Talk:Battle of the Catalaunian Plains

message: With respect the below discussion is way off. The Roman victory is not an interpretation of obscure sources, it is the only possible interpretation of the very direct report of Hydatius that Rome won the battle. Discussion of Jordanes is a moot point, since Jordanes was writing hundreds of years later. Hydatius was a well-informed contemporary with no particular axe to grind, and who was not shy about reporting Roman defeats. Patrick Morris O'connor (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 01:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion below is off, yes, but is also several years old. Furthermore one cannot rely purely on Hydatius, who although contemporary may have written as many as 20 years later. Prosper Tiro gives the closest and most correct answer saying that the battle was a "mass slaughter" and that it appeared the Huns had been defeated because they were withdrawing - the original Latin does not state that they were defeated. He probably wrote this within a few months of the battle taking place. You should read Ulf Tackholm's "Aetius and the Battle on the Catalaunian Fields." I use it in a few places and will use it more as I get to editing those sections tomorrow morning.MMFA (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

text: I agree with it. Don't understand why is there an assumed Roman victory when in the next year the Huns went through the whole empire without any resistance? Does everyone find it logical?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.171.36.105 (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Notice that Attila had to retreat and could only return in the following year. In that year the Romans were fighting alone without most of their allies (read: Visigoths). Flamarande (talk) 10:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

text: A couple of points: firstly, Attila built a pyre on which to immolate himself on the second day, so he knew he had lost. Secondly, it was Aetius's decision to let the Huns, Ostrogoths and their allies flee so that the Visigoths would have someone to fight other than the Romans, and he sent the Visigoths to their homes so that they wouldn't be in a position to follow and wipe out the enemy and so become the enemy. As an aside, Aetius was vengeful for Sangiban's alleged treachery so he put the Alans front and centre so that they would all perish, but he didn't account for the accuracy of the Armorican archers who did sufficient damage to the Hun front lines that the Alans survived: so he sent the Alans to Armorica and Gallaecia, thinking they'd cause mischief there - but instead they settled in nicely and taught the locals Parthian-style battle tactics, which served them well in subsequent centuries (e.g. against the Arabs, Franks and Saxons). Zoetropo (talk) 00:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Did Sangiban connive with Attila, or was the arrangement that if the city let Attila in, then the citizens would be spared?  Although the city gates were closed, Attila was very capable at siege warfare and soon broke into the city. Much of Attila's army was already inside the city when the Romans and their allies appeared. He abandoned Aurelianum so that he wouldn't be surrounded, pinned down and besieged himself. Aurelianum was on the frontier of Armorica, so the fact that the Armoricans specifically protected the Alans during the battle and subsequently accepted them into their own homeland suggests that the Armoricans didn't impute any ill-intent to the Alans or to their leaders: indeed, the Armoricans honoured the name of "Alan" for the next 1,500 years. Zoetropo (talk) 00:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

text: Easy to decide who won the battle: we know that Attila stayed on the field after the battle and no one stopped or tried to kill him, he took his time and looked around - because there were no enemies left by that time on the field. Can you tell me an other battle after which the looser stayed on the field and could look around freely? Of course you cannot - this simple fact shows that Attila won that battle. And the second thing: soon after that battle he conquered the whole RE.81.183.245.214 (talk) 09:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because it is overlong, turgid, and completely omits Bury's view that the battle was trivial compared to Battle of  the Nedao
Septentrionalis 21:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In point of fact, no articles are "overlong" as long as all the information is accurate, clearly-presented, supported by footnotes and on-topic, but many attention spans are "overshort": for an article whose length is not complainmed of, see Britney Spears. Criteria for inclusion and exclusion, listing and de-listing as "good articles", often applied by a posse of self-important non-specialists, fail to engage the full attention of many Wikipedian editors. --Wetman 10:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{PAGENAME}} removed from [[Wikipedia:Good articles]]

message: The degree of Christianization in the Roman Empire in the 4th century or central Europe in the 5th century remains controversial. Some major battles: Valens vs. Athanaric, 367. Gaina vs. Uldin. Stilicho vs. Radagaisius. Utus River. Jacob Haller 07:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources aren't very good because the Romans considered Christian Arianism heretic and listed them among the pagans. Wandalstouring 20:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Christian vs. Pagan?

message: In 451 Attila and his army set off against the Visigoths (Vestgutas) from the banks of Tissa River to the bank of Rhine River. The main reason for this action was that king of Visigoths Theoderik had poisoned his wife, a sister of Attila.
In the second half of June 451 on Catalaunian Plains took place the most famous battle of early Middle Ages. In fatal fight joined two most powerful armies of that date. Attla commanded one army. In it, besides Huns, were, Bulgars under their Baltavar, Ostrogoths, (Ostgutas) under the leadership of three brothers (Valamir, Thiudemir, Vidimer), Gebids under leadership of Ardarik, and a multitude of other peoples led by their Kings and Princes. The King of Visigoths (Vestgutas) Theoderik and outstanding Byzantine (Vizentine) commander Aetius (Etius) led the other army. In the army, besides Visigoths and Romans, were Alans. The battle started about nine o´clock in the morning. The Visigoths seized a prevailing mound and hills. Attempts by the Huns to eject them from there ended in failure. Then Attila addressed his native Hunugur warriors. Finishing his speech, he said: "No spear shall harm those who are sure to live; and for those who are sure to die Fate overtakes even in peace. And finally, who should Fortune have made the Hunugurs victorious over so many peoples, unless it were to prepare them for the joy of this battle. Who was it revealed to our glorious leader Bulumar and others the path through Maeotian swamp, for so many ages a closed secret? Who, moreover, made armed men yield to you, when you were as yet unarmed? Even a mass of federated nations could not endure the sight of the Hunugurs. I am not deceived in this issue; here is the field so many victories have promised for us. I shall hurl the first spear at the foe. If any can stand at rest when Attila fights, he is a dead man."
Attila won the battle. Both sides lost 180.000 each. In Europe now was any force capable to resist Attila and his army.
This from "Djagfar tarikhy" collected by Fargat Nurutdinoff from old collection dated 1680 from ancient Vizentine, Persian, Turkic and Arabian sources written in Arabic letters and its full Russian transliteration in 1842 and published in Orenburg in 1993.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.206.190 (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice to know. Could you help us to retrieve these sources, so we can use them? Wandalstouring 10:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Battle of Catalaunian Plains 

message: I've changed the last sentence of the opening section and replaced "Germans" with "a coalition of Germanic peoples". Speaking of Germans in the fifth century AD seems a bit anachronistic; it's just like saying "the English" invaded Britain in the same century. 80.144.168.186 (talk) 09:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germanic not German 

message: It sounds like Goth-Alan... coincidence? Böri (talk) 10:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Catalaunum was the name of the local settlement I believe, which derives from Celtic I think. MMFA (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Catalaunian originates from the Gaulish tribe of the Catu-uellauni i.e. "lord of the battle" --90.63.12.43 (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  What was the etymology of "Catalaunian"? 

message: I'd find that the count and quality of the troops listed is completely inacccurate in terms of both Roman and Hunnish sides.
First of all let's look at the sentence in Iordanes which says "quondam milites roman, tunc vero in auxiliarium exquisiti." This suggests not the outdated auxillaries of the 3rd century, but Olibrones, "once roman soldiers, and now the flower of the allied forces."
Now we look at the Novella Val. of 445, in which he states the remaining portions of Africa have lost 218000 solidi in production value. If we deduce that it equates to about 36800 Comitatensian infantry based on a figure of 6 solidi per man per annum. Or about 18000 cavalry.
Peter Heather in his The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History that the troop counts equated in the notitia were about 90000 paper strength, and about 50-70000 actual strength. This leaves the total field for Aetius' army between 25-35000 if you include the values for the loss of Africa Proconsularis and Numidia, plus the original Values of Tripolitania and the Three Mauretanias stated earlier.
Only about 10000-15000 of his army whould have been in gaul, of which most would have been low-grade pseudocomitatenses and a portion of Auxillia Palatina. Add in the Visigoths who could field a similar sized force based on Idatius' figure of losses in the Battle of Mons Colubrarius in 438 (the name is mentioned by Merobaudes though), plus the various nation Aetius had subdued throughout Gaul, we are looking at a figure of about 30000 on the Roman side.
MMFA (talk) 13:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Troop Counts at the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains 

message: This article states:
The parts still securely in Roman control were the Mediterranean coastline, a wide band of varying width running from Aurelianum (present-day Orléans) upstream along the Loire as far north as Amiens and one downstream along the Rhône River including the Auvergne, Provence and Languedoc.
But, I am confused:  The Loire flows north from the Alps in Southern France, turning west abruptly in the region of Orléans, and from there basically flows out to the Atlantic via Nantes.  The northernmost point in the Loire's course IS Orléans, and Amiens is not near the Loire at all (rather near the Somme).
Is it that this "wide band of varying width" is merely an abstract straight line, and not actually a band that follows the courses of the rivers Loire and Rhône?  The context implies that this is not so.  How does Amiens fit into this picture?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Caffrey (talk • contribs) 21:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Roman Control in gaul extended from Tourai, to strausbourg, over into amorica, and into Orleans, then south to Arles, roughly. Aetius had greatly reduced the influence the Visigoths, Franks, and Burgundians had by using his private retainer and the remnants of the Roman field armies, along with Alan foederati settled from Orleans to Amorica in 435. Control of the area wasn't exactly, erm, "control" because most of the roman citizens were either the self-serving landowners like Aetius in walled estates, or the cities which usually had some form of garrison. Anyone else was subject to raiding. Aetius' Bucellarii and the Remnants of the field army (probbaly a few platina regiments and pseudocomitatenses) usually didn't enforce any kind of control unless it directly threatened the intrests of the gallic landowning class. MMFA (talk) 01:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upstream Along The Loire 

message: It seems like recently this is whats its being referred to as the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains but any history book from fifty to a few hundred years ago all it the Battle of Chalons.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.1.113.15 (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does this Wikipedia page about the battle of Chalons refer to it as the battle of the Catalaunian Plains? 

message: Urs Tackholm wrote a paper called "Aetius and the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains", which is the only other detailed analysis besides Kim's and Hughes' analysis (and of course the one in that German book on Aetius which there are only 3 copies of). If anyone has access to the paper, it would be great if you could add his points and views to the article. MMFA (talk) 02:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tackholm's account of the Battle 

message: Dear MMFA.
I refer to your removal of the note regarding Armoricians.  As far as I can tell the only reference to auxiliaries is the Battle section, so this is the best place for the note.  I presume your edit summary meant the army composition is discussed under the Forces section, but I cannot see anything specifically referring to auxillaries there.
Please note that my note inclusion was from upmerging another article in whole, so if this is removed here then the whole other article content disappears.  See this edit on Armoricians.
Perhaps the text about the auxilaries in the Battle section also needs to be moved to the Forces section, and thence also the note or the note is then converted to ordinary article text.
If you do remove the note then you also need to remove the now obsolete Notes section.
I am happy for you move the Armoricians note / text to wherever it may be better placed but it does need to be somewhere in this article.
Regards.
Eno Lirpa (talk) 11:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey. Sidonius' reference to auxiliaries makes absolutely no mention of the Aremoriciani who are mentioned in Jordanes, which is why I removed it. If the Aremoriciani are not discussed in the forces section, then the list of armies from Jordanes probably needs to be discussed in the Forces section as a whole. I'll take a look at it and get around to it later today. Months ago I had done a mass edit of this page and then went back and did even more, but the last set of edits was lost when my internet went out and I never finished it (it was a lot of editing sources for the most part so they all followed the same format). MMFA (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Eno Lirpa I just checked and there is a reference to Armoricans in the Forces section, the first sentence discusses Jordanes' detailing of the Allied forces. Why then, is there a need to put a note next to Sidonius, who makes absolutely no mention of Armoricans, in that section? MMFA (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armoricians and auxilaries 

message: The "Course of the Battle" image lists Merovech ("Merowig") and Ellac ("Ellak"), Attila's son, among the commanders involved in the battle, including descriptions of the roles they played in the troop commands.
It would be great to list sources regarding their involvement. 
Ellac, as Attilas's eldest son and the heir to a warlord, seems likely to have been present at the battle. Gundioc, as King of the Burgundian federates, seem also likely to have been present. On the Roman side the only commanders, so far, whose participation can be for sure asserted are Aetius, Theodoric, Thorismund and Sangiban, but it is likely that there were more leaders involved, especially when you consider the amount of more-or-less sovereign allies gathered.
So I would propose considering the inclusion of the following commanders in the list (given proper sourcing):
*Merovech and Gondioc, for the Roman allies.
*Ellac, for the Hunnic & allied army.
Another point to be considered is that it is highly disputable that Merovech was ever a "Semi-legendary" figure. There was a Merovech, there are descriptions of him, his life and his rule (the pivotal part being precisely his part in the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains), he was an ancestor to the Frankish Kings and to nearly all of the European royal and high noble houses. There is also a genealogy of his own frankish ancestors from over 200 years before him. To believe the historical person is just a "fabrication" nears the ridiculous. Who do all these people who claim descent from him descend from? "Monsters"? "Aliens"? Why would precisely this link, present in highly researched genealogies dating back nearly two thousands of years from his modern descendants and to Merovech's ancestors, be exactly "faulty" on the person of Merovech himself?
The claims that Merovech is "semi-legendary" seem to refer mostly to all the stories and legends surrounding him and the founding of the eponymous dynasty, not to his existence as a real person.
I would, given the evidence present just in the few wikipedia articles about him and the battle, and the pivotal role his participation played in his life and in securing the Frankish throne, definitely include him amongst the commanders of the Roman allies, though a proper source should be listed as this is not uncontroversial.
User:CaptainKaptain 01:13, 06 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Another note: Theodoric I's son Thorismund was present as a leading cavalry commander in the Battle. Wouldn't it seem likely that Attila's son Ellac, which is also listed as a cavalry commander in the Battle, would be present in the battle as a commander? The chief of a prominent warlord would definitely take part in battles alongside his father to show his ability to rule. User:CaptainKaptain 01:20, 06 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no evidence in the primary sources stating Ellac was present. The problem is that all the sources about Merovaeus/Merovech are mythic/legendary/otherwise unreilable sources. All we actually know from primary sources that purport themselves to be actual chronicles or histories is that the younger son of Chlodio sided with Aetius. We don't know if this man was named Merovech. In fact it could have actually been Childeric. The evidence simply isn't clear, and no modern author really goes insofar as to make a claim that it is clear. In my book (which I can't use here, for obvious reasons, and largely why I don't edit this page much anymore) on this topic I explicitly outline this problem.MMFA (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commanders: Ellac, Merovech, Gundioc (Merovech is not "semi-legendary") 

message: I'm tagging User:Avilich and User:Ermenrich here since as a published author on this topic now, I really can't edit this page anymore. There's several works on this battle that have come out in the past 10 years and aren't included here, those being Iaroslav Lebedensky's 2011 work "La campagne d'Attila en Gaule 451 apr. J.-C." and a 2016 work I was personally unable to acquire (last I tried there was only one available in France's national library). Obviously there's mine (Schultheis, 2019), but I can't tell you guys to use it as a reference since that would break the rules. It would be great if this page could be updated with those other works, and you two seem to actually care about improving the quality of articles pertaining to this topic. MMFA (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what the rules say about this, but if you think the article can be improved you should go ahead without worrying too much about giving undue weight to your own PoV. Of course some care must be taken, but you seem to have access to a wide array of sources already (my own contributions were basically cleanup measures), and overall quality outweighs a minor PoV slip-up. Avilich (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll add the article to my watch list and when I have more time I'll try to make some improvements.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Page Improvements with Recent Publications 

message: Just FYI, I've requested page protection due to the volume of new or IP editors coming here to change the page to say that either the Romans or Huns won the battle.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I see that  actually beat me to it. I'll leave mine there since maybe it will get addressed faster this way.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: My thanks Ermenrich!  --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been more back and forth edits in recent weeks Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested page protection