![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
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)
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.
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)
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.
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)
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.
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.
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)
Here's a more recent source, de: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)
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)
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).
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)
Obenritter, I've created an etymology and ethnic identity section. What do you think?-- Ermenrich ( talk) 22:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
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)
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 Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It certainly is not a "fringe" opinion.
Why did you revert these changes [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]? 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)
Let's collect sources here. Srnec, do you know of more?
Example text) [15] (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)
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.
PLRE2: 767-8 and 3: 903-5 doubts of the identity of the two Mundos [...](he goes on to reject these doubts) [16]
Let's centralize discussion of this particular issue here.
Here is exactly what Krautschik says:
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, Giray Altay, 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 Erminwin did not actually give his opinion on the matter at User talk:Erminwin#Mundus, 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)
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.
— Otto J. Maenchen-Helfen, University of California Press: The World of the Huns: Studies in Their History and Culture., p. 364
An exception is Mundo, a grandson of both Attila and Ardaric, king of the Gepids
— Franz H. Bäuml, Marianna D. Birnbaum, Corvina: Attila The Man and His Image, p. 24
Malalas indeed informs us that when the Gepid-Hun Mundo inflicted a rare defeat on the Bulgars in AD 530 [...]
— Hyun Jin Kim, Cambridge University Press: The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe, p. 138
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.
— Christian Raffensperger, David Olster, Lexington Books: Radical Traditionalism The Influence of Walter Kaegi in Late Antique, Byzantine, and Medieval Studies, p. 110
It has already been said above about the Scamars, to whom Mundus, the son of Attila, proclaimed himself king
— Amédée Thierry: Attila fiai és utódai történelme a magyarok Európába telepedéséig · Volume 2, p. 178
We know the names of very few of them. One exception is Mundo, a grandson of Attila
— Herwig Wolfram, University of California Press: The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples, p. 144
Mundo is identified by three sources that name him as a Hun
— James Allen Evans, Bloomsbury Academic: The Power Game in Byzantium Antonina and the Empress Theodora, p. 228
[...] against the Ostrogoths and their ally Mundo, the Gepid grandson of Attila the Hun
— Hyun Jin Kim, Taylor & Francis: The Huns, p. 144
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 ( [17]), 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)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Alexisnobelium (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Alexisnobelium ( talk) 01:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
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)
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.
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)
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.
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)
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.
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.
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)
Here's a more recent source, de: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)
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)
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).
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)
Obenritter, I've created an etymology and ethnic identity section. What do you think?-- Ermenrich ( talk) 22:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
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)
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 Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It certainly is not a "fringe" opinion.
Why did you revert these changes [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]? 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)
Let's collect sources here. Srnec, do you know of more?
Example text) [15] (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)
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.
PLRE2: 767-8 and 3: 903-5 doubts of the identity of the two Mundos [...](he goes on to reject these doubts) [16]
Let's centralize discussion of this particular issue here.
Here is exactly what Krautschik says:
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, Giray Altay, 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 Erminwin did not actually give his opinion on the matter at User talk:Erminwin#Mundus, 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)
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.
— Otto J. Maenchen-Helfen, University of California Press: The World of the Huns: Studies in Their History and Culture., p. 364
An exception is Mundo, a grandson of both Attila and Ardaric, king of the Gepids
— Franz H. Bäuml, Marianna D. Birnbaum, Corvina: Attila The Man and His Image, p. 24
Malalas indeed informs us that when the Gepid-Hun Mundo inflicted a rare defeat on the Bulgars in AD 530 [...]
— Hyun Jin Kim, Cambridge University Press: The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe, p. 138
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.
— Christian Raffensperger, David Olster, Lexington Books: Radical Traditionalism The Influence of Walter Kaegi in Late Antique, Byzantine, and Medieval Studies, p. 110
It has already been said above about the Scamars, to whom Mundus, the son of Attila, proclaimed himself king
— Amédée Thierry: Attila fiai és utódai történelme a magyarok Európába telepedéséig · Volume 2, p. 178
We know the names of very few of them. One exception is Mundo, a grandson of Attila
— Herwig Wolfram, University of California Press: The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples, p. 144
Mundo is identified by three sources that name him as a Hun
— James Allen Evans, Bloomsbury Academic: The Power Game in Byzantium Antonina and the Empress Theodora, p. 228
[...] against the Ostrogoths and their ally Mundo, the Gepid grandson of Attila the Hun
— Hyun Jin Kim, Taylor & Francis: The Huns, p. 144
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 ( [17]), 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)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Alexisnobelium (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Alexisnobelium ( talk) 01:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)