![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 21 June 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Doesn't this just duplicate what already exists in Huns? Adam Bishop 04:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
It is a bit weak. Is there anything of independent value, and if so could it be moved to the main Huns page, with a view to deleting this one? Richard Keatinge 11:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
-I guess this map suggests that since the German peoples were under Hunnic rule, so must have been their territories. However, in the particular areas that can be disputed as being Hunnic, the German peoples must have left during the Migration Period and there wouldn't have been any real dominant peoples, except for the Huns.
I seem to recall Attila claiming rule over the northern islands, presumably on the grounds that he was boss of all Germans anywhere. But the map is definitely dodgy. I note the Jutes are placed in Yorkshire for some reason. Bede puts them on, or off, the south coast. Richard Keatinge 11:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
There are
Big Hun Imperial State and European Hun State
This article is European Hun State Aceflooder 08:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
The Huns were clearly a nomadic pastoralist people. Their economy in Pricius is listed as raising horses and animals augmented by treasures and slaves captured in war. Just as a man could have man horses in his herds to manage so if he takes other people in war should he keep them as his herds seems a clear indication that these peoples who made up the Hunnic confederation of tribes a primarily nomadic pastoralist people. Also please see the movement of the Hunnic cauldron and its placement throughout Eurasia and dated and sequenced through 3 decades or archaeological scholarship. It is discussed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunnic_Empire Thanks. 98.192.197.7 ( talk) 23:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Brian Page
The huns were traveling with hores and boads to the other countries. The went with boads over the black see so that they could come to >Europ and be there. So they came from Mongolia in to Hungray and then from there to the yet Germany adn the gaul that's now Fance. But when they were on land they went with their horses to other countries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.233.32.85 ( talk) 14:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
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).
Bulgarians were in fact Turkic people who came from Central Asia near a mountain called Bolkar mountains it means a lot snow mountains... They came to Europe with the Hunnic movement and after the decline of Hunnic empire, they were slavacised... Today they think it is not cool to be Turkic and they completely deny their past... Bulgarians are not really trutfull about their history... They are rather political about that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.185.107 ( talk) 09:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
There were old Hunno-Turkic states in the old days called European Huns,Golden Horde,Tatars,Avars,Chuvashs and Bolkars (Bulgarians)... they built nations in Eastern part of Europe even before Ukraine, Poland,Belorussia, Russia had existed... and Slavic people were living under their rules... So mixing-up was inevitable... So you have to think about this... where all that people did go?... nothing suddently disappears in the universe...:)
But that probably it explains why Eastern Eropean people in fact look more different than western Eropean people... I dont think anybody enjoys with the fact that they did have a Mongolian grand father... they much rather would like to believe that they came from a viking... I suppose it feels cooler that way...:))))
Also, After the deline of Hunnic empire and so the other Turkic states, Hun population had been disolved and been converted into Slavs... Because, they were either forced or given an inferiority complex with the way they looked (Mongoloid)... So many people who call themselves slav today... are in fact Hun or Turkic in origin... but they will deny it... because it is not cool enough for them... I havent even mentioned yet how many more Turkic states exists under Russian Federation... I believe we shall not temper with the history for our racial and political purposes... Reality bites... I think Slavic people have to come the terms with their pasts... They are in fact not pure Slavs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.185.107 ( talk) 10:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
All the wikipedia sources clearly states that Huns were Turkic Tribes. Therefore it is sensless to arguea about that. But in this article it is not clearly stated. Wonder why?
About the Bulgarian empire - Bulgar tribes Utigurs and Kutrigurs were a part of the Hunnic tribal alliance. Later they just made a new union which was the Bulgarian state. But it was not a 'remnant' of the Hunnish empire which disintegrated two centuries ago. 195.114.112.177 ( talk) 09:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I have protected this page from editing until the present dispute is resolved as all I see is edit warring without any discussion. Please try and reach a consensus for how this article should read through discussions on this page and go through the dispute resolution process if necessary. Once you are in agreement you can request unprotection at WP:RFPP. WjB scribe 16:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
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)
You guys should look at the Aetius page. If you want to call him a traitor here, maybe you should harmonize that. If not, maybe you should make clear there is a radical difference of opinion. If not either, maybe there should be a warning on wikipedia pages that one should take everything said as probably mostly bullshit written by half-educated undergrads? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.62.191.121 ( talk) 09:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
This page misses the beginning of the Hunnish Empire including the wars with the Tsin dynasty and against the great Wu-di. It is important to go back to some sound research such as Early Empires of Central Asia by William Montgomery McGovern published in 1939. He was raised in China and Japan and could read the original sources without translation. It would be important to discuss the defeat of the Huns by the Chinese in the third Century BC which forced the Huns to go west across the empty land. If the Huns had defeated the Chinese, then they would have moved South into China and been uninterested in the wastelands to the west. ----
Yes thats correct... we should mention what happened in the central Asia with the Huns... We shall also mention that... The great wall of Chine was in fact built to create protection against Huns by the Chinese... Because Chinese were not skillfull warior as much as Huns... The defeat of Hun empire in Centar Asia did happened because Hun empire was devided between two brothers... and when they start fighting each other... Chinese usued this opportunity to attack eastern Hunnic empire to defeat them... not because Chinese are skilled warriors, but rather opportunists in the history... (there goes the argument) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.185.107 ( talk) 10:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a discussion whether the Hunnic Empire article should be merged to the article about the Huns. There are several arguments for and against the merge, but the matter is still not concluded. In order to resolve the stalemate situation, we are seeking additional opinions. Please, help us with your ideas. Koertefa ( talk) 02:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Support - there is almost nothing of independent value here.
Richard Keatinge (
talk)
10:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Support - Agreed, merging this article with the Huns article would be the best thing to do. -- Iritakamas ( talk) 03:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
[Oppose] It sounds as non-sense as merging "United Kingdom" to "British people", or "Byzantine Empire" to "Byzantine Greeks", or "Frankish Empire" to "Franks". Anatolian1071 ( talk) 21:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
delete: two generations of a nomadic people terrorizing occupied land with no state administration, no state-related people (identifying with the oppressor), and not even a seat of government is not worth calling an Empire (and thereby suggesting a statehood). 12:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.100.207.122 ( talk)
Since the first suggestion of re-using material and redirecting this page to Huns some useful text has been put in here. I have added that material to Huns; this page now has no useful material not included in Huns. I propose to leave this page for a few days, to allow for comments, before I turn it into a redirect. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 21:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC) Or in view of the comment above, if anybody feels strongly enough, we could have a redirect to the reign of Attila, during which the Huns really did form an empire. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 17:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
weak merge: I'm inclined to agree that the article should be merged and redirected to Huns#Unified_Empire_under_Attila. I disagree with the idea that there was no state administration and reject the idea of a missing seat of government (please read Priscus), but the Huns do not appear to have been a centrally organized force until Attila became king. Unless there's some expert scholarly consensus referring to this historic period of time as a Hunnic Empire, I see little reason to invent one. -- Stacey Doljack Borsody ( talk) 03:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
(unindent) VDM Publishing prints Wikipedia articles. The snippet on Google Books is an old version of our lede. I guess that the other pages are our other articles on the Huns but I really wouldn't recommend that anyone spends money on checking.
It is now over five years since an editor suggested that this page duplicated Huns. No significant improvement has happened since then, there is no source material to base any improvement on, and the case for merge-and-delete strikes me as unanswerable. I wonder if we need an outside view? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 10:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, here's my version:
Comments? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 10:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
You both sum most of the arguments up well. I disagree with the implication in Richard's third pro argument that it wasn't a state. My concern more hinges on the ability of the article to be improved, that not enough material is available: a conclusion of the first two pro arguments. Let's try to solicit for further comments. No one from the Wikiproject Former Countries spoke up. -- Stacey Doljack Borsody ( talk) 21:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
We have comments. Do we yet have a consensus? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 11:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
with all due respect, we quite clearly DO NOT have consensus here (& in spite of the VERY long-running merge proposal, there have not been a very large number of participants in this conversation. i am "new" here, myself).
my basic position is that "huns" (as a group of people) belongs in one article, & "territory controlled/conquered by the huns" (during their "period of greatness") belongs in another article. i have no strong emotions on the question of whether to call it an "empire" or not, although that does seem to be the standard terminology; both on wikipedia, & in the historical record ("empire of Attila" etc.).
the arguement about "extra maintenance" is, to me, spurious/irrelevant. the "burden" of maintenance is not significantly greater, whether the material is on one page, or several.
what matters is "what is the best way to arrange the information?"; & "glomming" everything together into "one big article" is not the best option (imho).
as regards the merits of the "empire" article "as-is", & the potential for expansion:
i. the article is more than just a stub (although i would still favour keeping it, even if it were a stub); it does a decent-basic job of describing the "domain" ruled by the huns.
ii. there is significant room for expansion, i.e.: details of territorial changes over time, subject peoples, diplomatic relations, notable personages.
an in-depth piece could consider what information there is about "hunnic rule", more/new archaeological discoveries, etc...
returning to the basic question:
among other problems with the "merge" approach (in general), there is an unfortunate tendency for certain articles (or certain parts of certain articles) to get "disappeared" during such "merges"; effectively a deletion-by-merge.
& (again, with all due respect) some of the comments in support of the merge could reasonably be defined as "nnpov"; historical opinionating.
diverse & differing opinions about the significance, nature, etc. of the "hunnic realm" belong on the talk-page for the article (&, when properly written, within the article itself), but do not constitute a legitimate basis for eliminating the article; not when the basic historical facts about the existence & notability of the "hunnic state" are NOT in serious dispute.
the "hunnic empire" (call it what-you-will) existed; it was a VERY important "state" in western eurasia during the late-300s-to-mid-400s AD.
this "state" & the "hunnic people" are 2 clearly distinct & separate subjects-topics-entities; they are closely related, but they are not one-&-the-same.
in the "bigger picture", if we are going to make a significant change in wikipedia practices, as a "general policy"; either a change favouring "all-in-one" mega-articles, OR a change eliminating "empire of-" articles (& presumably merging the material into the relevant "peoples-ethnicity" articles); it should properly be considered in a "general discussion" by the whole community, not here.
therefore, please consider this a respectful oppose merge vote
Lx 121 ( talk) 14:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
If Huns are not Turkic then why they have Turkic names like Attila and Dengizich? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.96.0.172 ( talk) 18:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Ignorant! Attila and Dengizich are Turkic name. Denghizich word meaning is sea (Türkish: Deniz). 78.160.194.131 ( talk) 12:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
Per this edit [13], 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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
Hello,
Can you explain exactly what happened at History of the Huns? There has been no discussion of deleting or merging this page, it's a new page only recently created.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 14:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
[[History of the Huns|Hunnic]]
– I don't think it's a good idea for navigation templates to target sections; these should only target major topics meriting stand-alone articles. So having your new "main article" on the topic solved that problem. Hope this is all satisfactory to you. Regards,
wbm1058 (
talk)
15:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 21 June 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Doesn't this just duplicate what already exists in Huns? Adam Bishop 04:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
It is a bit weak. Is there anything of independent value, and if so could it be moved to the main Huns page, with a view to deleting this one? Richard Keatinge 11:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
-I guess this map suggests that since the German peoples were under Hunnic rule, so must have been their territories. However, in the particular areas that can be disputed as being Hunnic, the German peoples must have left during the Migration Period and there wouldn't have been any real dominant peoples, except for the Huns.
I seem to recall Attila claiming rule over the northern islands, presumably on the grounds that he was boss of all Germans anywhere. But the map is definitely dodgy. I note the Jutes are placed in Yorkshire for some reason. Bede puts them on, or off, the south coast. Richard Keatinge 11:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
There are
Big Hun Imperial State and European Hun State
This article is European Hun State Aceflooder 08:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
The Huns were clearly a nomadic pastoralist people. Their economy in Pricius is listed as raising horses and animals augmented by treasures and slaves captured in war. Just as a man could have man horses in his herds to manage so if he takes other people in war should he keep them as his herds seems a clear indication that these peoples who made up the Hunnic confederation of tribes a primarily nomadic pastoralist people. Also please see the movement of the Hunnic cauldron and its placement throughout Eurasia and dated and sequenced through 3 decades or archaeological scholarship. It is discussed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunnic_Empire Thanks. 98.192.197.7 ( talk) 23:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Brian Page
The huns were traveling with hores and boads to the other countries. The went with boads over the black see so that they could come to >Europ and be there. So they came from Mongolia in to Hungray and then from there to the yet Germany adn the gaul that's now Fance. But when they were on land they went with their horses to other countries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.233.32.85 ( talk) 14:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
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).
Bulgarians were in fact Turkic people who came from Central Asia near a mountain called Bolkar mountains it means a lot snow mountains... They came to Europe with the Hunnic movement and after the decline of Hunnic empire, they were slavacised... Today they think it is not cool to be Turkic and they completely deny their past... Bulgarians are not really trutfull about their history... They are rather political about that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.185.107 ( talk) 09:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
There were old Hunno-Turkic states in the old days called European Huns,Golden Horde,Tatars,Avars,Chuvashs and Bolkars (Bulgarians)... they built nations in Eastern part of Europe even before Ukraine, Poland,Belorussia, Russia had existed... and Slavic people were living under their rules... So mixing-up was inevitable... So you have to think about this... where all that people did go?... nothing suddently disappears in the universe...:)
But that probably it explains why Eastern Eropean people in fact look more different than western Eropean people... I dont think anybody enjoys with the fact that they did have a Mongolian grand father... they much rather would like to believe that they came from a viking... I suppose it feels cooler that way...:))))
Also, After the deline of Hunnic empire and so the other Turkic states, Hun population had been disolved and been converted into Slavs... Because, they were either forced or given an inferiority complex with the way they looked (Mongoloid)... So many people who call themselves slav today... are in fact Hun or Turkic in origin... but they will deny it... because it is not cool enough for them... I havent even mentioned yet how many more Turkic states exists under Russian Federation... I believe we shall not temper with the history for our racial and political purposes... Reality bites... I think Slavic people have to come the terms with their pasts... They are in fact not pure Slavs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.185.107 ( talk) 10:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
All the wikipedia sources clearly states that Huns were Turkic Tribes. Therefore it is sensless to arguea about that. But in this article it is not clearly stated. Wonder why?
About the Bulgarian empire - Bulgar tribes Utigurs and Kutrigurs were a part of the Hunnic tribal alliance. Later they just made a new union which was the Bulgarian state. But it was not a 'remnant' of the Hunnish empire which disintegrated two centuries ago. 195.114.112.177 ( talk) 09:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I have protected this page from editing until the present dispute is resolved as all I see is edit warring without any discussion. Please try and reach a consensus for how this article should read through discussions on this page and go through the dispute resolution process if necessary. Once you are in agreement you can request unprotection at WP:RFPP. WjB scribe 16:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
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)
You guys should look at the Aetius page. If you want to call him a traitor here, maybe you should harmonize that. If not, maybe you should make clear there is a radical difference of opinion. If not either, maybe there should be a warning on wikipedia pages that one should take everything said as probably mostly bullshit written by half-educated undergrads? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.62.191.121 ( talk) 09:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
This page misses the beginning of the Hunnish Empire including the wars with the Tsin dynasty and against the great Wu-di. It is important to go back to some sound research such as Early Empires of Central Asia by William Montgomery McGovern published in 1939. He was raised in China and Japan and could read the original sources without translation. It would be important to discuss the defeat of the Huns by the Chinese in the third Century BC which forced the Huns to go west across the empty land. If the Huns had defeated the Chinese, then they would have moved South into China and been uninterested in the wastelands to the west. ----
Yes thats correct... we should mention what happened in the central Asia with the Huns... We shall also mention that... The great wall of Chine was in fact built to create protection against Huns by the Chinese... Because Chinese were not skillfull warior as much as Huns... The defeat of Hun empire in Centar Asia did happened because Hun empire was devided between two brothers... and when they start fighting each other... Chinese usued this opportunity to attack eastern Hunnic empire to defeat them... not because Chinese are skilled warriors, but rather opportunists in the history... (there goes the argument) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.185.107 ( talk) 10:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a discussion whether the Hunnic Empire article should be merged to the article about the Huns. There are several arguments for and against the merge, but the matter is still not concluded. In order to resolve the stalemate situation, we are seeking additional opinions. Please, help us with your ideas. Koertefa ( talk) 02:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Support - there is almost nothing of independent value here.
Richard Keatinge (
talk)
10:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Support - Agreed, merging this article with the Huns article would be the best thing to do. -- Iritakamas ( talk) 03:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
[Oppose] It sounds as non-sense as merging "United Kingdom" to "British people", or "Byzantine Empire" to "Byzantine Greeks", or "Frankish Empire" to "Franks". Anatolian1071 ( talk) 21:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
delete: two generations of a nomadic people terrorizing occupied land with no state administration, no state-related people (identifying with the oppressor), and not even a seat of government is not worth calling an Empire (and thereby suggesting a statehood). 12:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.100.207.122 ( talk)
Since the first suggestion of re-using material and redirecting this page to Huns some useful text has been put in here. I have added that material to Huns; this page now has no useful material not included in Huns. I propose to leave this page for a few days, to allow for comments, before I turn it into a redirect. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 21:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC) Or in view of the comment above, if anybody feels strongly enough, we could have a redirect to the reign of Attila, during which the Huns really did form an empire. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 17:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
weak merge: I'm inclined to agree that the article should be merged and redirected to Huns#Unified_Empire_under_Attila. I disagree with the idea that there was no state administration and reject the idea of a missing seat of government (please read Priscus), but the Huns do not appear to have been a centrally organized force until Attila became king. Unless there's some expert scholarly consensus referring to this historic period of time as a Hunnic Empire, I see little reason to invent one. -- Stacey Doljack Borsody ( talk) 03:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
(unindent) VDM Publishing prints Wikipedia articles. The snippet on Google Books is an old version of our lede. I guess that the other pages are our other articles on the Huns but I really wouldn't recommend that anyone spends money on checking.
It is now over five years since an editor suggested that this page duplicated Huns. No significant improvement has happened since then, there is no source material to base any improvement on, and the case for merge-and-delete strikes me as unanswerable. I wonder if we need an outside view? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 10:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, here's my version:
Comments? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 10:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
You both sum most of the arguments up well. I disagree with the implication in Richard's third pro argument that it wasn't a state. My concern more hinges on the ability of the article to be improved, that not enough material is available: a conclusion of the first two pro arguments. Let's try to solicit for further comments. No one from the Wikiproject Former Countries spoke up. -- Stacey Doljack Borsody ( talk) 21:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
We have comments. Do we yet have a consensus? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 11:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
with all due respect, we quite clearly DO NOT have consensus here (& in spite of the VERY long-running merge proposal, there have not been a very large number of participants in this conversation. i am "new" here, myself).
my basic position is that "huns" (as a group of people) belongs in one article, & "territory controlled/conquered by the huns" (during their "period of greatness") belongs in another article. i have no strong emotions on the question of whether to call it an "empire" or not, although that does seem to be the standard terminology; both on wikipedia, & in the historical record ("empire of Attila" etc.).
the arguement about "extra maintenance" is, to me, spurious/irrelevant. the "burden" of maintenance is not significantly greater, whether the material is on one page, or several.
what matters is "what is the best way to arrange the information?"; & "glomming" everything together into "one big article" is not the best option (imho).
as regards the merits of the "empire" article "as-is", & the potential for expansion:
i. the article is more than just a stub (although i would still favour keeping it, even if it were a stub); it does a decent-basic job of describing the "domain" ruled by the huns.
ii. there is significant room for expansion, i.e.: details of territorial changes over time, subject peoples, diplomatic relations, notable personages.
an in-depth piece could consider what information there is about "hunnic rule", more/new archaeological discoveries, etc...
returning to the basic question:
among other problems with the "merge" approach (in general), there is an unfortunate tendency for certain articles (or certain parts of certain articles) to get "disappeared" during such "merges"; effectively a deletion-by-merge.
& (again, with all due respect) some of the comments in support of the merge could reasonably be defined as "nnpov"; historical opinionating.
diverse & differing opinions about the significance, nature, etc. of the "hunnic realm" belong on the talk-page for the article (&, when properly written, within the article itself), but do not constitute a legitimate basis for eliminating the article; not when the basic historical facts about the existence & notability of the "hunnic state" are NOT in serious dispute.
the "hunnic empire" (call it what-you-will) existed; it was a VERY important "state" in western eurasia during the late-300s-to-mid-400s AD.
this "state" & the "hunnic people" are 2 clearly distinct & separate subjects-topics-entities; they are closely related, but they are not one-&-the-same.
in the "bigger picture", if we are going to make a significant change in wikipedia practices, as a "general policy"; either a change favouring "all-in-one" mega-articles, OR a change eliminating "empire of-" articles (& presumably merging the material into the relevant "peoples-ethnicity" articles); it should properly be considered in a "general discussion" by the whole community, not here.
therefore, please consider this a respectful oppose merge vote
Lx 121 ( talk) 14:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
If Huns are not Turkic then why they have Turkic names like Attila and Dengizich? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.96.0.172 ( talk) 18:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Ignorant! Attila and Dengizich are Turkic name. Denghizich word meaning is sea (Türkish: Deniz). 78.160.194.131 ( talk) 12:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
Per this edit [13], 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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
Hello,
Can you explain exactly what happened at History of the Huns? There has been no discussion of deleting or merging this page, it's a new page only recently created.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 14:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
[[History of the Huns|Hunnic]]
– I don't think it's a good idea for navigation templates to target sections; these should only target major topics meriting stand-alone articles. So having your new "main article" on the topic solved that problem. Hope this is all satisfactory to you. Regards,
wbm1058 (
talk)
15:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)