Talk:Attila

ATTILA ETYMOLOGY

ATTILA - ΑΧΧΙΛΕΑ. ΠΑΡΆΦΡΑΣΗ ΤΟ 'Χ' ΣΕ 'Τ', ΚΑΙ ΑΠΑΛΟΙΦΉ ΤΟΥ 'Ε'. 109.242.136.160 (talk) 08:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

What. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 09:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2025

'In The West' paragraph 5, the starting sentence "On April 7, he captured Metz he also captured Strasbourg." should have a transition word and/or possibly a comma dividing 'Metz' and 'he'. MrChezzo (talk) 03:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done Ultraodan (talk) 05:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2025

add "https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/timeline/LV7X-2HK" as a source THEJimothy11 (talk) 04:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: The material is already cited. Moreover, see WP:FAMILYSEARCH for why we wouldn't cite it regardless. Remsense ‥ 论 04:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Bychovets Chronicle

Chronical claim that 500 famalies travel from Aquileia on ships to modern territory of Lithuania that was empty and founded Zhmont and Lituania.So part of people founded Venice and partGrand Duchy Lituania 207.107.113.94 (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2025

In the section on Attila's death, there's a line that, due to being in its own paragraph, could give the impression of attempting to appear somewhat dramatic. That's not the goal of Wikipedia, so if anyone else agrees with me, I'd like to request that it be changed.

−

Attila withdrew from Italy to his palace across the Danube, while making plans to strike at Constantinople once more to reclaim tribute.However, he died in the early months of 453.

+

Attila withdrew from Italy to his palace across the Danube, while making plans to strike at Constantinople once more to reclaim tribute. However, he died in the early months of 453.

Thank you. ~2025-31249-94 (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done. NotJamestack (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Using Attila the Hun as the name

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

---

Attila → Attila the HunAttila the Hun – Attila the Hun was more direct Attila may refers to different identities Yiotro1 (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If someone types "Attila" into WP, it's likely it's this guy they're after, and if it's not, there are links they can follow. Compare George Washington or Jesus. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose: I agree with the above: this is likely the primary topic, given that it is both the origin of most other uses, and probably far more familiar than any of the others. The disambiguation pages receive very few views, suggesting that there's not a lot of confusion with other uses. Despite the undeniable idiomacity of "Attila the Hun", "Attila" is the more encyclopedic title, IMO. P Aculeius (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose: I agree with P Aculeius. While Attila the Hun might be more descriptive, it appears to be unnecessary. Most people look for the current article rather than anything else see traffic, justifying the current article as primary topic. A.Cython(talk) 12:38, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose: Talking about somebody is always defined by the context, historically there are no more Attila, unique. The lead has already this extra "Attila the Hun" name. Today many people use the name of Attila, especially among Hungarians is quite common.OrionNimrod (talk) 12:48, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  Same Charlemagne + Cleopatra OrionNimrod (talk) 12:51, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2026

I propose an addition on the topic of Attila the Hun as follows:

Within the continuous historicist interpretation of the Book of Revelation, the Third Trumpet of Revelation 8:10–11 is commonly understood as symbolising the invasions of Attila the Hun and the Huns against the Roman Empire during the 5th century AD. Historicist expositors interpret the “great star from heaven, burning as a lamp” as representing Attila himself, whose rapid military rise and destructive campaigns brought widespread devastation across Europe.

The “rivers and fountains of waters” are interpreted symbolically as the internal provinces, resources, and sustaining structures of the Western Roman Empire, particularly regions around the Danube and central Europe. The name “Wormwood” is understood to represent bitterness and calamity, reflecting the destructive consequences of Attila’s invasions, which included the destruction of cities, depopulation, famine, and political instability.

Historicist interpreters connect these events especially with Attila’s campaigns between AD 441 and 452, including invasions of the Eastern Roman Empire, Gaul, and northern Italy. In this interpretation, the Third Trumpet forms part of a progressive series of divine judgments upon the Roman Empire, following the Gothic invasions under Alaric and the Vandal maritime campaigns under Genseric. Mjnewman1 (talk) 11:12, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. Day Creature (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

If you can find suitable sources for this interpretation and its widespread use, you might possibly get a mention of Attila into Historicist interpretations of the Book of Revelation. The Huns are mentioned there already. But it's entirely unsuitable here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Terminological concern

I noticed that in the early life section we are using the terms "Germans" and "Germanic tribes" which I think English-speaking academics tend to avoid because of possible misunderstandings. From what I can tell the sources being used here are two works in French, so I would think we can consider whether these are the best terms. However, it is not easy to work out which peoples are being referred to in the different passages.

• When we talk about the indirect problems the appearance of the Huns first created by pushing people into the empire, then this surely refers to Goths and Alans (who are already mentioned in the text)? But Alans are normally not called Germanic, let alone German. I would suggest using "Goths and Alans" and therefore being more specific.
• When we talk about Aetius using them in his battles against Germans, I think this is also a bit awkward. Aetius fought against all kinds of peoples, not only "Germans", but also easterners who had moved west, and internal rebels such as Bagaudae, Raetians, and Noricans. I wonder if we need to use any single word here to categorize all of the possible enemies of Aetius.
• I am not so sure what this sentence is meant to refer to, but that says something about the vagueness of it: They were a very mobile people, whose mounted archers had acquired a reputation for invincibility, and the Germanic tribes seemed unable to withstand them. Maybe if anyone has the source at hand, they could check.

Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

"But Alans are normally not called Germanic" Because they were not. The main article on the Alans groups them with other Iranian peoples, and the Alanic language is grouped within the Scythian languages, alongside the Cimmerian language and the Pontic Scythian language. But we do note that a number of the Alans fell under the political or military domination of the Goths in the 3rd century, and were assimilated by the Goths. We also note that the Alans migrated westwards in the 4th century, joining the same migration wave as various Germanic tribes. We have, for example, mentions of the Alans joining the Vandals in their migration to North Africa and then serving in the forces of the Vandal Kingdom. So they were not Germanic in origin, but they did follow Germanic leaders. Dimadick (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Can you give an example of what you mean? I can think of examples of Alan forces following Romans and Huns and Vandals, but are any of these the intended image our text (or its cited sources) looking for, in any of the 3 places I mentioned? Obviously there are a lot of different periods and situations you could be referring to, but I don't really see the relevance to my concern, which is basically about trying to reduce ambiguity in those 3 passages, which seems like low hanging fruit to me, at least in some cases.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

See the rather complex history of the Alans and their subgroups in the main article. Dimadick (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I looked and to me it looks like a similar overly vague use of the term Germanic there, perhaps by the same editor? But it is another Wikipedia article, and not necessarily a better one, so it does not give us a rationale for what to do here. I think that on this article we can reduce ambiguity and communicate more clearly by making these 4 changes:

• Lede. led a Germanic revolt against Hunnic rule > remove the word Germanic which is quite simply inaccurate. We can also link to the article Battle of Nedao.
• and the Germanic tribes seemed unable to withstand them. I would like to delete this add-on to the sentence, because it is unclear what it means without more explanation. If the source was making a bigger or more interesting point then perhaps expansion is another option, but it seems to be going off topic.
• driving various Germanic tribes into Roman territory. I'd like to change this to "Goths and Alans". (That would be more clear and accurate. Groups such as the Heruli, Gepids, Rugii, Taifals and Sciri were already in the Middle Danube region on the Roman border when the Huns hit.)
• the Romans used the Huns as mercenaries against the Germans and even in their civil wars. I'm quite opposed to using the word "Germans" which is an anachronism that was common in 20th century texts, but is now no longer seen as best practice. I also don't see why we are focussing on one category of possible Roman enemy like this. We could just remove the words "against the Germans".

If no one has a good reason not to, I am thinking I'll go ahead, but I wanted to making sure I wasn't missing something, for example in one of the old French sources which are cited, and which I have not read.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2026 (UTC)