Attila the Hun

[bighairyman]

I had read a book sometime ago about Rome, and in the two chapters near the end explaining the end of the the empire; they did a page bio on Attila.

Is it Truethat Attila went to Rome to study during his childhood? While he was studying, the Romans laughed at him, calling him a barbarian. (in Latin barbarian is someone who don't shave, or have any facial hair). SO Attila got so angry that he later led an army and try to destroy Rome. IS this true? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-lost.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-lost.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-surprised.gif

[Bigwig]

Quote[/b] (bighairyman @ Mar. 31 2004,20:11)](in Latin barbarian is someone who don't shave, or have any facial hair)
Really? I don't want to derail the thread, but I was told that they were called that after how they seemed to say bar bar all the time, or at least that's how other people perceived their speech. I guess the hair thing makes sense though, barbarian does sound like barber, and of course barber = hair. But I'm pretty sure that the term barbarian refers more to someone of another language, not of a specific appearance, at least back then. Could be wrong though, and if so I blame my grade 7 history teacher http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-toff.gif

(First post btw, hey http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif)

[bighairyman]

Quote[/b] (Bigwig @ Mar. 31 2004,20:31)]
Quote[/b] (bighairyman @ Mar. 31 2004,20:11)](in Latin barbarian is someone who don't shave, or have any facial hair)
Really? I don't want to derail the thread, but I was told that they were called that after how they seemed to say bar bar all the time, or at least that's how other people perceived their speech. I guess the hair thing makes sense though, barbarian does sound like barber, and of course barber = hair. But I'm pretty sure that the term barbarian refers more to someone of another language, not of a specific appearance, at least back then. Could be wrong though, and if so I blame my grade 7 history teacher http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-toff.gif

(First post btw, hey http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif)
I think you meant the Greeks, who call foreign people barbarians because of the bar, bar sound they think other languages made http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-gossip.gif

Oh and Welcome to the Org Bigwig http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif , it's a really nice place here.

[jimmy]

barbarian directly relates to greek. it has nothing to do with apperance it was used to describe anyone who didnt speak greek or latin. the bar bar reference is true.as for attila going to rome to study ? never heard of that one http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

[Lord Ovaat]

I concur with everything JIMMY just said. And, oddly for me, I don't have anything else to add. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/flat.gif

[Borathor]

After reading this topic it also made me interested. Where are all Attila the Hun experts when we need them. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

[lancelot]

I read somewhere that the only tactic that really seemed to work against the huns was to wait till they had a huge plunder/baggage train that they had to protect and then attack. It was the only time anyone could catch them and force a fight.

More evidence that RTW and any future TW game should have some sort of baggage unit you have to keep safe.

Give logistics its due

[Lord Ovaat]

Hey, BORATHAR, I'm no expert on Atilla, but I do know that he was so well loved by his people, they called him hun. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Fanty]

Its true.

Attila was exchanged with Flavius Aetius.
Both are hostages that shall make sure there is peace.

The Hun have Flavius as hostage. The Romans have Attila.

Attila learned how the Roman Empire worked and what its weaknesses are. He learned Latin and knowed the Bible.

In this he is similiar to the Germanic guy Arminus. Who also was Hostage for peace, grown up in Rome, even becoming Roman Officer and later used this knowlegde to beat the Romans in battle.

Attila united the Hunnic tribes, that havnt been united before. He also had Germanic followers. the Otstogoth, the Gepides, the Rugians, the Thuringians, the Alemans, the Vandals and the Franks bow to Attila and follow him. More than 50% of the Hunnic Armies had been Germanic allies.

It is however guessed that Attila wasnt his real name.
This theory cannot be proven, but Atta is Gothic for Father. Attila is Daddy in Gothic. either this is a funny random or Attila is really a nickname given by Gothic allies.

The Nibelungenlied (German Nationalepos) deals with Attila.
He is called Etzel there. And treatened as an Ally.

Though in this Myth, Attila finaly merries the Germanic women Kriemhilde, former wife of Siegfried.
And she kills him in the night after the mariage.

(How Attila really died isnt known)

Its said, he merried a Germanic women with the name Ildeko.
Though.... Ildeko, could be Hildeko ---> Hilde, Kriemhilde
shes from the Burgundian tribe (exactly like Kriemhilde in the Legend)

and dies in the night after the marriage by unknown cause.

Could it be that there is some true core in the Myth?

[Accounting Troll]

Possibly Atilla the Hun was the father of his people in more than one context? The legend I heard was that he got a bit overexcited on his wedding night and died of a heart attack.

[Lord Ovaat]

There have been a couple of good specials concerning Attila on the History Channel this past Winter. As FANTY and ACCOUNTING TROLL have said, it's reported he died on his wedding night of either a heart attack or by choking. There is much speculation attributing his death to an assassination poisoning. Wonder if it was a 4 star assassin?

During his captivity, he became rather well educated of Rome and Her ways. While deeply impressed with the wealth and grandeur, he also realized the Empire was hollow.

[Accounting Troll]

I missed those programs. Interesting point about Atilla realising how weak the Roman Empire was - I personally think that the barbarian invasions were made possible by an internal collapse of the Empire rather than the cause. For instance, its resources were being squandered by endless civil wars for control of an increasingly worthless throne, while foreign mercenaries were being used to guard the borders (and we all know how loyal mercenaries are).

Incidentally, some historians have theorised that the Romans used Anglo-Saxon mercenaries to garrison the forts built on the south-east coast of Britain as a defence against other Anglo-Saxon pirates - hence the name forts of the Saxon shore.

[jimmy]

the problems with history modern or historical is that there tends to be two view point that of the victims and that off the victors. the truth lies some were in between as the huns left no written accounts were depending on other peoples [ chiefly the romans ].accounts of attila vary depending on who has written about him and his people. modern day politicians spin doctors etc can get away with bare faced lies or to potray a view that is far from savoury or full of half truths. modern day scribes will give a bias towards there political/religous views regarding coverage of modern day events wars/conflicits as they did in the WW1/WW2 or any war fought down the ages. propaganda was/is a part of war as weapons or anything else the political intrigues off the roman/greek/mongol courts with political rivaliries are the same today as they were before christ or hitler/stalin.the point i amm making is the view is going to be bias to group as another view is biased towards its opponent.some off the works dealing with attila were hostile to say the least. the more i read on history the further from the truth it sometimes appears to be. classic examples of this are secret history off the mongols/ and genghis khan world conquerer by ata-malik juvaini. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Lord Ovaat]

There's an old truism that simply states, History is written by the victors. After studying history for many years, the best advice I can give is never rely on a single source. When possible, try to validate facts using as many supporting or refuting sources as you can. Then, just take a logical, educated guess. Your final conclusions will, of necessity, be biased towards your belief and knowledge. Ain't no way around it. Bias is a human trait. I often wonder if ANYONE has ever written an autobiography without personal vindication as the underlying motive. Any written work has what the trade calls a slant, the particular view or assumption of the writer. If you want to get published, your slant better mirror that of the publishers. Their slant is tailored to their expected audience, else they'll go bankrupt. The only exception would probably be self-publishing, where the author pays to have the work printed and then tries to peddle it himself. While a rather egotistical approach, some earstwhile works have, nonetheless, been published. Local histories are a good example. OK, now you've completed Creative Writing 101. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-zzz.gif

[Pindar]

Attlia had a good death.

[bighairyman]

Wow, i never knew Attila was so interesting. Some people think that Attila destroyed the Roman Empires, but it wasn't him, it was the Goths, once loyal subjects of the Empire. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/handball.gif

[NSS]

Quote[/b] (Pindar @ April 01 2004,19:15)]Attlia had a good death.
He didn't.

Pulling out of Rome after the meeting with the Pope,he married and then died from choking to death on a nosebleed after the marriage feast.

But that's what I read.So don't quote me.

[Mouzafphaerre]

Quote[/b] (Lord Ovaat @ April 02 2004,00:02)]After studying history for many years, the best advice I can give is never rely on a single source.
-
I'll drink to this. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif Tamerinde? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
_

[bighairyman]

Quote[/b] ]Pulling out of Rome after the meeting with the Pope
Is it true that no one know what the pope said to Attila? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-confused.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-lost.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-lost.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

[TheRookiee]

There is a cool movie about Atilla the Hun. There are some great battlescenes including a trebuchet.

It is called Atilla.

[nick_maxell]

Quote[/b] (bighairyman @ April 02 2004,16:44)]
Quote[/b] ]Pulling out of Rome after the meeting with the Pope
Is it true that no one know what the pope said to Attila? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-confused.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-lost.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-lost.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
A bit is known check here:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/attila2.html

My guess is that the pope had too shaky fingers to leave a written account of their http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-gossip.gif

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

Nick

[Pindar]

Quote[/b] ]Quote (Pindar @ April 01 2004,19:15)
Attlia had a good death.

He didn't.

Pulling out of Rome after the meeting with the Pope,he married and then died from choking to death on a nosebleed after the marriage feast.


Attlia never entered Rome or laid seige to it. His meeting with the Pope occured in Northern Italy. Afterwards he veered toward Gaul and the Battle of Chalons.

The traditional account has Attila dying from a cerebral hemorrhage. This was probably brought on from a sroke. It occured on his wedding night, presumably during the act of consumation.

[Count Belisarius]

Anyone who gets nicknamed Scourge of God gets a vote for style.

Despite his undoubted ability, Attila did go down to Flavius Aetius, the last great Roman general in the West. And then Attila died of unknown natural causes on his wedding night, leaving the Huns to descend into obscurity. Yet another example of a bar bar who leaves no lasting impression on civilization.

[jimmy]

Quote[/b] (Count Belisarius @ April 06 2004,16:47)]Anyone who gets nicknamed Scourge of God gets a vote for style.

Despite his undoubted ability, Attila did go down to Flavius Aetius, the last great Roman general in the West. And then Attila died of unknown natural causes on his wedding night, leaving the Huns to descend into obscurity. Yet another example of a bar bar who leaves no lasting impression on civilization.
unlike the mongols who you would class as from the same mould as attila they did leave a lasting impression on civilization. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Durruti]

Attila, and former (unelected) Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, were great warriors and died in the saddle

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Count Belisarius]

I would not case Attila and the Mongols in the same mould. The Mongols had a much more lasting impact because, terrible as he was in battle, the Khan's hand was light upon conquered people . . . so long as they surrendered bloodlessly and remained quiet. Moreover, the Mongols were much more purposeful in building an infrastructure of the type that underpins a successful empire: e.g., a courier system, religion, etc. The Mongols' conversion to Islam (in the West, anyway) was especially significant in that it ensured that the subjugated people of Samarkand and the Middle East remained (reasonably) happy. And in the grand scheme of things, the Mongols were the exception, rather than the rule. Just ask the Cimbri, the Huns, the Vandals, etc.

[jimmy]

Quote[/b] (Count Belisarius @ April 08 2004,12:24)]I would not case Attila and the Mongols in the same mould. The Mongols had a much more lasting impact because, terrible as he was in battle, the Khan's hand was light upon conquered people . . . so long as they surrendered bloodlessly and remained quiet. Moreover, the Mongols were much more purposeful in building an infrastructure of the type that underpins a successful empire: e.g., a courier system, religion, etc. The Mongols' conversion to Islam (in the West, anyway) was especially significant in that it ensured that the subjugated people of Samarkand and the Middle East remained (reasonably) happy. And in the grand scheme of things, the Mongols were the exception, rather than the rule. Just ask the Cimbri, the Huns, the Vandals, etc.
sorry you missed my point .the mongols/huns were in the same mould in regards to favoured warfare styles [mounted archers] i know the mongols used various other units including heavy cavalry. but there orgins way of life etc were very similar. i totaly agree regarding the way the mongols were able to adminster there newly aquired terrortaries and are responcable directly indirectly for some wonderfull monuments/buildings there religous tollerances should be used as an example for us today. but they did put a lot of cultures regarding technological advances well behind. the eastern europeans/poles/hungarians and especially the russians/middle east/ china for example. before the mongols both china and the middle east were well in advance of there european counterparts in a number of areas. the mongol conquest of russia put them back between 100/200 years of the rest of europe which at the time was very crucial in regards to the sail exploration/maths geometery/phyisics/astronomey and the wealth that goes with building empires and tecnological advancement. it affects everyone and all spheres/aspects of life? its connected with advancement industrial age /weapons/ discovery/medical advancement and nearly all other aspects of day to day life? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif