Talk:Battle of the Catalaunian Plains

This Battle was not "Tactically Inconclusive"

Look at all of these http://www.ancient.eu/article/995/ https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-the-Catalaunian-Plains http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-chalons-attila-the-hun-versus-flavius-aetius.htm http://www.theartofbattle.com/battle-of-catalaunian-plains-451/ Literally, the only site that I can find not saying it was a Hun defeat is Wikipedia, it seems the accepted norm is that is that the Hun's lost. I believe what is on right now constituent Original work and is there for needed to be edited to what is accepted in history.

It doesn't matter what you personally think this page should reflect the general consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viridiss (talk • contribs) 16:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with what I think. I cited several peer-reviewed authors who state the battle was inconclusive. Furthermore, it does not say inconclusive, it says tactical outcome disputed. The general consensus varies from author to author - some say victory (Old ones like Gibbon, Creasy, etc, some modern ones like MacDowall and Hughes), most say inconclusive (McEvoy, Verdansky, Norwich), one has proposed defeat (Kim). If it comes to it, I will just go through all my books and start tacking on citations to the relevant section of the article, other than the three I already have there stating "many authors think it was inconclusive". MMFA (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Catalaunian_Plains#As_a_Roman_defeat and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Catalaunian_Plains#Outcome MMFA (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Those are the exseption, not the norm, you can find anyone who will take another side on any historical event, the truth is the historical community excepts it as a Hun defeat and it is our job to tell the reader that instead of taking outliers as a norm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viridiss (talk • contribs) 13:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that it's not a majority view. In the scholarly community the battle tends to be glossed over by most authors, with about half saying Attila was defeated and about half saying the battle was a stalemate. Furthermore, with emerging research in "Topoi," new works are challenging old views on top of this.

This is why I put "tactical outcome disputed" and divided the outcome section into "As a Roman Victory" and "As a Roman Defeat."MMFA (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I feel like the "As a Roman Defeat." section treats that point of view with a credence it definitely doesn't deserve. It's a fringe theory, and that should be made clear to the reader. 2A00:23C4:EC87:2800:7C4D:B89:688:8DE3 (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I can agree that maybe we should reorganize that section to talk about the rather widely accepted view that the battle was inconclusive, and make a point about it being a defeat as an addendum. That part is a fringe theory, but Kim's discussion about Jordanes' use of Topos isn't necessarily one. However, that can be separated out, like the other authors' points regarding Jordanes are discussed elsewhere. I can work on this tonight or tomorrow. If you have further comments or suggestions, I'm open to them. MMFA (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

EDIT: Also, it is worth noting that a big problem with this battle is that since the 19th/early 20th century, it has pretty much been totally passed over by most Historians. Most scholarly remarks on the battle do little more than either reiterate Creasy or Gibbon and just take Jordanes' bias at face value, or they state that the battle was inconclusive. It's about an even divide. I have read all the works on this battle and the issue is that since the awareness of the use of Topos in ancient authors was first raised in the 1990's, the only ones that really take a hard look at this battle regarding that issue are Barnish' "Old Kaspars" and Kim's "Huns, Rome, and the Birth of Europe." Barnish's work doesn't really discuss the tactical and strategic importance of the battle, and as you said, the latter is considered a fringe theory. Hughes and Simon MadDowall are the only authors who have taken a tactical and strategic look at the battle in recent years, but they don't perform or incorporate any critical comments on Jordanes really, other than a generic statement that he was biased in Hughes. So this is really the problem, that you have authors trained in two different fields (military history vs. literary history) taking two different looks at the battle without stopping to think about either side.

I've had an interest in maintaining this article for accuracy because I'm working on something about this battle myself. I guess that could qualify me as being biased, but I have worked hard to avoid including any "original research" in it. Everything I've worked on in overhauling this article for the past two years I made sure was well cited and within the confines of Wikipedia's rules. I've just been working on trying to make this an article of "A-Class" quality and maybe even get it featured, as a guy recently did with the article on Ancient Macedonia.

Anyways, that's my two cents. The outcome of the battle is viewed differently by different scholars. That's why I've been arguing against writing that it was simply a "Roman victory." I brought it to the talk page to avoid edit warring, but maybe an administrator involvement is necessary here. MMFA (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Didn't pay attention to the discussion when I edited the page, but I will note that, as the own article says: "Then Jordanes claims the Visigoths outstripped the speed of the Alans beside them and fell upon Attila's own Hunnic household unit. Attila was forced to seek refuge in his own camp, which he had fortified with wagons.", every source states that the Hunnic army was routed and had to retreat to their camp. The Romans and their allies held the field at the end of the day - that does amount to a "Tactical Victory". The only reason the campaign & tactical victory wasn't "decisive", as I stated in my edit summary, was because Aetius CHOSE not to pursue the Huns and invest their camp for political considerations, out of fear of his allies, especially the Visigoths, growing too powerful from that victory so to be able to further challenge Roman authority. This is also stated in the article itself, and literally everywhere else one looks into. I will edit it again to state that the Roman-allied army held the field and routed the Hunnic-allied back to their camp, the extent of which this was a "rout" can be debated, but the fact that the Romans held the field and the Huns had to retreat - in a tactical sense concerning the battle itself (and not just the campaign, as is currently stated in the article), cannot be disputed, to do so in the infobox would be to contradict the own article. User:CaptainKaptain 23:05, 01 March 2021 (UTC)

Article needs major revision

This article no longer provides a good outline of the actual event, but instead reads like a debate between classic and revisionist history. It's hard to follow and doesn't meet the typical Wiki standards. A standard portrayal of the battle should be given, and then a section at the end discussing alternative views. What I'm going to guess is that we have an activist author on this page. Theriddles (talk) 04:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm the one who edited most of it, and I did so to the best of my ability using modern, accredited sources to update the page. It is a controversial battle and the traditional account dates to the mid-1900's and back, when recent scholarship in the last 20 years has finally taken a hard look at the battle again.

I'm not against suggestions for improving the article, making it sound less like a debate, etc. at all. The only thing I ever have issues with is the accuracy of information. MMFA (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

This is not a topic space I'm expert in, and consider myself just a consumer for this article, although I read similar wiki topics quite widely, and this one stood out, so I made the comment. One suggestion I would make is that the section really all belongs in a footnote. This kind of intra-scholarly discussion should not be in the main body of the article.

"However, Jordanes' account of Gothic history is notoriously biased and unreliable, and much of it is omitted or garbled.[13] Connor Whately notes that Jordanes' entire work may in fact be a political statement on the campaigns of Belisarius and the policies of Justinian, who also considers the Battle of Chalons to be the climax of the piece.[14] Hyun Jin Kim suggests the account is an allusion to the Battle of Marathon and severely distorted to fit Herodotus' narrative format.[15] Therefore, any claims by Jordanes must be rigorously scrutinised, and the possibility that his entire account may be fabricated cannot be excluded.

Done. MMFA (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

We need to remember that this isn't a Magazine article and it isn't our place to make original work on the historical event. It's normal people who view our work, so we should be giving them what the majority of scholars agree on instead of this drawn out debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viridiss (talk • contribs) 13:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

It's our job to present information accurately, nothing on here is my original work, I have clearly stated where all of this is referenced by accredited peer-reviewed authors. Last week I also made changes to streamline the article and make it seem less argumentative. You can check the edit history of the page. MMFA (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Untitled

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)

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)

The ınterpretation by most Western hıstorians of Battle of Chalons as strategic(?) Roman victory(??) is biased and isn't neutral. The battle itself was unconcluded, but aftermath showed that it provided adventage to Huns. Although the Battle of Chalons itself can be presented as Roman success, it exhausted Roman military resources and Romans were unable to prevent Hunnic advance. Attila later conquered the North Italy and Rome itself was spared only because pope begged on knees for peace. It was the only incident in history when a pope bent on knees. The Hunnic threat was over only because of Attila's sudden death. So what is this 'strategic victory'(!), if the peace came only with pope's plea. 81.214.36.116 (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

I quote Idatius in this incident, but he specifically mentions Aetius led not only the western but an Eastern Field Army against Attila the next year while the Eastern Emperor Marched up the danube towards attila's homelands. Plague and famine caused attila to retreat the Pope simply served as a diplomat but had no influence whatsoever in reality.

Also, it was not a Hunnic or Roman victory it was a stalemate, although I'd argue that the Visigoths and Alans took the brunt of the Casualties because Iordanes mentions Attila did not consider the Romans a worthy opponet. It in the end was a Roman ploy; the Huns and visigoths were weakened leaving the Roman army, which was in fact more than capable of taking attila on considering the huge amount of experience from consistent victories under Aetius against the Goths Franks and burgundians, strong to keep the barbarians in check.MMFA (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Battle of the Catalaunian Plains removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

Battle of the Catalaunian Plains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 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 NedaoSeptentrionalis 21:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

Majority vs minority

The article presents the two views on this battle's importance one as "majority view", another one as "minority view". What are the grounds for that? Daizus 21:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Take a look above in the discussion between me, Old Windy Bear, and Wandalstouring. I'm always willing to hear another opinion on the matter & I assume so are they. -- llywrch 22:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I have seen there mostly a controversy about the battle being conclusive/inconclusive in terms of immediate success. However those sections read about "macrohistorical importance" which IMO is a totally different thing. Also to assert the majority of historians support a view one should have either a) a scholarly review of the historiography reaching this conclusion b) a large (and recent!) list of scholars to quote (i.e. the editor(s) asserting the majority can provide a significant coverage of the scholarship from the major historiographies - in English but perhaps also, if it's the case, in French, German, Italian, or any local historiographies).

I am unable to provide this view, and I don't know who can. But I've seen other opinions than Bury's this battle had not significant consequences in the long term (e.g. Lucien Musset wrote in 1965 about Attila's defeat to be of little significance for the Huns/Attila). So considering Bury's opinion is not singular, I am wondering how the "majority" and the "minority" were inferred. Daizus 06:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

A later edit - hmm, I've found your quarrel on macrohistorical importance. I'll drop a comment there, too. Daizus 06:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Do we even need the macro/non-macro sections? Friggin' Battle of Adrianople (378) does not have anything on its macrohistorical importance (or not). Jacob Haller 07:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we do: with the exception of the number of combatants, perhaps the largest number of edits I have had to handle concerning this article is the historical significance of this battle; no one disputes the significance of the Battle of Adrianople. Although some of us who have worked on this article beleive the battle was inconclusive, the "common wisdom" since Gibbon's famous multivolume work is that this battle "saved" Western Civilization -- & the policy of NPOV requires us to report this opinion. Those of us who have worked on this article have given this matter much thought, & deserve more respect than your pointed comments. -- llywrch 19:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You deserve a lot of respect for putting up with people like Daizus who wants to debate how many angels danced on the head of a pin, or how to define macro or micro historical. I have not seen him actually edit much, of course, neither did I, till he and his politically correct comrades inspired me to finally create an account and call their comments what they are. Finishedwithschool 17:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If your account is fresh then before engaging in debates you may want to read some Wikipedia policies like WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Daizus 21:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I always welcome newcomers, but please, the lack of civility helps no one. Daizus is a good editor who speaks his mind, but intelligently and with foundation from historical sources. Please don't attack him for that. As to tagging the article, I think it wrong, since the current article was the result of a very long effort by llywrch to take into account the fact that many great historians do list the battle as being of macrohistorical importance. I think he deserves a huge round of applause for reworking the artilce repeatedly in order to compromise on the present form. If the majority view is tagged, then realistically, the minority view should be also. I hope that the tag is removed, given the strenuous efforts by llywrch to reach a compromise everyone could live with. John J. Nowrich, the foremost living scholar on Byzantium, said of the battle of Chalons:

"it should never be forgotten that in the summer of 451 and again in 452, the whole fate of western civilization hung in the balance. Had the Hunnish army not been halted in these two successive campaigns, had its leader toppled Valentinianfrom his throne and set up his own capital at Ravenna or Rome, there is little doubt that both Gaul and Italy would ahve been reduced to spiritual and cultural deserts." He goes on to say that though the battle in 451 was

"indecisive insofar as both sides sustained immense losses and neither was left master of the field, it had the effect of halting the huns advance."

As I said, llywrch managed the present article as a compromise, and it is a fair one, non-POV. old windy bear 22:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The whole majority/minority issue is about what other historians and subsequently schoolbooks say and what one recognized historian says. Wandalstouring 23:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Wandalstouring hi there my friend, and you are right as usual. We are presenting basically what the textbooks say. old windy bear 00:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with this argument. For two reasons:

* Which textbooks/schoolbooks? There are schoolbooks written around the world. What is the reference? If one textbook would present the issue as a "majority vs minority" and another not, on what grounds do you make the choice?

* What is the authority invoked? This is basically a historiographical issue - to check the schools of thought, to see if one is dominant, etc.. If one reputable peer-reviewed historian (or historiographer) would say "some scholars believe X and some scholars believe Y" while a schoolbook would say "the majority of scholars believe X and the minority of scholars believe Y" whose opinion do you choose as authoritative? I'd go for the former.

We cannot choose a POV in a controversy and present it as fact. That's the essential reason behind my NPOV-requiring tag. Daizus 09:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Old windy bear, thank you for speaking so nicely of me. However, my tag applied to the entire "Historical importance" section (AFAIK the tags are introduced right below the title). Lucien Musset and Pierre Riché are also "great historians" (though not so popular in the English speaking world). Daizus 09:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Daizus Greetings my friend! There is no question both are great historians. I have sent for Musset's work, and may try to get Pierre Riche's. They do need to be represented. If you have them, and are willing to translate and post them, it would be greatly appreciated - we could change the sections to "for and against" viewpoints, labeled traditional/differing, (and I have) much as we have at Tours, as a suggested solution, insteadof the wording majority/minority? This would eliminate any vestiage of bias, as everyone admits there are two schools of thought on this battle, with the traditional viewpoint being generally taught that the battle was of macrohistorical importance. And you are welcome, my interaction with you has shown you to be quite intelligent and well versed in your history, whose goal is simply to make the articles better. People need to understand not everyone agrees on how to do that, but that does not make the person swimming against the tide a person seeking "political correctness." old windy bear 11:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

A "traditional" vs "different" opposition it looks much better in my eyes than "majority" vs "minority". I changed "different" with "opposing". If you think this word is loaded then you can revert back to your choice or we can look for another.

As I was saying to llywrch, I have these historians translated in Romanian, but I can try an English translation of my own for the time being, and when you or someone else can refer to a scholarly English translation or provide a better translation from the original French editions, we can simply replace them. What do you say? Daizus 11:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

We can possibly supply you with most English sources as pdf if you name exactly book and chapters you need. So far I don't know much about the topic, but as long as the issue was one historian against the community of historians, the minority/majority label was quite correct. If there are two groups, your approach is better (will have to do this myself on some pages and I'm still struggling with the sources). Wandalstouring 14:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I have provided in this talk page yet other four historians disagreeing on (or simply not confirming) the macrohistorical significance (there are even schools of history which disregard highly the history of humankind as being mostly the result of a series of battle (wars)). My intervention here was mainly to defend Bury as he's not just not a historian against a community of historians. Daizus 15:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

schoolbooks: I was refering to French and German versions. As far as I know schoolbooks don't tend to present such arguments of historians, rather an assessment of events. Wandalstouring 14:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If have an overview of schoolbooks it would be very nice to be known here. My memory can be wrong but I don't remember to be taught in school about macrohistorical battles. Daizus 15:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Oldwindybear, I have found an interesting text on Chalons. Arthur Ferill says:

For various reasons twentieth century "scientific" historians

have minimized and even ridiculed the concept of "decisive

battles". There is a widespread belief that human events are

rarely determined on the battlefield. In the nineteenth century

Edward Creasy's book, The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the

World (originally published in 1851) became a bestseller and

exercised considerable influence. (Incidentally Creasy included

the Battle of Chalons on his list.) But the early twentieth

century saw a change. Hans Delbruck totally ignored Chalons

in his monumental History of the Art of War Within the

Framework of Political History (1920-21), and one of the

foremost authorities on the Late Roman Empire, J.B. Bury, refused,

as some others have done, even to call it by its traditional name:

The Battle of Maurica [Chalons] was a battle of nations, but its

significance has been enormously exaggerated in conventional

history. It cannot in any reasonable sense be designated as one

of the critical battles of the world....The danger did not mean so

much as has been commonly assumed. If Attila had been

victorious...there is no reason to suppose that the course of

history would have been seriously altered.

and Ferill further continues his arguments. I've put it here because it's a brief view on historiography, though probably a bit biased (to call historians disagreeing with you "scientific" - i.e. using quotes - it is not nice). Anyway a point to be taken is that Ferill doesn't consider them a minority. Daizus 15:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

While on Ferill I want to make another observation. It seems some of the arguments for macrohistorical importance are bound to the image Huns were ferocious barbarians and that Hunnic empire (and consequently their army at Chalons) was somehow "Asian" (or anyway, something foreign of European civilization and Christianity). I'll quote again Ferill from the same text with:

It is true that in the following

year Attila invaded Italy and caused much suffering before he

withdrew, but if he had launched a successful counterattack

in Gaul the whole course of Western history might have been

changed. Unlike most other barbarians of the age, the Huns

were not Christians, and their respect for the Graeco-Roman

Christian civilization of the Late Empire was much more lim-

ited even than that of Visigoth and Vandal. Daizus 15:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Schoolbooks are books used in school to teach children, not scientific books. It seems to me the issue gets a bit confused.

So far in my schoolbook it was discussed as one of the important battles, besides the ancient battle to unit upper and lower Egypt (founding Egypt), Thermopylae, Marathon, Salamis(Greek freedom vs Persian domination), Trasimene, Trebia, Cannae, Zama(Rome and Carthage for supremacy), Tours, Poitiers(Islamic invasion) Chalons(defeating the Hunnic threat) and the battle on the Lechfeld(protection against the later Hungarians). Adrianople was not part of the canon in Bavaria. In France and other German countries Chalons is credited for saving Europe. This is influenced by the widespread view in Western European countries that Europe politically hardly ever extended as far east as the eastern borders of the modern Ukraine. It is quite an issue with the eastern expansion of the EU and the ongoing popular sentiment, reflected in historiography, makes many people consider Russia, often including Ukraine and Belarus, as Asian countries. Thus the influential German, French and English historiography have shaped the opinion that Europe was saved from an 'Asian' Empire(that did rule large parts of Europe).

I know what schoolbooks are used for, I have previously replied: "My memory can be wrong but I don't remember to be taught in school about macrohistorical battles.". The curriculum may differ from era to era, from a country to another, that's why I previously asked about reference, about what shall we do with world-wide differences in interpretation (because they do exist)? We cannot simply take the schoolbook we learned from and impose it as an unique POV.

As for historiography, I have yet to see here strong arguments the position supporting the macrohistorical battle is the prevalent one, the most influential one. From Ferill's account one would get the impression in the 20th century a new school of thought emerged and became influential and this causes the author to speak against those "scientific" historians. And certainly historiographic position is not bound to EU expansion as some of these works (Bury's, Musset's) were published before EU even existed.

I notice you're talking about French historiography's influences but at this moment the only two French historians invoked here argued the battle of Chalons was not a macrohistorical battle, the Huns were rather a warring Asian elite over Germanic populations leaving no notable traces in the history of Europe and that Europe is a byproduct of two civilizations - the Roman one and the Germanic one. Daizus 17:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This barbarian Asian/Germanic issue appears quite frequent and is a signal that the author might have some flaws in his research. Problem is that these works are still used by other historians, so we have to do it either, but we try to turn things into improved versions, usually substituting such sections with a more detailed breakdown on the subject(using other sources). That is our little freedom of choice, bordering to OR and POV issues. Wandalstouring 15:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ferril's theory on the declin of Hunnic cavalry is not undisputed. Others suggest that the original Huns from the Eurasian steppe were a small population (de:Traditionskern) who acquired followers by its success against ruling elites. These followers weren't necessarily mounted. Genetic research so far does not mention much difference between people from Hungaria and other Europeans as far as I know. Wandalstouring 16:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That's one of the points I tried to suggest when I quoted Ferill. If the Huns were small in numbers and the most of their army and their subjects were of Germanic origin (or other European ones), an alternative Hunnic victory probably wouldn't have altered significantly the cultural coordinates for Western Europe. I don't think Visigoths were at that time "more Christian" than the Ostrogoths or the Burgundians.

If genetic research shows the people to be largely autochtonous on a macrohistorical scale, the possibility to be overrunned by people of other culture gets dimmer. The mechanisms of cultural influence and propagation seem to be a little more complex than a simple invasion (or military victory for that matter). Daizus 17:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to add a more critical account. If I can fetch you anything, just tell me or ask semper fictilis(he is usually very supportive and wants to bring our information up to scientific standards) for help with the research. If the genetic issue helps your arguments, I can look in pubmed and other sources for citable material on it. Wandalstouring 17:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Another missing point is Arianism, a form of Christian belief considered heretic by the Roman Orthodox church of the Empires(not yet split into Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox). It was quite widespread among the Germanic peoples. They weren't only pagans. Wandalstouring 17:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The split into Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox did not become official till 1054 with the joint excommunication of each other by the Pope and the Patriarch. The majority fo the troops under Attila were christian, but what the historians in the Gibbon school stress is that the Hunnish elite were NOT, and they would have devastated the Roman culture adopted by the Franks and later Carolingians. As to the genetics, the claim the Hungarians are Hun descended has been long discredited. The compromise of "traditional versus opposing" view is a fine one. old windy bear 21:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it too late for me to add my opinion in this discussion? While Daizus & I may not agree over the value of Edward Gibbon (I haven't responded to his comment above because I'm still thinking thru what I want to say), I want to make it clear that I greatly appreciate the fact that he took the time to list several works that, either in whole or in part, discuss this battle. We might not have otherwise known they existed! It will be a while before these works are integrated into this article (I'll admit that it may take me a while to find, read & understand these works -- although everyone else is welcome to help in the research & writing), but I hope that once these works are integrated into this article, it will be considered worthy of a Featured Article -- which I think is what all of us want. -- llywrch 21:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

llywrch considering the wonderful and very patient job you have done in steering this article through the shoals of hordes of edits, it is never too late to pitch back in! My only caveat is that I want it clear though Gibbon is most famously quoted on this battle, he is FAR from the only one with that opinion! Creasy, and on and on! I also wish Norwich's work emphasized, (because of his reputation and status as a modern era Roman historian), and that of Western Military Historian Paul K, Davis, who in "100 Decisive Battles" says on page 87, under "IMPORTANCE: Roman defeat of the Huns stopped the Asian spread westward, setting up the collapse of Attila's empire two years later," and saying on 91 saying "by halting hun expansion, the battle at Chalons kept Attila from dominating western europe. Aetius force was thrown together at the last minute, if had not been defeated, there was really no other organized population that could have withstood the huns." (Oxford Press 1999) J.F.C. Fuller of "A Military History of the Western World" claims on page 297 of Volume One that Attila survived only because Aetius allowed him to, in "a battle that saved Europe." I am not saying all these historians are correct, but as we are expanding the article, let us add the other historians - I just added one comment from Norwich, but would like to see the comments from Fuller and Davis added. Ferill also said of this battle, as Daizus pointed out:

"To have driven Attila the Hun out of the Empire was satisfaction enough. It is true that in the following year Attila invaded Italy and caused much suffering before he withdrew, but if he had launched a successful counterattack in Gaul the whole course of Western history might have been changed. Unlike most other barbarians of the age, the Huns were not Christians, and their respect for the Graeco-Roman Christian civilization of the Late Empire was much more limited even than that of Visigoth and Vandal."[1]

He made very clear he regarded Chalons as a battle of macrohistorical importance. "The clash at Chalons was one of those rare monumental conflicts" The list goes on and on of historians who saw this as a classic showdown that decided "the fate of nations," to quote Creasy. I would like to make sure these scholars views are well presented as well. Davis and Fuller, for instance, are not presently quoted, and I just added Norwich. old windy bear

Don't worry, I intend to add more to support Bury's side and to balance a bit the views on this battle's importance. At the moment I'm rereading some chapters from those books to find relevant quotes and hopefully also fair representations of the views of those historians I've mentioned. I'll be back soon ;) Daizus 22:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Daizus I had faith in you! It has been a pleasure working with you, and I felt sure you would be back with some good sources to back up Bury. I think it is a fair representation to call it traditional/opposing, and I commend you on that idea. Gibbon pretty much was the first "modern" scholar to talk about the battle, and he certainly paints it as the ultimate test of good and evil and certainly the Roman histories of the era painted Aetius and Chalons as the last great moment of the empire in the west, so calling that view traditional is fair. But Bury - and others who came after him - refute that view, so there is good cause for calling theirs opposing. There are modern scholars on EACH SIDE, and I am certainly content with llywrch formatting what we both give him, since he wrote the article. Wandalstouring will undoubtedly be back also, since he is very knowledgable. We have a good group working on this, and i agree with llywrch , let us finish up, and let him submit this for Featured Article -- which I agree with him is what all of us want. old windy bear 23:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've found Pierre Riche in English on Google books but it's not on Chalons, only on Tours (his book on Carolingians).

Lucien Musset I haven't found in English, but I could retrieve from Google books only an unfinished paragraph, but long enough if anyone wonders about an original quote (I couldn't retrieve it longer than that): (Attila) "Reprenant la route qu'il avait suivie à l'aller, il fut obligé par Aétius à livrer bataille le 20 juin 451, à l'ouest de Troyes, au Campus Mauriacus (peut-être Moirey dans la commune de Dierrey Saint-Julien). Cette bataille (dite improprement des « Champs Catalauniques ») tourna à la défaite du roi des Huns, mais elle ne fut pas décisive puisqu'il put battre en retraite sans n'être plus inquiété ..." (Robert Folz, André Guillou, Lucien Musset, De l'antiquité an monde médiéval, Published 1972, Presses universitaires de France, p. 61). It keeps Bury's points - Campus Mauriacus (not Catalaunian Fields, see somewhere in the talk page also Ferill's indignation), indecissive defeat. Pity I couldn't retrieve more to see the argument to its end. However the phrase is very similar to the one I have translated in Romanian from his "Les invasions" (which I refered into article in English translation, I couldn't provide the page though for that edition), I assume it says that Attila, without being worried, retreated in Pannonia and that in 452 campaigned again this time in Italy. Daizus 23:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Battle of the Catalun

I have never encountered this name and it gives 0 hits on Google Books and Google Scholar. The sites having this name seem unreferenced. So what about it? Daizus 23:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In German it is known as Schlacht(battle) auf(on) den(the) katalaunischen('Catalaunian') Feldern(fields). Perhaps this name was created via translation from another language and is not in use in English. Wandalstouring 13:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I've encountered more references to the "Battle of the Catalaunian Fields" than to the "Battle of Chalons."

"Battle of the Catalaunian Fields" Attila -wikipedia yields 101 hits.

"Battle of Chalons" Attila -wikipedia yields 687 hits.

This is odd, since I've never encountered the phrase "Battle of Chalons" outside wikipedia. Jacob Haller 07:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I encountered several times pieces of text saying the armies clashed "near Chalons". But I agree with you, I know this battle either as of Campus Mauriacus or of the Catalaunian Fields. Daizus 07:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"Campus Mauriacus" Attila -wikipedia yields 10,700 hits. Jacob Haller 08:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop counting wikihits. We have a number of sources in use for the article, how do they refer to the event? If there is a majority of them using anything but Chalons, move it to that name. Wandalstouring 18:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The -wikipedia in the search string eliminates most wikihits. That's what it's there for. Jacob Haller 21:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

and what about all the mirrors using wikipedia without references or credit? Wandalstouring 14:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Christian vs. Pagan?

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)

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)

On the symbolic significance of this Battle

Let me warn everyone, I am beginning to lose patience here. I am not trying consciously attempting to push any one interpretation over any other; I am just trying to explain why this one battle which, was inconclusive from a military standpoint, yet somehow became transformed into one of "the decisive battles of western history". It is not something that I believe; it is clearly something that is repeated from schoolbook to schoolbook & in popular culture -- maybe only in the English-speaking world, maybe only in the US, but I feel it is disingenuous to claim that there is no proof of this belief just because we can't furnish proof of what is obvious.

First, there was a clearly Christian coloring to the near-contemporary accounts of this battle. For example, the 6th-century historian Gregory of Tours, who has been used to represent the view point of his age (by, for example, Erich Auerbach in his Mimesis), claims that several miracles -- the intervention of God or Christian Saints -- were responsible for the victory. In Gregory's own words, "no one has any doubt that the army of the Huns was really routed by the prayers of the bishop about whom I have told you." (History of the Franks II.7) This interpretation is confirmed by the language of Jordanes & Cassiodorus when they mention this battle: these & other writers consider it was a great victory for Christianity. This interpretation was then repeated by Gibbon, & from him it entered contemporary popular culture.

Or am I the only one who was awake that day in school when the teacher lectured on the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire? Need I trot out popular accounts of this period in history, such as H. G. Wells' An Outline of History or the relvant volume from Will Durant's The Story of Civilization? If I do so, will I be pestered with tags questioning the importance & reliability of these writers also?

Second is the request for sources on the statement, "it was the first major battle since the death of Constantine I where a predominantly Christian force faced a predominantly pagan opponent." I refer the person who tacked on that pedantic query to the essay: Wikipedia: These are not Original Research, & WP:ATTRIB. To put my point in simple words, this is a simple logical deduction, based on verifiable chronology. The facts are well known, & available in the relevant Wikipedia articles:

1. Constantine the Great declared Christianity was the official religion of the Roman Empire. Yes, many Roman citizens remained pagans well after this act; these people were exceptions. To a constantly increasing degree as time went on, one was not considered a proper Roman citizen unless one was an orthodox Christian.
2. List of Roman battles provides a list of all of the Battles Rome, as a Republic or an Empire, fought. Look at the years between Constantine & this battle and see if there are any other battles that fit this category. (Nota bene: by mid-4th century the Goths had become Christians -- Arian Christians, admittedly, & therefore considered heretics -- yet they were still Christian.)
3. Either the statement is true, or it is false. Simple logical, either/or deduction. It's the same kind of obvious reasoning that if given a person's date of birth & date of death, I can state how long that person lived -- and not need to supply a source for this statement.

I'm stopping my rant here. As I wrote above, this kind of thinking makes me angry because it takes the fun out of Wikipedia for me. And when I get angry, I may confuse criticizing a person's behavior with criticizing that person -- which does none of us any good. If you disagree with what is written, offer an argument on this talk page -- don't just add a tag without thinking, because that makes it appear as if it is the work of some irresponsible kook or a troublemaker eager to sow misinformation. -- llywrch 19:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Roman Battles is not nearly complete.

Valens vs. Athanaric 369. Valens was of course the (Christian) Roman Emperor killed at Adrianople several years later. Athanaric was a pagan persecutor of the Christian Goths.

Gaina vs. Uldin. Christian Goths vs. pagan Huns.

Stilicho vs. Radagaisius. Actually, the predominant religion in the latter group is unclear.

Utus River. Romans vs. Huns, 447.

Similar miracles are recorded for Christian vs. Christian battles including Mursa and Campus Vogladensis (which has some other French name). Jacob Haller 04:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Roman Battles is missing, off the top of my head:

• Theodosius against the "Barbarian Conspiracy" in Britain. See Ammianus.
• Valens' invasion of Gutthiuda in 367 and 369 and the battle in 369.
• Pap's escape from prison and return to Armenia. c. 374?
• Marcionople, 376.
• Mons Haemus, 377.
• Dibaltum, 377.
• Phillippopolis, 377.
• Fritigern's defeat of Theodosius and invasion of Thessaly, 380.
• Defeat of Odotheus, 386.
• Naval battle between the Vandals and the Byzantines, 468. Jacob Haller 04:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't help drawing the conclusion that you are quibbling with me over the details, trying to prove that you know more than me, rather than responding to my points. With the possible exception of Theodosius' campaign in Britain (it was not a battle), most of these battles you mention are not significant. One is clearly not even a battle ("Pap's escape from prison and return to Armenia. c. 374"). And the last one ("Naval battle between the Vandals and the Byzantines, 468") happened after the Battle of Chalons. Was there any other significant Roman victories over a non-Roman & pagan enemy between the time of Constantine I & the Battle of Chalons? Yes or no? -- llywrch 19:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

YES. Valens' defeat of Athanaric in 369 and Stilicho's defeat of Radagaisius at Faesula in 406. To quote your own comment. Either the statement is true, or it is false. It is false. Jacob Haller 20:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Jacob, your list omits a tavern brawl in 349 at Arles, where several dozen Roman soldiers beat up a smaller number of German immigrants from across the Rhine.

Your learning might be broad, but it is not deep. If Athanaric's defeat is so significant, then why doesn't his article mention it? It only says that he died -- & does not give the cause. From the history page, I see you've editted that page several times, so you know what it says; if that battle was so significant, why did you not add at least a sentence mentioning it there? And while Stilicho did engage Radagaisus in battle, & Radagaisus' Wikipedia article does mentions that battle, it is clear that Radagaisus was leading 12,000 men on a raid (or razzia) into Italy for plunder, tribute and slaves -- not conquest. Although a pagan & a barbarian, he posed no lasting threat to the Roman Empire himself; this was but another instance of Stilicho playing "whack-a-mole" against the rising tide of German invaders. This battle was forgotten within a few months, once news was received that a new wave of barabarians had crossed the frozen Rhine on the last day of December in 406, who would blaze a trail of destruction across Gaul & Spain which eventually ended in North Africa.

How can it be that when I wrote "significant battles," that I would think that these two minor engagements qualified? You apparently think that by simply mentioning these two events -- if the one you claim Athanaric fought in actually happened -- that I would agree without a second thought. I cannot see your response as anything but garbage, & I am offended that you would think that it was a sufficient response. Posts like that one convince me that assuming good faith towards you is a waste of effort.

I've lost my patience with you. Every time I read one of your comments, it is clear that you don't know, or don't understand, this subject. I've come to the conclusion that you aren't here to help improve Wikipedia: either you are here to prove that you know more than the rest of us do -- or you get some perverse enjoyment from disagreeing with me & distracting the rest of us from other work we could be doing. I strongly advise you to find some way of changing that opinion. If you continue in the same way that you have -- disputing every comment I have written for the sake of arguing & citing countless examples of dubious relevance -- then I will know for sure that you are simply a troublemaker, & will act appropriately. -- llywrch 00:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't had the time to fix the Athanaric article because I've been too busy working on other articles (like the peer review for Structural History of the Roman Military).

I checked. It is (and was) in both the Athanaric and Valens articles. I'll concede the former is a mess. Jacob Haller 01:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Radagaisius' army was one of the largest Barbarian armies ever. Heather, 1998, p. 147-148 states:

According to one source, 12,000 of Radagaisius' defeated force were drafted by Stilicho into the Roman army (Olympiodorus fr. 9) but others were less fortunate. According to Orosius, so many were sold into slavery that the bottom dropped out of the market (7.37.13ff). ... While Alaric's Goths sat outside Rome for 18 months from early 409 to the summer of 410, large numbers of slaves joined his forces. I strongly suspect that most of these were again former followers of Radagaisius, those who had been sold into slavery. The numbers given for these reinforcements are problematic...

Zosimus says 40,000. 12,000 + 40,000 = 52,000. So something on the order of 20-50,000 seems to fit the literary evidence. So I'd consider it one of the most important battles of the 5th century. Jacob Haller 01:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No, 40,000 in total and half of them escaped slaves. Wandalstouring 20:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Jacob, you quote one writer, Peter Heather, & trust him to be correct in every opinion at every instance; to cite only one authority for any argument is to invite disaster. Further, based on how you cited him above to claim that Jordanes was entirely unreliable, I have little faith in how you have used him as an authority -- which is proven in your response. Heather writes that "I strongly suspect" that "most" of these "large numbers of slaves" were part of the army of Radagaisus. He writes of vague proportions of vague numbers; assuming you are correctly quoting Zosimus, & if Zosimus (who was writing several centuries later) was correct about the number, then Heather can only be quoted to show that he thinks that at least 20,000 of these escaped slaves originally came from Radagaisus' army -- which makes the possible size of Radaisus' army 32,000. And if Wandalstouring is correct -- who has demonstrated that he knows the material elsewhere -- then the number of former warriors attached to Radagaisus shrinks further to 10,000, & his army to 22,000. And seeing how Stilicho had raised an army of 40,000 to confront Radagaisus -- & defeated him -- either of these smaller figures are clearly closer to the truth.

In any case, compare this one army with the numerous hordes who crossed the frozen Rhine on the last day of the year 406: the forces of the Burgunds, Vandals, Alans and Sueves. Seeing how each of whom eventually carved out a kingdom for themselves in western Europe or North Africa, I'd say it would be difficult to show that this combined force was less than 80,000 armed men (and at least as many women, children, slaves & free servants). In short, in that same year Rome faced an army many times the size of Radagaisus'.

BTW, while I'm not usually a stickler for details, the name of this barbarian general is spelled "Radagaisus" -- his name is not an i-stem noun. This is how every other writer or source I've consulted for this period writes his name -- Edward Gibbon, John Matthews (Western Aristocracies and Imperial Court: AD 364-425), C.D. Gordon (The Age of Attila), and even the Wikipedia article about him. A misspelling once or twice, I'm willing to ignore (I make typos); but your consistant misspelling of his name again leads me to suspect that you don't know what you're talking about. -- llywrch 22:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what's the quarrel? Obviously there were more significant battles between Adrianopole and Campus Mauriacus, so what's the big deal? Rephrase if you wanna keep the statement.

And what's this downplaying of references? Peter Heather is one major reference. I don't like him particularily, he authored some dubious statements, but this is my opinion, I won't reject his POV in the articles because of that. Moreover, he's not alone there. Zosimus didn't write "several centuries later" but only several decades later. Peter Heather was not the first to draw attention on Radagaisus, you can check other historians of the Late Empire, starting with Gibbon himself - see chapter XXX ("two great Invasions of Italy by Alaric and Radagaisus"), a chapter where Gibbon mentions Radagaisus' "great army" (Gibbon's numbers are quite large, over those 12,000 he adds to hundreds of thousands, not a "smaller number of German immigranats") pillaging "many cities" and, important for this paragraph, it's pictured as non-Christian, non-civilized danger to the Roman world. After the battle (not "a tavern brawl") and the annihiliation of Radagaisus' army Stilicho gets the 2nd time "the glorious title of Deliverer of Italy". Yeah, it's Gibbon, but this should alert any editor claiming a minimum knowledge of this period the statements signaled by Jacob Heller are not that straightforward as they seemed (come on, even 12,000 is a significant army!), though common sense would make anyone wonder if in an age like that, 70-80 years could have passed with no major conflicts between Romans and their enemies (because this is the essence behind a Christian vs non-Christian scenario in the late 4th, early 5th century). Daizus 07:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Daizus, read my post that starts this thread. Do I have grounds to take offense in how what I wrote was tagged? That is the matter in a nutshell. The text is an attempt to put the battle in a larger perspective -- which Jacob Haller obviously would rather tear down on the basis of his sloppy reasoning & incomplete research. I edit for fun & the fun comes from the challenge of learning & competing in a friendly way with other enthusiasts; dealing with trolls like Jacob Haller robs me of that. -- llywrch 02:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Llywrch, I'm sorry about offending you. I can be rather aggressive with fact tags. I sometimes fact tag my own edits when I don't have sources handy (though neither consistently nor systematically). I started editing on pages with much tighter citation standards, where tags are taken in stride, and have since encountered other pages with much looser citation standards.Jacob Haller 03:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Faesula and Cat. Fields are both after my period of expertise. Still, whatever figure we accept - 22,000 or 52,000 - it is one of the largest barbarian armies of all time. I used the higher figure to compare with other equally-exaggerated army sizes (35,000 for Argentoratum, etc.). I think 10,000 is the best possible estimate for Adrianople (Heather suggests 20,000) for various reasons (partly my reading of Ammianus, partly demographic issues, OR), so your comment about 'only' 12,000 got to me. Jacob Haller 01:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't Aetius killed by the Emporor after the battle? Cody.raab 21:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he was killed, but it's not clear whether this has anything to do with the battle. Wandalstouring 11:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The Battle of Catalaunian Plains

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)

If you google Djagfar tarikhy,you will see its considered as an hoax. I wonder what this turkish? guy is trying to say when he says attila won the battle.? The huns are disappeared from world history,in fact nobody really knows who they were.

Nice to know. Could you help us to retrieve these sources, so we can use them? Wandalstouring 10:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• And the Christian sources are always right whatever the say. Secondly, thanks for trying to make me Turkish, what I am not. I try go through all the mentioned non Indo European sources which are available in non Indo European histories I can find to provide you more information. Thirdly, the Huns live still today as well as Frankomans and Romans, of course in form of Italians. They are just known as Hungarians, Bulgarians, Balkaris and Izhkenders. Of course the last mentioned name do not usually exist in Indo European histories. The are known under their Ossetian bargin name; the Things, half something under the human, better known as Tshetshens, the Things. The main sources are: Jordanes, The origin and deeds of the Goths, Gumilev, Millenium around Caspian, Ammianus Marcellinus History Vol. III, Book XXXI. Zufar Miftakhov Comments to Dzhafar tarikhy Kazan, Qazan 1995, Amedei Tieri, The Huns after Attila St. Petersburg 1855. In some cases it may be worth to ask; Who is cleverer, the egg or hen? 88.115.115.177 (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The "Gallo Roman" Shield Boss

Why is it claimed that this shield boss is Gallo-Roman and from 400 AD?? This artifact is located at the Metropolitan Museum in New York City, and its I-Net site states that its a Longobardic Shield Boss from the 7th Cen. AD northern italy. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ho/06/eust/ho_1984.184.1,2.htm Daufer

Requested move towards 'Battle of the Catalaunian Plains'

There is no place called Chalons. There are two Châlons and one Chalon, but not Chalons. This battle is named after Châlons-sur-Marne and its title ought to reflect that. Mis-spellings found at other articles ought to be corrected. Srnec (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I oppose this. The English name is "battle of Chalons" (I challenge you to find a book written in the English language which uses "battle of Châlons"). Plenty of (foreign) names are simply translated into an English version. It is the same with Mexico (please check the article out), in the Spanish original it has an accent "México" but as this is the version of the English language it uses the English name "Mexico". I also take this opportunity to tell you all that from time to time I find articles that suffer from this "original name in the local language" -approach. What the honest contributors are failing to see is that this is the 'English language version' and not the 'International version' (where names could be always given in the native language - AFAIK even in the UN meetings the names (in the little papers in front of the representatives) are in English. Flamarande (talk) 12:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I admit that meagre Google searches failed to turn up many notable instances. But I don't need a lecture on the English language. I won't necessarily oppose a move back, but please wait a few days. Why is the battle called this so universally, since I can't see that the battle site is called "Chalons" so universally. Why would it be? It is NOT customary to omit accents in French words in English publications, though it is not unheard of/uncommon either. Further Google searches seem to suggest, however, that Châlons, for whatever reason, is usually spelled sans accent, but I cannot figure out why. (The omission of diacritics in languages where they form distinct letters or where their usage in English is very rare I support; but in the Romance langauges, where they are merely marks distinguishing words/pronunciations, and where an anglophone can be expected to be passingly familiar with many words, I oppose it.) Srnec (talk) 04:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I moved this article because I linked to the accented version only to find no such link existed. Clearly, I had formed the notion that the battle was "of Châlons" from somewhere. And I had no idea where the battle was fought. Srnec (talk) 05:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll wait for a couple of days, no problem. Perhaps we could use the title Battle of the Catalaunian Fields instead. That is a very common name for this battle (actually I have couple of books which use that name). I also noticed that the articles in other languages use that name quite often. German, Spanish, Portuguese, French, Turkish, Catalan, etc (I haven't looked at all of them but I'm betting that the vast majority use it). In the French version they use Battle of Châlons for the earlier battle (between a Roman emperor and a pretender) and Battle of the Catalaunian Fields for this one. IMHO it seems a reasonable approach. Flamarande (talk) 09:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This goes too far. Provide English sources for "battle of Châlons". Articles have to stick with the most common English name. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I support Catalaunian Fields/Plains; it has always been more familiar to me anyway. As for an English source: Robert L. Reynolds and Robert S. Lopez, in "Odoacer: German or Hun?", The American Historical Review, 52:1 (Oct., 1946), pp. 38 and 45, use "battle of Châlons". I cited that article in Turcilingi. Also, Edward Shepherd Creasy in his famous The Decisive Battles of the World uses Châlons throughout, but the title of the chapter has no accent. Perhaps we should question how often use of accents in foreign words is an editorial not authorial decision. Srnec (talk) 04:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I find it very surprising that this famous battle even has so many names. I re-checked all my books, one of them (The enemies of Rome ISBN 0-500-25124-X) tells: "The battle of Châlons (more accurately called the battle of the Catalaunian Plains)....". Another book (Victory 100 great military commanders ISBN 1-84193-181-0) tells: "..they defeated the Huns on the Catalaunian (or Mayriac) Plain near present-day Châlons." but in the same book in the Attila-entry: "In the bloody battle of Catalaunian, ...". And yet another book (Rome and her enemies ISBN 978-1-84603-336-0): "This plan failed, and Attila and his forces fell back to an area near Troyes and Châlons. Here, on the Catalaunian Plains, Attila was met by..." and in the index at the end of the book one can find the entry "Catalaunian Plains, battle of the (AD 451)" but also "Châlons, battle of (AD 451)". Jesus, when even academics can't agree upon a single name... I honestly think that the best name would simply be "Battle of the Catalaunian Plains" (along with a sentence giving all the alternatives - the name "Battle of Châlons" for the other older battle, including a warning and a link towards "Battle of the Catalaunian Plains"). Flamarande (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Your sources seem to show that "Battle of Châlons" or just "Châlons" is more common than I thought. I would support keeping the article here or moving it to Battle of the Catalaunian Fields or Plains, but not a move to "Battle of Chalons". Srnec (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"Battle of the Catalaunian Plains" seems to be widely used. Let's use this one + with a sentence giving all the known alternatives. Agreed? Flamarande (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. Should we go through a formal move process? Is this page visited/edited enought to require a larger consensus first? (I don't want it to be moved back; I'd sooner just leave it where it is.) Srnec (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Bah, those who shut up consent (In other words: I hate time-wasting bureaucracy). If someone disagrees he will be cordially invited to present his POV. Flamarande (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

ARGHH I tried, but was unable to "move" it. I even had a good text: This battle has several names, but "Battle of the Catalaunian Fields" AFAWK the more accurate one. "Battle of Chalons presents some problems (with accent or not?). Issue was debated and agreed upon in the talk-page. If someone does NOT agree with this move please use the talk-page first. Thank you. Flamarande (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I despise the wikibureaucarcy no less, but I am not surprised by this. If you are not content to leave it here, propose the move at WP:RM and make this section the basis for the discussion. You could even just rename this section "Requested move". Srnec (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I hate to revert your moves, but wikipedia has a strict convention for naming articles: WP:Naming. It says very clearly that an article has to stick with the most common name, not what one editor thinks is more accurate. Next task is to determine whether Châlons or Chalons is more popular. That's it. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

A bureaucrat/administator, hide you edits (LOL - joke ;)! Look if you truly think that the more popular name should be used, fine by me, go ahead, I won't oppose it. I already changed all the other language links and the re-directs but little else - I changed the English link in the other language articles. However, I want to state that I have a serious source (The enemies of Rome, written by Phillip Matyszak, ISBN 0-500-25124-X, page 276) that states that: "The battle of Châlons (more accurately called the battle of the Catalaunian Plains) was..." . My point is that this source clearly states that this name ("Battle of the Catalaunian Plains") is indeed the more accurate one (accurate, but evidently not more popular). Popularity should show accuracy some respect, but in the end I leave this issue in your hands. As for which name is the more popular one, is truly anybody's guess.

Another thing I really must ask you (only a marginal connection, but I carry this with me for quite some time): does the WP:Naming convention also apply with the names of countries, namely China and Taiwan? Thereby I mean the popular and also the accurate use of these names which refer to the political entities. In other words someone shouts: China and everybody immediately, and invariably, thinks of the country - PRC, People's Republic of China. Same case for Taiwan, everybody thinks of the Republic of China, which currently has the same legal status than Kosovo - and notice that the Kosovo-article is indeed about the political entity and not about the geographic region (the article clearly takes no sides, but it also does not try to avoid the issue of the bloody name). The use of the names includes the name-cards in the UN, Olympic Games, post, geographic dictionaries, etc ad infinitum - I think that Wikipedia is only place where China and Taiwan does not refer to the countries. So does WP:Naming apply there also or not? Or are we going to wash our hands, play politics (the Red Chinese government isn't worth it?), and sneakily avoid this issue in Wikipedia forever? Are the "rules" the same for every article, or not? Thanks Flamarande (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC) Please give me a straight answer and don't avoid the issue.

There are some conventions such as WP:Naming, setting a rule that we have to choose the most popular English name, no matter what we think accurate. Please read the guidelines before bickering. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry not able to modify the section. The Gepids are listed twice in the Belligerents list on the right side of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.32.49.236 (talk) 02:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Germanic not German

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)

What was the etymology of "Catalaunian"?

It sounds like Goth-Alan... coincidence? Böri (talk) 10:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Catalaunum was the name of the local settlement I believe, which derives from Celtic I think. MMFA (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

Troop Counts at the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains

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)

Upstream Along The Loire

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)

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)

Why does this Wikipedia page about the battle of Chalons refer to it as the battle of the Catalaunian Plains?

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)

It looks like this discussion already occurred and two guys decided to call it what they chose. Thats fair enough at least they left a reference to chalons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.1.113.15 (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Tackholm's account of the Battle

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)

EDIT: I just got Tackholm's account, I will add it soon. MMFA (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Armoricians and auxilaries

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)

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)

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)

Commanders: Ellac, Merovech, Gundioc (Merovech is not "semi-legendary")

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)

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)

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)

Further Page Improvements with Recent Publications

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)

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)

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)

Requested page protection

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)

Now I see that Kansas Bear 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)

My thanks Ermenrich! --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

There have been more back and forth edits in recent weeks Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)