me of some unspecified evil (3) up to accusing me of being some sock-puppet mastermind without any evidence whatsoever (4) is indeed what I would call assumptions of bad faith.
 * Multiple scholars copy-pasting the fringe view does not make it a recognized option worth publishing.
 * That Jordanes meant something else is fringe, and a long list of scholars, starting from M-H read Jordanes in the only possible way.
 * I reverted you because you constantly edit the article, thought we are discussing its content here. That's called POV-pushing. Please, consider stopping doing that. Giray Altay (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Discussing something different on a talk page does not give you carte blanche to revert any addition someone makes to an article. I ask you again: what did you see that was wrong with these edits, , , , ?--Ermenrich (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You added the fringe theory whereby by saying that "Mundo was a descendant of the Attilids, of Attilid origin" Jordanes did not mean he was a descendant of Attila; you, who talk so much about original research, then added a quote in Latin from a primary source to apparently give more credit to your point.
 * Thus whenever you revert to your preferred version and/or publish something highly debatable, such as this, I will revert you.
 * Conversation is ongoing here, if you really want to give credit to fringe theories or put emphasis on the etymologies you yourself like, you should at least discuss it here before publishing in the article. Giray Altay (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * please look at the changes in those diffs, none of which include the change you are referring to. Why did you revert them?—Ermenrich (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You added the aforementioned disputed content. I can assure you of that, otherwise I would not have reverted. I will provide diffs later. I am currently providing diffs on four different pages. Giray Altay (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I have not disputed adding the information you mention. That is not in these diffs. Why did you revert them as well?—Ermenrich (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Look, if you don't have anything against these changes (diffs above), can I reinstate them, or are you just going to revert everything again?--Ermenrich (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * After a cursory look, I can say the above changes don't appear to have any debatable statement, nor any content being discussed at this or other talk pages. So I would say you can go on. I will fully check those edits later. Giray Altay (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Sources for Mundus and Mundo being the same person
Let's collect sources here. , do you know of more?


 * In Brill's New Pauly, Franz Tinnefeld writes that Mundo is "probably not identical with the Hun M." (from 2006)
 * In the Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde, Stefan Krautschik writes "Despite opposing assumption (most recently PLRE 2,767 and 3,903) we have to do with a single man here: M., as he is known in the Latin sources, is called Μοῦνδος (= lat. Mundus) in the Greek sources" (Trotz gegenteiliger Annahmen (so zuletzt noch PLRE 2,767 bzw. 3,903) haben wir es mit einem einzelnen Mann zu tun: M., wie er in den lat.Qu. heißt, wird in den griech.Qu. eben Μοῦνδος (= lat. Mundus) genannt.) (published 2002).

I'd say that Brill's New Pauly is an authoritative enough and recent enough source (even postdating Krautschik's assertion in the Reallexikon) that we need to include this dispute in the article. The question is whether we can find a more recent statement of academic consensus or whether we have to just present the opposing views.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's an even more recent source, 2019, available at Academia.edu:
 * JEROEN W.P. WIJNENDAELE, "Sarus the Goth: from imperial commander to warlord" Early Medieval Europe 2019 27 (4) 469–493, here p. 489: Note that PLRE 2: ‘Mundo’, pp. 767–8 and PLRE 3: ‘Mundus’, pp. 903–5 regard ‘Mundus’ and ‘Mundo’ as two different individuals, yet the arguments proposed by B. Croke, ‘Mundo the Gepid: From Freebooter to Roman General’, Chiron 12 (1982), pp. 125–35 still carry enough weight to favour identifying them as one and the same person.
 * Again, we have a very recent note of the debate. I'm happy to leave it something as simple as that, but it does need to be noted.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's what Patrick Amory says (which is confusing because I thought Giray Altay said he supported them not being the same person?):
 * PLRE2: 767-8 and 3: 903-5 doubts of the identity of the two Mundos [...] (he goes on to reject these doubts)
 * This is a statement against PLRE2, but continues to support the inclusion of the fact that some have doubted the identity of the two figures.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * My opinion is that we continue to treat this as a single individual while noting that there have been doubts. Srnec (talk) 01:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * 100% agree.—Ermenrich (talk) 03:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Jordanes and Mundo's origins
Let's centralize discussion of this particular issue here.

Here is exactly what Krautschik says:
 * "M., on the one hand "de Attilanis quondam origine descendens" (Jord. Get. 301), which can just as well mean "from the family of Attila" as "from the confederation of peoples in Attila's Hunnic Empire", originated on the hand from the people of the Gepids and was the son of a king of the Gepids with a seat in Sirmium, named Giesmos." M., zum einen de Attilanis quondam origine descendens (Jord. Get. 301), was ebenso „aus der Familie Attilas“ wie „aus der Völkerkonföderation in Attilas Hunnenreich“ bedeuten kann, stammte andererseits aus dem Volk der Gepiden und war Sohn eines Gepidenkg.s mit Sitz in Sirmium namens Giesmos

Now, can you,, provide sources showing why this translation of Jordanes needs to be kept out of the article? You need a statement of academic consensus rather than just listing scholars who think it means he's a descendant of Attila. As you yourself seem to have shown that more than one scholar is of the opinion that it might not mean that Mundus is a descendant of Attila, you'll need an actual quote that shows that this view is WP:FRINGE (and I'll note did not actually give his opinion on the matter at User talk:Erminwin, so your post there does not count as WP:CONSENSUS for this article, which would need to be discussed here anyway). I'll note that Krautschik does not actually decide what it means one way or another - which is what I think we should do.

I'll also note that the current citation of this to more than just Jordanes is incorrect. M-H says "Getica, 301. Cf. Theophanes, a.m. 6031, Malalas, 450." on p. 364 which means "compare" (cf.) and indicates that Theopanes and John Malalas give a conflicting genealogy - the Reallexikon article only mentions Jordanes in this context, and I'm willing to bet other scholars will as well.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Yep, let's centralize the issue on what you came here for (cf. 1 (read it) and one hour later 2, first of a series leading to this 3).


 * "Many Huns were halfbreeds. Balamber married a Gothic princess, Attila's last wife had the Germanic name Ildico, the Gepid Mundo was of Attilanic descent."
 * "An exception is Mundo, a grandson of both Attila and Ardaric, king of the Gepids"
 * "Malalas indeed informs us that when the Gepid-Hun Mundo inflicted a rare defeat on the Bulgars in AD 530 [...]"
 * "He suggests that Ardaric himself was a descendant of the Hunnic royal family. If so, the intermarriage Attilanis originae would not have been with Attila himself, but with one of his predecessors, producing Ardaric as a subject ruler with familial ties to the Huns in the time of Attila and Mundo as a later descendant."
 * "It has already been said above about the Scamars, to whom Mundus, the son of Attila, proclaimed himself king"
 * "We know the names of very few of them. One exception is Mundo, a grandson of Attila"
 * "Mundo is identified by three sources that name him as a Hun"
 * "[...] against the Ostrogoths and their ally Mundo, the Gepid grandson of Attila the Hun"


 * I can and will be back with more quotes tomorrow.


 * I don't want this information in the article because it is against the consensus of scholars, and it upsets the words of the primary source Jordanes (which those few historians do simply in an attempt to harmonize Mundus with Mundo).


 * I have historians supporting that certain Gothic kings were Attilid. But just as I wouldn't go to their pages and post that, so I don't want to include such information in this article. But while the view of those historians supporting Hunnish descent for certain Goths may make sense, in this case there is an upset of a primary source.


 * Fringe theory is is used to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field, and this is the case.
 * You need to provide a source stating that this is a fringe theory, otherwise we need to follow WP:neutral point of view, in particular WP:DUE. Just listing sources does not satisfy WP:RS/AC. You need an explicit statement in the source that this view is fringe.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * There are no fringe theories here. Velikovsky is a fringe theory. This is just scholarly debate. On balance, scholars treat Attilani as meaning "descendants of Attila". So should we, although there is no reason to keep out the argument that the term could mean "people of Attila". I just checked E. A. Thompson and he accepts Mundo as a descendant of Attila and even suggests that he was a pure Hun with no Gepid ancestry in a footnote (p. 307). Here is an MA thesis discussing the meaning of Attilani. I checked Goffart (Narrators), but he does not discuss this word. Srnec (talk) 01:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * That seems fair- I had only added a brief mention before.—Ermenrich (talk) 03:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the research work @Srnec.
 * We may discuss on the Germanic etymologies, and I may even enter a discussion about creating two separate articles for Mundo and Mundus; but I will never even consider mentioning in Mundo's article that misinterpretation of a primary source, just as I wouldn't post Pritsak's and Kim's Turkic etymologies for certain Goths, or yet other scholars claiming that certain Gothic kings belonged to the royal Hunnic family.
 * This even though these latter claims make more sense. Because the Huns did actually rule the Germanic tribes for a century, started by marrying with a Germanic princess (Vadamerca) and ended by doing the same (Ildico), and it is not a possibility but a certainty that all Balkanic Germanic families had at least some Hunnic elements, some Attilid or royal Hunnish "blood". And because of this mixing, Mundo, though of paternal Attilid descent, was likely up to 90% "biologically" German. Imo.
 * But in this case, those few scholars really upset a primary source.
 * I believe that the theory Jordanes means anything beside what he literally says, is fringe. But WP:UNDUE may also be applied in this case. We should not give undue weight to those theories. Giray Altay (talk) 12:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * We don’t get to decide what’s a “misinterpretation of a primary source.” We need to accurately reflect all scholarly opinions - a brief mention that the sentence can be interpreted differently is all that is required, and Srnec and myself have established wp:consensus for its inclusion in this discussion, so it will be added to the article unless anyone else joins the conversation to object. Otherwise, you are free to open an wp:rfc or otherwise publicize the issue on WikiProject talk pages that are relevant.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't get to change the consensus of scholars, nor put it in doubt, which is what you are trying to do here. I mentioned that the primary source is misinterpreted to explain you why scholars have rejected the claims you want to publish, since you seem reluctant to understand that.
 * I am not sure @Srnec supports this inclusion. I do not. Give editors time to come here, then I will open RfC. But don't change the article again until conversation is concluded.
 * We must not give undue weight, and we must not attack specific articles for fears of Pan-Turkism 1 or to make them more "Germanic" 2. Giray Altay (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * the fact that most scholars interpret something one way does not mean that we get to not include dissenting opinions. WP:NPOV. Also, Srnec said there is no reason to keep out the argument that the term could mean "people of Attila" just above. You are ascribing motives to this addition that are simply not there.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Patrick Amory has an extended discussion, which I've copied here:

The references to Mundo's identity are instructively confused. Marcellinus comes, who probably knew him (Croke, "Mundo the Gepid," p. 132), calls him "Geta" (s.a. 505) a word he uses slightly later for Ostrogoths (s.a. 530). Procopius, who also probably knew him (ibid., p. 133) says that he was of barbarian descent (BG I.5.2). Jordaanes, on the other hand says that the bandit Mundo was "formerly of the Attilani" (Get. 301), interpreted by PLRE3:903 to mean that he was "of Hun descent," PLRE2: 767 "Mundo was a Hun," using this as evidence that he could not be identical to the later Mundo "Geta." But as Croke, ibid., p. 130, points "Attilani" could simply mean that he came from a group that was part of the Hunnic confederacy of Attila, which included both the Ostrogoths and the Gepids. Greek sources call him a Gepid or son of a king of the Gepids (Joh. Malal. 450, Theoph. A.M. 6032), or a Gepid and "king" (rhēx) of Sirmium" (Georgius Cedrenus, Comp. Hist. I:652, lines 3-4); the context of Ennodius's description of him perhaps also implies that he was a Gepid: Pan' 12. 60-4 (battles in the land of the Gepids).

Unfortunately, Croke goes on to use this evidence to establish Mundo's identity as "a Gepid by descent" (ibid., pp. 130-1), noting Jordanes's description of the "relationship" between the peoples of the Goths and the Gepids (Get. 94-5). This is plausible as far as it goes (see Ustriogtthus, perhaps Asbadus).

But Mundo's ancestors themselves may have come from various groups calling themselves Huns, Goths, or Gepids. If so, either he or others could choose one of his ancestor's identities to describe him, according to the needs of the moment, or the viewpoint of the observer.

Croke is usually noted as the most complete article on Mundus, and if something with Amory's stature also seems to buy his claims, we really cannot claim that this is not at least a minority view worth including.

Amory also clarifies that only Jordanes mentions the Attilani.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Haha! You are funny. You are joking right? Amory is the reason that brought you here, I was the first to mention his fringe theory, you saw that and came here (cf. 1 (read it) and one hour later 2, first of a series leading to this 3).
 * There are several theories for which we can provide evidence, but we don't include them in articles because they are fringe, or, because they don't deserve undue weight.
 * Providing a long quote of Amory does not make his theory mainstream. I just provided you many quotes showing what I said in the beginning, that Mundus is believed by the consensus to be of Attilid, biological origin. Why casting the seed of doubt in the reader, why giving undue weight by publishing what Amory and that other scholar whose name I cannot even remember said?--Giray Altay (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) The theory obviously originates with Brian Croke, not Amory (see the citation from Amory); 2) something is not a fringe theory if multiple WP:RS (Croke, Amory, Krautschik, likely others) report it. Providing lots of quotes of other people (many of them writing before Croke) is not a method for determining whether a theory is fringe; 3) I still have not, and have no plans to, read your unanswered post on Erminwin's talk page. Continuing to insist I somehow came here specifically to "sow doubt in the readers' minds" about Mundus being a Hun are unfounded (and frankly pretty bizarre).
 * Given that you've been blocked, I will refrain from editing on this specific issue until your block has expired.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * GA was just | confirmed to have been socking, so, since no one has spoken out against including this info, I will start improving the article.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: The Middle Ages
— Assignment last updated by Alexisnobelium (talk) 01:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)