Talk:History of the Huns

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

message: Who drew the map? Why is Danmark, the Baltic region and southern Sweden under Hunnic rule? Where is the evidence for this? Krastain 09:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed the second map is grotesquely inaccurate. At the time of the battle of Chalons Kent Anglia and Ebrauc (York) would all still be in Brythonic hands, The Amoricani  who where affectively independent at this time (who participated in Chalons) are also falsely recorded as being under Visigoth hands. This particular rewriting of history presumably by Saxonophiles goes beyond even the half fiction history recorded by Gildas centuries later. 70.187.156.140 23:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: Sorry, there are many issues with that article. First, professor Hyun Jin Kim is cited without any explanation (who is Hyun Jin Kim? What is the relevance of Hyun Jin Kim to this article? etc). Second, the whole page is contaminated by "Hyun Jin Kim argues". That suggests that  Hyun Jin Kim does not reflect the consolidated information about the History of the Huns. To our readers, It would be helpful to have this kind of statement  ("Hyun Jin Kim argues ...") here in disucssion page but not in main article.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.214.133 (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Hyun Jin Kim

message: There are
Big Hun Imperial State
and
European Hun State
This article is European Hun State Aceflooder 08:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name is wrong

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

message: I strongly object to the comment that Bulgarian Empire was created by remnant Huns. This theory was rejected at least 10 years ago. Please do have in mind that Bulgarian people were nomadic, yes, equstrian, yes, but their participation in Hunnic raids is strongly disputed, to say the least. 
```` —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Naurinho (talk • contribs) 10:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulgarian Empire 

message: Could an admin please change the category for this article from :Category:Empires to :Category:Former empires. Thanks. I am sorting out the entries in the empire categories. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! --Timeshifter (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Former empires 

message: this page gives adequate information on the history of the huns.and should be left alone  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atilla hun (talk • contribs) 16:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is nothing wrong with this page 

message: We have comments. Do we yet have a consensus? Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In view of the comments above, I propose to delete this page and replace it by a redirect. I'll leave it for a few days to give others an opportunity to comment. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the RfC has indeed ended, but I am not sure whether we are closer to a solution than before. I am grateful to users Noleander and Orange Mike for taking time to contribute to the discussion, but I do not think that they could come up with anything really new. The only novel thing that we have heared was Noleander's claim that "the Huns were nomadic, and the geo-political entity never really had a solid identity", which I think is simply not true, or at least questionable. I do not see why cannot have nomadic people a solid identity? And even if they could not have, they would still be able to have an empire, wouldn't they? Orange Mike's arguments that "some" modern scholars "abuse" the term "empire" is also not a new argument, we had it before. There are thousands of sources  that talk about the "Hunnic Empire", which was a nomadic empire, not a classical one. Since Wikipedia is no place for original research, we should not say that all those authors that use the term "Hunnic Empire" are abusing the word. Therefore, I do not think that we have a consensus, yet. Even if we have received two additional "votes", unfortunately, we have not received significant additional arguments. In my opinion, since we could not reach a consensus (the pro and contra arguments are in some kind of equilibrium), the article should not be redirected. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 05:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

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

text: I don't believe we have a good consensus either way.  Support for the merge is only slightly ahead (and even less so if Lx 121's post-RfC vote is counted).  An actual merge would remain controversial.  To those who think this article can be improved towards focusing on the subject of the state, please do so.  Lx 121 is coming into this discussion _after_ my own attempt to align the article with the state as the subject (Lx 121, the article did not even define "Hunnic Empire" in the introduction, but defined the Huns!).  I believe this article actually needs a lot more _stripped out_ of it to become more about the state.  --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Support. I don't suppose that Wikipedia will collapse because of one redundant article, but this one should focus carefully on what little is known of the development of statehood and its rapid disappearance. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Less known short lived states have own articles(Slovak Soviet Republic, Serbian-Hungarian Baranya-Baja Republic, Carpatho-Ukraine etc...) Hunnic Empire deserves an own page.Fakirbakir (talk) 13:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. The argument isn't about "deserving". It's about whether we can say anything about this empire that doesn't already appear elsewhere. Let's do our best. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC ended

message: Fakirbakir,
I appreciate your good faith edits to improve the article.  I think you should be careful when adding in the Xiongnu to the article.  I think it is fine to mention the theory of Hun continuity with the Xiongnu, but the _state_ is not contiguous with the Xiongnu state in the east.  It was not founded in the 3rd century BC, for example, but sometime in the 4th century AD.  The Xiongnu state in the east had a definite end and the Hunnic Empire had a separate beginning.  --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have corrected it, partly. Indeed, it was confusing. However I leave the first sentence because the scholar Brook states that: "The original Hunnic Empire was established in inner Asia in the third century BCE by the military commander T'ou-man". Fakirbakir (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  As state of European Huns 

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

message: Can someone find a map that is very close to this one and doesn't show a capital?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.53.7.110 (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: It seems that repeated AfDs are getting no consensus. Perhaps if we can reach consensus on the intended scope of this article we can come up with something acceptable to everyone? What, in other words, is reasonably described as the Hunnic Empire, and what is more appropriately described as the activities of politically divided groups with only a vague sense of unity? I'd suggest that the Hunnic Empire is the realm of Attila, including the nature, basis, results, and extent of his rule, and the rest of their history is the history of the Huns. What do you think should be the scope of this article? Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of this article: refactoring deletion debate 

message: : Appart from the fact, that the origin and ethnicity of the Huns is unknown (Turkic being just one theory), I see no point in putting the Turkish name of the site directly in the first line. What has the modern Turkish language to do with the historical Huns?! It's like putting Hindustani and German names in the first line of each article that deals with the historical Indo-Germanic (= Indo-European) peoples. That's absurd. --Lysozym (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Huns are Turk. Is not just a theory. Huns' language, religion and culture are examined, understood being Turk. Are these guys crazy, why speak Turkic in the middle of Europe? They speak Turkic, because THEY ARE TURK! EMr KnG (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: See main articles Huns and Hunnic language. We have an extensively-referenced and inconclusive scholarly debate on the affinities of the European Huns. Turkish relationships are high on the list of possibilities but the evidence is not definitive. We do not need overstated low-level claims. You may possibly find a consensus to incorporate them in Turkish nationalism or Pan-Turkism as examples of current assertions. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

text: There's no possibility. Origin is a possibility that can not be, because There is no doubt that they are Turk. Religion is examined, understood they belong to the religion of Tengrism is the national religion of the Turks. Language is examined, understood their language is Turkic . Culture is examined, understood that they have fully the Turkish culture. According to these findings, we understand that without a doubt the Turk. EMr KnG (talk) 10:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You do not describe a scholarly consensus. The main articles do. While some degree of Turkic affinity is a leading suggestion, we actually don't know what language the Huns spoke, nor what their religion was. What little is known of their culture does not distinguish them from any set of Eurasian nomads. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Richard Keatinge and Lysozym. There are many theories about the Huns and whether they were Turkic people can be debated, even though it is one of the stronger hypotheses. However, as long as there is no widespread scholarly consensus about this, none of the variants should get an undue weight, since Wikipedia should use a neutral point of view. Thus, I prefer the original variant. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 13:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Not just from stronger hypothesis or stronger theory. It was only at first but later on much more advanced level. There is no doubt Hun's language is Turkic language​​, Hun's culture is Turk culture and Hun's religion is Tengrism. In addition to I've given quality resources. So definitely my changes should be considered. EMr KnG (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  As the article on Hunnic language already explains, there is not much material to decide the matter. In fact, all that is left are a few names and a total of 3 (!) words - all of them obviously Non-Turkic. And religion does not define origin. Modern Turks in Turkey are Muslims, 99% of the Turks are Muslims. But that does not mean that they have origins in Arabia or are related to Arabs. The belief in a sky god was the common religion of many different steppe peoples, including the Indo-Europeans; Zeus, Thor, Dyaus Pita, etc. are all remnants of that age of steppe nomads and their sky gods. None of EMr KnG's claims has any scientific base. --Lysozym (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

text: As if your thought of defending is very scientific? My claim is not scientific if your claim is nothing scientific. Certain extremely biased look at the event. EMr KnG (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Claims of essential Turkishness

message: http://geolib.geology.cz/cgi-bin/gw?ST=03&SID=0039F9ACDA&L=02&KDE=037&RET=Raman+spectroscopic+provenance+determination+of+garnets+from+the+scramasaxe+scabbard+%28The+treasure+of+Barbarian+Prince+from+C%C3%A9zavy%2DBlu%C4%8Dina%2C+Czech+Republic%2C+late+5th+century%29%2E+%5C%5CRIV%2F00023272%3A%5F%5F%5F%5F%5F%2F09%3A%230000893%5C
http://templ.net/english/texts-sword_from_blucina.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu%C4%8Dina_burial Good day, my written English is not the best. So can someone please update the so called Hunnic Empire. This is the only artifact known that dates from Atilla the Hun, and the AVAR period 5th to 8th Century (Blucina Sword note German man). It is located 8km from Brno Moravia. No aritfacts have ever been found on Bohemian soil to my knowledge. But maybe someone should read history more carefully. Because I am far from an expert. But didn't Atilla the Hun and the later Avar's first entered Europe through the Silk road to raid the Roman Empire. Documents at the time were written in Latin and Greek and many citie's and rivers were named. None of these are on todays Czech Republic's Lands. http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/photo-gallery-ptolemy-s-geography-fotostrecke-59994-2.html , http://www.cs-magazin.com/index.php?a=a2011021048 . The rivers named are the Volga, Rhine, Danube. Also the "Chronicle of Fredegar" "slavic" "Befulci" can mean many things page 149 here: http://www.ffzg.unizg.hr/arheo/ska/tekstovi/fredegar_paul.pdf :https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/api/datastream?publicationPid=uk-ac-man-scw:1m1955&datastreamId=POST-PEER-REVIEW-PUBLISHERS-DOCUMENT.PDF or even google:define:Benfulci. If anyone can help in updating I will be greatful. Casurgis from Sydney 2013  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.0.254 (talk) 09:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Czech Republic point of view. 

message: Per this edit, Pohl, Walter. 1999. Huns. Late Antiquity: a guide to the postclassical world, ed. Glen Warren Bowersock, Peter Robert Lamont Brown, Oleg Grabar. Harvard University Press. pp.501-502, and do not see Proto Slavic mentioned. Could User:3family6 provide a quote for this source? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I brought this over from the Hunnic language article. I do not have a copy of the source to check, I just assumed good faith that the source mentioned proto-Slavic. If you have access to the source and to not see Proto-Slavic mentioned, then please feel free to remove the mention from both this article and the Hunnic language article.--¿3family6 contribs 18:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I checked the source and found no mention of Slavic or Proto Slavic on pages 501-502. I will remove it. Thank you for your prompt response. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Further to this addition, as far as I know the comments about languages of the Hunnic empire are based on a single primary source mentioning people speaking, besides Hunnic, Gothic, other "barbarian" tongues, and - those that have dealings with the Western Romans - Latin. And there was a Greek-speaking prisoner of the Huns; doubtless more than one existed but we have mention of just one. Despite the various pronouncements of modern authorities, and even the likelihood that most of Attila's subjects spoke Gothic or something like it, I really don't think this justifies putting Latin or Greek into the infobox. I propose to remove them. Comments? Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: According to my brief research, Greek and Latin were used in the administration of the empire. This is why I decided that these languages should be put in the infobox. One Latin and Greek speaker doesn't really qualify, but use of those languages in the bureaucracy would qualify.--¿3family6 contribs 21:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear 3family6, I would appreciate if you added the reliable sources you researched.  Borsoka (talk) 03:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do.--¿3family6 contribs 16:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be really impressed if you can find anything reliable and respectable that even hints that Attila had anything resembling a bureaucracy. No primary source mentions anything of the kind. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

text: I'll grant that bureaucracy is an anachronistic term, and I certainly wouldn't use it in the article.--¿3family6 contribs 19:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proto Slavic source 

message: Do we need to add such a template with anachronistic or artificial data? For instance, are we sure that the Hunnic Empire was a state? Are we sure that it had a capital which can be specified? Are we sure that it was a monarchy from the start? ...... Borsoka (talk) 03:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is more with the data, not the template. The template lists the Hun Empire as starting in c. 370, but at that point the Huns were only a loose confederation, not an empire. I think that the starting point should move from 370 to 420, when according to the Wikipedia article (I don't know what source this portion of the article draws from) Oktar and Rugila were the first chieftains to unite the Huns. The part about the Carpathian Basin I added because of the map for the article. I wasn't really happy with that edit myself, so I don't mind that reversion at all.--¿3family6 contribs 16:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former country template 

message: Last line of Attila's empire section. Please, provide reference source for the claim Ildico was a German girl. Thank you.
Tes0001 (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 15 October 2013