Talk:Battle of Chalons/Archive 1

Very Similar

This article text is concspicuously similar to [1], which as far as I'm aware is not a wikipedia mirror. // OlofE 18:33, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

www.romanbattles.com seems to have copied every article on the site, verbatim, from wikipedia, with no notice of copyright. // OlofE 18:38, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

About reversion on 6 April 2005:

An anon editor made several changes that I was forced to revert for these reasons:

• Broken links. This editor might not like the form of names used to refer to Attila, Aetius, and Theodorid, but in changing the names broke working links to existing articles. My reversion also orphaned a stub this editor created -- General Florentius -- but I have no independent confirmation that this person existed.
• Numbers on either side. I believe the current numbers are too low, but the new numbers are just unbelievable; the entire Roman Empire at its zenith could barely maintain a half million men under arms in all of its territories! If I remember my secondary sources about this period correctly, the Western Empire at this time barely had 30,000 men all told under arms, & the Goths perhaps twice this number. Unless an editor can cite sources for better numbers, I feel it's best to keep the older numbers which are at least plausible.
• Number of casualties. In any case, this would be an estimate; the new numbers are unsourced, & unless we accept the anon's new numbers, implausible.
• Numbers quoted from Jordanes & Hydatius. I'm responsible for quoting these numbers in the first place, & I have no idea where these new numbers came from. A quick Google confirms my number for Jordanes; I need to look at my copy of Mommsen's edition at home, but I doubt I could misquote Hydatius' figures. -- llywrch 16:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My dispute with the anon editor continues, but with no word from this contributor. Nevertheless, still hoping to hear something, since it appears the date of the battle has been wrong all along wrong. -- llywrch 23:28, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Difficulty with date of battle

There seems to be some difficulty with the date of the battle.

The summary table shows the date as June 20.

The text of the article says, "The two forces at last met at the Catalaunian Fields on July 20, a date first proposed by J.B. Bury and since accepted by consensus."

The battle shows up in the list of events happening on September 20. -- User:DSYoungEsq 20 Sep 2005

---

I have seached the web and can find numerous sites claiming the 20 June and 20 September dates, but cannot find any (except for Wikipedia mirrors) that claim the 20 July date. For what it's worth, the French Wikipeida has it listed as 20 June

Mmccalpin 16:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't remember where I found the "20 July" date; I could have written it as a mistake. If Bury states that it is 20 June, please fix it. (I see that you have already.) -- llywrch 18:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Hunn(ic / ish)?

There are numerous instances of both hunnic and hunnish in the article — I count seven of each.

Wouldn't it would be worth choosing one of these to use for the article, and sticking to it? Nobody likes a mix-and-match approach to nomenclature.

As a starting point, dictionary.reference.com has entries for Hunnish, but not for hunnic. Comment added 20:39, 28 March 2006 by Direvus

but hunnish means there: barbarian barbaric barbarically barbarous crude gothic

no metioning of Huns, so I decided for Hunnic, I think it is a neutral way to refer to the Huns. Wandalstouring 15:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Dissagree about Gelon with Thompson

Thompson, The Huns, p.149 - he said -Gelons dissapeared hundreds pf yeras before the battle, but archaeologists discovered Gelon town near Vorskla river some decades ago. Comment added 20:39, 28 March 2006 by 195.182.77.103

Sources, please. -- llywrch 22:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Thompson is much too cynical there. The Geloni and Neuri are believed by large number of scholars to be the proto-Balts, with Geloni coming down to Galindi among the Prussians and the Neuri going into the east Balts, who have a large number of ner- names. They once extended down the Dnepr and were found on the Volga in historical times. The Slavs eventually defeated them all.

A lot of people who find names they do not recognize want to just throw them out. I believe the tendency is against that now unless you can find pretty good evidence of the corruption or distortion of the names. The Bastarnae and Bructeri certainly did not disappear hundreds of years earlier or at all for that matter. Chalons was only 451 you know. Just about all the people said to be in place by earlier sources were still in place except those driven west by the Huns.

His numbers also are at variance with what the mainstream thinks. According to him there were only 30,000-50,000 on a side, and yet they lost 15,000 just in a "skirmish". Well, you don't lose half your command in a skirmish. Sorry.

Most of the figures I've seen are as high as 1/2 mil on a side. The lines stretched beyond the horizon and apart from a few focal points the battle was not in anyone's control. There was so much mud the troops were ineffective in it. All the peoples of Europe were there from the Baltic coast to the Black Sea, from the shores of Britain to the Volga river and beyond. This was not the minor battle the "authority" leads you to believe. The future destiny of all Europe rested on it.

So, figures concerning the actual Roman troops do not have a major bearing, as most of the troops were European in general. This was not a specifically Roman battle. All the peoples of Europe were making common cause, even those who previously had been mortal enemies. At the end of that battle Aetius could have united all of Europe just by his personal charisma but he chose to let it go because he feared his new friends.

In conclusion I would just like to point out you can make any event simple and clear by excising data you don't like or can't explain, but then you have a historicity problem. The idea is to capture the real event.

While supporting small I am not contributing for the moment because I am working on something else. Eventually though I will get to here more formallly.

Meanwhile, I can't say I regard the article as an especially good or logically complete one. For one thing there seems to be confusion about primary and secondary sources. A primary source is a witness to the event, not just an ancient writer. For another thing, the article seems to want to bat around secondary sources instead of the material on which their opinions are based.Dave 14:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Responding in order:

Which scholars believe that the "Geloni and Neuri are believed by large number of scholars to be the proto-Balts"? My point is not to say that Thompson is the definitive voice on the identities of the various peoples who were involved, but that unless you happen to have close to hand author's names & their publications for verification, you are likely quoting from memory, & I've recently have been reminded that one's memory can be fallible. And BTW, the original poster was claiming that the "Gelons" came from the "Vorskla River" -- which is in the Ukraine -- yet now you state that they were proto-Balts. Even if I accept your identification, it won't help confirm his assertion.

Then you state that "the mainstream" doesn't accept his estimates for the number of combatants. Well, I admit that the size of the invading armies of this period are very much in dispute -- but I'm not sure just who you mean by "the mainstream". I'd say that the late Thompson is one member of this mainstream body of scholars. So who else would you include in this group? I am sincerely interested in knowing, because the more voices that can be added to this article, the better it will become.

However, I have to wonder when you state that "most of the figures I've seen are as high as 1/2 mil on a side." One of the handicaps military forces have to deal with is their supply lines -- & at this time, almost all armies lived off the land, taking from the local peasants & nobility everything that they ate or fed their horses. The reference to what the Roman Empire could support is an indication of just how many soldiers this subsistence economy coulc support if their provisions were provided from the peasantry in an organized manner: in other words, this is a indication of the upper limit of how many soldiers Gaul could sustain at the time. Maybe this part of Europe could support up to twice as many in exceptional conditions -- such as a predatory force like the Hunnish armies slaughtering its way across the land. But the hard truth is that any landscape can only support a finite number of soldiers exploiting it & its inhabitants -- exceed this limit, & unless you are importing the needed food & materials from another location the excess will grow hungry or sicken & desert or die. (N.J.G. Pounds published an estimate for the population of Gaul during the Antonine dynasty of between 6-10 million people; adding a half-million more mouths would turn much of Gaul into empty wildernesses -- something that clearly did not happen.) Even if Attila left with half a million men, disease & lack of food would have reduced his following to at most a tenth of what he started with. Ethiopia fielded an army that mostly lived off the land in the 1890s, & had difficulty keeping 80,000 - 120,000 men in the field for several weeks. I doubt Attila could keep this large of a force together for themany months he campaigned in Gaul.

For what it's worth, I consider Thompson's estimate on the low side. And just because Jordanes stated 15,000 men were killed in skirmishing the night before does not mean we can guestimate from that figure just how many total combatants were involved. We don't know how he came upon these figures -- whether he had access to the official military records or based these numbers on hearsay -- or something in between. But the principle of NPOV suggests that I include his figures, as wrong as they may be.

I'm not sure what you mean when you protest about "confusion about primary and secondary sources". I think it's quite clear to any reader that Hodgkin & Thompson both lived many centuries after the event. Can you provide some specific examples?

And your charge that either I -- or the other editors who have contributed to this article -- have "excised" any information is offensive; I'd like to direct your attention to WP:AGF. Again, I admit that this article needs more work -- but every Wikipedian freely admit that even Featured Articles could be improved upon. I have put as much information as I can provide sources for in this article at the time, & have not knowingly omitted any information I found. I regret this article left you confused, but have to wonder about your sincerity. You admit you're busy with other matters, too busy to provide any additional sources, yet have enough time to leave a long rant on the talk page. Please prove that I have misunderstood you & provide some sources & specific details so we could be improve this article. -- llywrch 03:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You could contribute a detail no historian mentions here: the Hun bow is a composite bow. layers of horn glued together, manufacture takes a year, usually with strong skin glue. This glue is dissolves easily in contact with water, humidity posses a great problem. Their descendants, the Hungarians, plunder all across Germany but never went to France with their composite bows. Wandalstouring 22:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Food restrictions. Verbruggen (The Art of War in Western Europe during the Middle Ages) points this out for the Medieval warfare, but states that smaller armies of early knights could achieve more than huge Roman legions. The problem was food available on the march and in enemy territory, so keep to the plausible small numbers. Experience shows that the only trustworthy account of troopstrength are paylists. Wandalstouring 19:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Drinking from the bloodied stream

This trope of battle literature was applied to a contemporary account of the Battle of Marignano, 1515, which I cannot place. The king of France, in the darkness, drinking from his helmet, perhaps. A footnote quote from it would enrich this excellent article, idf I could place it. --Wetman 01:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Result in the info box

While both strategically and operationally this battle appears to have been a wash, from a tatical stand point, this has to be considered a Roman & allied tactical victory due to them holding the ground at the end let alone the other side in full retreat afterwords. It would also be nice to have estimated casulaty figures on both sides. Jon 13:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello. The battle was no wash at all. The strategy was to unite all the peoples of Europe to stop the HUns. It was a great success. The only tactical wash I saw was when the Alans ran off. They got around it. This was a great propaganda defeat for Attila also. The myth of his invincibility was shattered. He died soon after but the the Goths and the Alans rose and drove the Huns east to the Volga (and Bulgaria).Dave 14:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Bury's View Needs Presenting, but it is not the Majority Historical Viewpoint

It is true that Bury viewed this Battle differently from virtually every other major historian -but his was a distinctly minority viewpoint, one that clashed directly with Sir Edward Shepard Creasy's, and Gibbon, both considered superior historians by most of their peers, though Bury was quite gifted. Time has not seen the majority of historians side with Bury either. The article needs to reflect Bury's view, but present it for what it is - the minority view of the battle. old windy bear 09:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Contradicting articles

• This article says:
  • 'The number of combatants, while not as small as many conflicts over the following centuries, is not as large as, say, the unquestionably important Battle of Adrianople in 378"
  • For each party there is a 30,000-50,000 number given in the infobox for the battle of Chalons.
• The Battle of Adrianople article states that that battle was 15,000 to 30,000 (ERE) and ca. 20,000 (Goths), which is a lot lower than the Battle of Chalons.
• I understand that these are estimates, but the contradiction should be solved however. Sijo Ripa 15:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Restoring Sections to the Article

I understand the desire to limit the number of sections, but the recent editing which removed sections outlining the majority and minority historical views, and why the battle is so remembered irregardless, left it a hopeless mess for the uninformed reader to try to sort out. In this case, we need the sections to divide the expert opinions, in order to give some formatting to the article and make it readable. Before anyone else removes them, please discuss it here so we can reach consensus. THANKS! old windy bear 18:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Since creating this article near the beginning of Wikipedia, I have been defending this article alone from some obvious POV pushing -- check the article history for examples -- & I removed the section headers becuse I felt they were needlessly POV. And please note carefully, OldWindyBear: I otherwise left practically untouched much of the material you added, & I want to state for the record that I grateful for your adding quotations from Gibbon & Creasy to this article, something that it has badly needed. However, note that I also corrected one extensive quotation you added, which incorporated existing Wikipedia text into that quotation; I don't feel that my edits left this section "a hopeless mess", it was merely adjusting how we presented the opinions of historians from a construct rival camps over the importance of this battle to a simple list.

Having written all of that, I must add that I'm a little puzzled at your post above. I don't mean to start an edit war, or to violate the guidelines at WP:OWN, but didn't you make the changes you are now defending without any attempt to reach a consensus yourself? It is clear that they greatly changed the emphasis & conclusions of the article; I was simply trying to protect the current state of the article without knowledge of what your intentions for the article were. And please note that my comment to my own edits was that you were introducing a measure of argument into the article which would be better placed in this Talk space. I am trying to reach a consensus on this article, & I would rather have someone obviously as knowledgable as you help in improving it -- or at least removing some of the questionable edits that have been made to this article -- rather than have us both fight over its contents.

But I must point out something that has bothered me about this battle since I started to examine it in detail for a Wikipedia article: how can it be considered decisive when two of the major participating nations effectively vanished within a few decades? On one side the Huns had disappeared as a national entity, while on the other the Western Roman Empire continued to disintegrate? Of the two prominent authorities you cite, who argue that this was an important battle, one wrote over 200 years ago & before the judgement of modern research, while the other is not an expert in the history of this period. Is there another historian (beside Arther Ferrill, who is cited in this article but about whom I know very little) who argues that this was a decisive & major battle? -- llywrch 03:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

llywrch First, there are two issues here, and I will address each separately. The first is your conclusions are original research. With respect, I disagree with your conclusions precisely because you incorporate POV into the article. When you say, as you do above, "how can it be considered decisive when two of the major participating nations effectively vanished within a few decades?" Bluntly, and I don't mean to be offensive, in fact, I may agree with you, our opnions are irrelevant! You have incorporated your opinion, and original research. That simply cannot be done, even where, as I think yours are, the intentions are good ones, to ask good questions. (I do want to make clear you put a great deal of work in this article, which I salute, and would prefer to work with you! I believe your intentions good ones, and see no reason we cannot work on this article together to put it as NPOV) But, we have to rely on the experts, which brings us to point two, the experts...

As to your statements on Gibbon, note that even today his research is considered peerless, and he is the definitive historian of the Roman Empire, period. Bury is also dated, if you consider time as a definitive measure of a historian's greatness, which I do not. (his great work was published first in 1889, then republished a dozen years later). As to your statement that Creasy was not a historian expert in the period, Creasy is acknowledged - and I can easily get you the sources - as the greatest military historian of all time! And his work was only a few decades before Bury's. Ferrill and Herbert are both recognized experts. I don't want an edit war either, but the blunt fact is, among recognized experts, Bury - who I explained to you on my talk page - is a great historian, is ALONE in believing Chalons not to be of macrohistorical importance. I tried to acknowledge Bury's theories, as the minority view, which it is, without taking from the accepted majority view, which Gibbon and Creasy, Herbert, Ferrill, Grant, Norwich, (the most widely read historian on Bzyantium, period!) all represent. (and the later two are modern historians, again, however, I do not believe that Bury or Gibbon, or Creasy, is rendered obsolete by the passage of time; their work to me is as relevant today as when it was published!)

I put the sections back without discussion because no one posted the changes here, and the article was unreadable. Frankly, I should have looked at the edit history and posted a message to you, and I apologize. I did not mean to diminish your work on this article, which is considerable. But I honestly felt the article without sectioning was unreadable for non-experts. (Obviously you are quite knowledgable, but those not I felt would be lost) I will gladly submitt this to a peer review, if you would like, but would prefer to work with you to correct any disagreements.

I hope this explains my edits. If you wish a peer review, I will gladly accept one. I can cite you numerous other sources, Grant, and others, who believe Chalons of macrohistorical importance. Bury stands alone among respected historians believing it was not. It does not matter whether you or I agree with him, the majority of historians do not. That is what the article, to be accurate, must portray. old windy bear 12:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding, OldWindyBear, but I've been using the time thinking about my response -- primarily about your charge of "original research". It bothers me in part because I helped to create this rule, but also because I believe that there are cases where we should not simply repeat the opinion of authorities on a subject. You could consider what this a case of informed reporting, rather than to simply copy the source without further reflection.

The primary problem with original research -- as I see it -- is not that it produces novel or unexpected results, but that it forces the person creating it to discard all other possible opinions on the subject. And this is shown by the fact almost all who insist on introducing original reseach into Wikipedia claim that what they have found is "the truth" -- & further claim that by not accepting their contributions that we are "suppressing the truth." However, it is a different matter to point out obvious contradictions or mistakes in these same authorities -- which is what I tried to do in this article.

One can quote all of the authorities one wants to say that this battle was decisive -- yet of the three major nations involved, one was a decaying Empire that continued to crumble after the battle, while another was an emphemeral threat that melted away with the death of their king. Looked at this way, this event hardly appears to have the justification for all of the importance it is said to have. To state only that Gibbon, Creasy, Grant, Norwich, et alia all say it was important glosses over this crux. Unfortunately, here I feel we encounter the barrier of original research: pointing out the problem keeps us on one side, but attempting to answer it (beyond the fortunate discovery of published research that can be added to Wikipedia) crosses this line.

I hope you see what I have tried to do -- & why I was trying to rework your contributions to acknowledge this problem. Your contirbutions made it appear that we two editors were fighting over whether this battle was decisive -- whereas I was trying make t he point that there is a problem in making that statement. Perhaps the problem can be resolved by stating the battle was a strategic victory (as Wandalstouring proposes), or by better understanding the arguments Creasy & the others have made. (I reread Gibbon last night, particularly the chapter where he narrates Atilla's campaigns in Gaul & Rome, but failed to find where he reflects on the importance of this battle, so I can't say whether he truly felt it was a decisive event or was simply repeating received wisdom.) But I can't accept that to describe this contradiction falls under the rule forbidding original research. Although I am well aware that this could become a loophole allowing the cranks & kooks to push their POVs into Wikipedia, insisting that Wikipedians withhold all judgement on the material can only drive away the people we most want to contribute to our project. -- llywrch 22:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

llywrch Greetings! Actually, you and I are in agreement on this battle. I personally don't think it can be called "decisive" for world history. Where I was caught was that I felt I had to cite the historians, the bulk of whom do believe it was decisive. Wandalstouring gave me a fine way out. Like you, I have Gibbon, so I reread it also, and he essentially praises Aetius and quotes other historians other than a single statement to the effect this was the last great victory of the Western Empire. Though Bury is a lonely voice, I think he is correct. I think you did a good job of reworking my wording, and I agree with Wandalstouring that this can be viewed as a strategic victory since it denied Attila his long term goal of fully subjugating Gaul, yet was a tactical wash because both sides survived the Battle essentially intact except for horrific losses on both sides. I think you make an excellent point that this article points to a real contradiction involving the bann on original research, and I am open to any solution you can devise. I personally think Creasy was wrong, that this was NOT one of history's most decisive battles. But for some reason, (Creasy being regarded as the greatest all time western military historian?) modern historians tend to echo his feelings, witness the findings of Grant, Norwich, et al, on this battle! Please keep me appraised if you figure a way to get around the bann on original research in such cases as this, where real contradictions of history make the findings of historians patently absurd. Yet I am also aware of the danger opening such a door might bring - there are more nuts with POV than there are students of history wanting historically accurate articles. old windy bear 18:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The "no original research" has already a mousehole. I use it if I disagree with all sources. Read what the argumentation is based upon and then find evident facts that are not considered, but stated in reliable sources. Soon you can arise some questions and get a better fitting formulation. OK, it is close to the edge and you must know your topic. Wandalstouring 19:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wandalstouring I am willing to do that. I never personally agreed with the generally accepted historical view of this battle. I simply did not see a way out of citing the accepted historical view. But you are right, if you simply ask the right questions, and dig for the right supporting facts, and avoid simply parroting the accepted interpretration, you can create a better fitting analysis, just as you did here. I had simply not thought out of the box enough on this, and you had. old windy bear 20:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Like I was saying in a section I've added because I missed this debate (probably the section title wasn't suggestive enough for me to read it :P), Bury is not alone in doubting the macrohistorical importance, while a certain number of historians of Roman Empire, Late Antiquity, etc. simply refrain from emphasizing the macrohistorical importance. Lucien Musset (1965) argued the battle of Chalons happened while Attila was retreating from Gaul, and though bloody it was of little significance. Musset's account generally on Huns is that they left no trace and couldn't leave any trace (they were few and ruling over a confederation of mostly Germanic populations). Pierre Riche (1953, 1989) though he saw in Attila an exponent of the Asian cultures, argued the battle of Chalons only gave the Romans the hope their empire will be saved (and it wasn't). A Romanian historian, Stelian Brezeanu, writing about Byzantines (2004) described the battle of Chalons as a battle mainly between Germanic populations and assigns no significance to this battle. Going to an encyclopedic view of world history, Imanuel Geiss (1986) mentions the only significance of battle of Chalons - stopping the Hunnic campaigns in Gaul and Germany. These are randomly picked views of historians writing on Romans, barbarian invasions or even world histories where the macrohistorical importance of some events should be emphasized. With these in mind, I'm yet to be persuaded by sourced arguments the majority of historians indeed value this battle to be of macrohistorical importance. Daizus 07:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I also share the concerns of others - why these major historians are listed from rather obsolete figures? Gibbon wrote more than 200 years ago!!! Not that is a recent historian himself, but compared with Gibbon and Creasy, Bury is the most recent! Daizus 07:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, you overlooked Grant and Norwich, both 20th century writers, whom Old Windy Bear has mentioned above, so this opinion is not solely held by "rather obsolete figures". ;-) And in defense of Edward Gibbon, (1) he is considered by a number of authories as the greatest historian writing in the English language, so his opinions do carry more weight than more recent ones; & (2) according to what one Wikipedian (who happens to be professional medievalist) wrote elsewhere, late ancient & early medieval history is one of those fields where it is not uncommon for scholarly articles & works published 100 years ago (or more) to be cited today.

That having been said, I am interested in these authors who cite, Daizus; I have had problems identifying and obtaining more recent discussions of this event. The late E.A. Thompson is the most recent writer I've been able to find on the subject. Can you provide a more complete bibliographical citation for these works you mention above, so we can read what they have to say? At least the title of the books, & the title, periodical name, volume & first page for the articles? Thank you in advance for this much-needed information. -- llywrch 20:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I actually refered to section as it is currently pictured in the article. The historians quoted are Gibbon, Creasy and Ferill, but the quote on later does not support the macrohistorical significance (and by this way I come to wonder why is he presented in that paragraph? Simply for weight?). Gibbon is considered also by a "number of authorities" as inaccurate, exaggerating, biased, obsolete (usually in several certain issues, I don't want to say he's rejected or anything). That doesn't make him not a great historian, but he was a great historian for his time, that is 18th century! We do appreciate the pioneers of the mankind, but this doesn't mean we have to consider them authoritative sources in our 21st century scholarship. I am not a professional myself, but the few professional scholars I talked with (not to mention the essays/studies on various historiographies I've read) they all agree outdated scholarship shouldn't be cited (I mean not for arguments, however they might be evoke them to represent a scholarly tradition or to show what a long way a certain idea/theory has evolved). Also I've read several reviews where the omission of recent scholarship was heavily taxed.

There's a problem with my sources - most them I have translated in my own language, that is Romanian. I have really few materials in their original, mostly e-Books or downloaded articles. However, I can fetch you the original titles for my earlier mentioned historians and where I know of an English translation to make a reference on that, too.

* Lucien Musset - "Les Invasions. Les vagues germaniques", 1st ed. 1965, translated in English in 1975 and 1993, I believe both under the title "The Germanic invasions: the making of Europe, AD 400-600". I used a Romanian translation after the 3rd French edition, that is from 1994.

* Pierre Riché, Philippe Le Maitre - "Les invasions barbares", 1st ed. 1953. I've used a Romanian translation after the 9th edition (which it said to be a corrected one as well, and indeed the book has recent scholars referenced, too) from 1996. I don't know of any English translation to it and I know it was translated into Portuguese, though I don't know under what title.

* Pierre Riché - "L'Europe barbare de 476 à 774", 1st ed. 1989. I've used a Romanian translation after the 2nd edition from 1990. I don't know of any other translations.

The other two references I've provided only for variety, they do not give too much focus on the events from Western Europe from 5th century.

The thing is I believe Chalons is not so much emphasized as Tours or other controversial battles to be significant (probably also because both sides actually lost a lot and both main actors - Romans and Huns collapsed soon after) and many scholars while considering this battle do not emhpasize neither its importance nor its lack of importance. It was certainly one major battle, but in the view of many, lacking significant consequences. Daizus 21:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Was the Battle Inconclusive or Must we Cite the Historians who say otherwise?

Wandalstouring I do not wish to start an edit war, but the battle is NOT considered inconclusive by the huge majority of historians.

• Even Bury, who does not believe it macrohistorical, says:

"The Gallic campaign had really been decided by the strategic success of the allies in cutting off Attila from Orleans. The battle was fought when he was in full retreat, and its value lay in damaging his prestige as an invincible conqueror, in weakening his forces, and in hindering him from extending the range of his ravages."

• Norwich says: "Attila was defeated on the Catalaunian Fields"
• Gibbon says "[Attila's] retreat across the Rhine confessed the last victory which was achieved in the name of the Western Roman Empire."
• Ferrill says " After he secured the Rhine, Attila moved into central Gaul and put Orleans under siege. Had he gained his objective, he would have been in a strong position to subdue the Visigoths in Aquitiane, but Aetius had put together a formidable coalition against the Hun. Working frenetically, the Roman leader had built a powerful alliance of Visigoths, Alans and Burgundians, uniting them with their traditional enemy, the Romans, for the defense of Gaul. Even though all parties to the protection of the Western Roman Empire had a common hatred of the Huns, it was still a remarkable achievement on Aetius' part to have drawn them into an effective military relationship."
• Grant says this battle was the "Greatest victory of Aetius career and it was the only battle Attila ever lost."
• Herbert says "The discomfiture of the mighty attempt of Attila to found a new anti-Christian dynasty upon the wreck of the temporal power of Rome, at the end of the term of twelve hundred years, to which its duration had been limited by the forebodings of the heathen."
• Sir Edward Creasy says: "Attila's attacks on the Western empire were soon renewed, but never with such peril to the civilized world as had menaced it before his defeat at Châlons ; and on his death, two years after that battle, the vast empire which his genius had founded was soon dissevered by the successful revolts of the subject nations. The name of the Huns ceased for some centuries to inspire terror in Western Europe, and their ascendency passed away with the life of the great king by whom it had been so fearfully augmented."

Unless you can come up with historians to support your refusal to allow even the statement that this is regarded as a victory for Aetius by most historians and a defeat for Attila by most historians, I will revert that portion. Our opinions do not matter. You revert me and say stick to facts, I just cited you what historians say. Please find me cites that differ! The vast majority regard it as a huge victory for Aetius, who ended the invasion of Gaul forever, and tremendously weakened Attila by removing his aura of invincibilty. old windy bear 21:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

In the battle itself no side was defeated tactically, all battle reports agree to this. The aims of Attila`s campaigns were impossible afterwards. This makes the battle a strategic victory and that is the interpretation, but DO not mix tactically inconclusive and strategic victory. "The battle was fought when he was in full retreat, and its value lay in damaging his prestige as an invincible conqueror, in weakening his forces, and in hindering him from extending the range of his ravages." Quoting Bury right from the article. I really don`t understand what you want from me. Wandalstouring 22:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"Bloody among the allies of both sides, inconclusive, but regarded by most historians as a great victory for Aetius and his allies as Attila's aura of invincibility was lost" That was your summary of the battle. It contradicts itself, so I made it proper into two parts, one stating historians interpretation and the other about the battle tactically.

The events there were Germanic tribes fighting nasty pitched battles against one another and the Huns on horseback shouting at the Romans (mostly infantry) without great casualties on both sides. This is no tactic defeat if the Huns go home afterwards. Wandalstouring 22:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Wandalstouring I can certainly live with your wording, which I think is a fair interpretation. I appreciate your listening to my concerns, and yes, I agree with you. I think strategically it was unquestionably a victory for Aetius and his coalition, and tactically it was no victory for anyone, because, as you pointed out, the Huns went home. Attila'a long term goal of conquest of Gaul was shattered, as was his myth of invincibility, but again, he went home. You were very fair, and your military interpretation an excellent one. I had not considered the strategic impact versus the tactical reality, which I should have. Your analysis was insightful and first rate. Thanks. old windy bear 23:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

What I tried to do in this article was exactly what Wandalstouring has proposed: cite the opinions, but make sure to include even the inconvenient facts. I had hoped that I had done this, yet when I nominated this article for WP:GA status, another Wikipedian blocked my nomination & claimed that the language of the article was "turgid". I guess that means there still remains a lot of work to be done on this article. :-/ -- llywrch 03:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

llywrch I think you did an excellent job on the article. I thought your language was anything but "turpid." My only problem was that personally, while I felt that this could not possibly be included in decisive battles, historians said otherwise. Both of you then filed replied saying yes, it was inconclusive EXCEPT for the strategic implications. (Those could be that it derailed Attila's long term plan to bring Gaul completely under his heel, which could have nipped the fledging frankish state in the bud, and over the long term, perhaps resulted in the loss of the "family that forged Europe," the Carolingians. But that was VERY long term). It is not that Wandalstouring's analyis was better than yours - he just wrote his first - and both of you provided a way for me to get around the accepted historical view that this was a great turning point. I simply had not thought enough out of the box as you both had. I do think it had strategic implications, but tactically it was a wash. I am sorry you were insulted in attempting to nominate the article, personally I thought your work was quite good. I cannot see what else remains, frankly, the battle is exhaustively examined. I strongly disagree with the concept that one person can block a nomination - too much of the time personalities get involved in those situations! old windy bear 18:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I will change some phrases and put it in for nomination again. Wandalstouring 18:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Wandalstouring Good, and thanks. I will support you 150%. old windy bear 21:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Prelude is done. Tell me your opinion before I snafu the rest. Wandalstouring 21:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Wandalstouring You are doing a good job. As to how to phrase the Hun Invasions, I would simply say "Hun Invasions" or "Hun Empire with it's allies" since both Bury and Gibbon refer to it that way. old windy bear 18:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Still I need to know is it Hunnic or Hunnish. I don't know and my dictionary www.leo.org is the first time not helpful. Wandalstouring 19:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hunnic or Hunnish

I want to know wheter it is Hunnic or Hunnish and which one I can use. Wandalstouring 11:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

WandalstouringI would simply say "Hun Invasions" or "Hun Empire with it's allies" since both Bury and Gibbon refer to it that way. old windy bear 21:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you read how often Hunnic or Hunnish is used in the text? I can hardly trip all over myself to avoid it. Wandalstouring 22:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Wandalstouring Hey buddy, yes, I did read that in Bury, but he titled the portion of the book devoted to Attila, "§ 2. The Hun Invasions of the Balkan Peninsula (A.D. 441‑448)" and Gibbon titled it "Chapter XXXIV Conquests and Court of Atillia, King of the Huns," and most often refers to them simply as the Huns. I personally have no problem with referring to them as Hunnic or Hunnish, but I suggested for simplicity's sake simply referring to them as the Huns, given the foregoing, or the Scythians, since both Bury and Gibbon referred to them by that appelation also. But I think you would be correct using any of the foregoing names. They were a confederation of tribes, believed to be primarily Turkic, but no one knows for sure. It is not like the Mongols, where you have a single certain ethnic identity. Their empire is most often simply known as the Huns, which was the reason for my suggestion. I don't think any of those names is going to be wrong in this context. old windy bear 23:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

pictures

Attila the Hun's Birthday Pictures

ZDF has made a TV documentation of the battle. I asked them to release some pics. Wandalstouring 14:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Theodoric I king of the visigoths seems utterly unimportant for a depiction or a biography. Wandalstouring 15:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

initial Hunnic attack and aftermath

The current version of events (based on contemporary sources) does not quite support the statement it was tactically inconclusive. After meeting for the first time an enemy who can shoot back, the Huns run back into their back and disorder their allied infantry while the enemy infantry rushes in. Sorry, but the Huns have been fighting for several years and did meet enemies with bows and arrows before. It sounds a bit biased. A suggest to tell the events in a better way (based on the sources) and on the other hand avoid dubious statements.

The Hunnic forces advanced to wear down the Roman troops with arrow volleys. But the Roman troops had enough archers with excellent bows to respond equally. The Huns were forced to retreat by the countervolley. Shielded from the superior Hunnic range weapons the Roman allies rushed in and a pitched battle between their Germanic infantries ensued.

Wandalstouring 11:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Roman Numbers

As a reference, in the early 3rd century, the Roman Empire maintained thirty legions with just under 5200 actual men each; if we follow the general assumption that the number of auxiliaries matched the number of legionaries, then add the Praetorian Guard as 5,000 strong, and 6 Urban Cohorts, we find that the Empire at its height fielded a grand total of 323,000 soldiers across its territories[8]. This paragraph paints a diffrent picture than was probobly the reality at the time. Trying to compare the military strength of the Roman Empire between the early 3rd century with mid 5th century seems rather useless. The entire structure of the army had changed by then under Diocletian: numbers, organisation and skill had most definitly shifted. At the height of its power it did indeed arm a force of some 323 000 soldiers accross its territory, yet this is far from the height of the militay numbers. Our own article on ths subject points to some 450 000 soldiers (Frontier and mobile) at the onset of the Dominate. Zosimus's figures point to an army of some 270 000 in the western empire as it was in 305. And Jone's Late Roman Empire goes as far as to indicate 645 000 soldiers and sailors under the imperial coin in the 4th century.--Dryzen 15:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

new review

language has been changed, the article received a map and is going to get a map of the battle (although this is quite difficult because the sources are not clear) I suggest to submit it for A class review. Wandalstouring 22:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

archeological evidence

Any battle live some traces in ground. What about the thousands of archers, did they shoot only one arrow? No one was recovered. What about bones, mas-graves etc ?

What about the fortification dig out? In archeology hole in the ground is the most preserved ‘things”. ?

Compare to other battles and numerous archeological finds. Do we have any evidence where the battle takes place if it was reality at all?

Simply - the Battle of Chalons is not confirmed archeologically. We known it only from writings records.

just a few qoutes:

• Battle_of_Marathon#Aftermath 490 BC The tomb was excavated in the 1880's by German archeologists. The team though did not include any anthropologists so we do not know to how many people belonged the bones that were uncovered. The same team also found a ditch containing large numbers of human bones hastily buried, that was identified as the burial place of the Persians.

• Battle of the Teutoburg Forest 9 AD. Recent archeological finds place the battle in Osnabrück County, Lower Saxony.

• "Stands of the Order of the Knights of the Cross and GDL illustrated by archaeological material and pictures, "

Nasz 04:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The Goths rarely buried weapons with their dead. The Late Romans sometimes did. A Roman or West-Germanic identification is plausible but a Gothic one is not. See Heather & Matthews, 1991, Goths in the Fourth Century, pp. 55 & 58. Jacob Haller 02:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

What abot the arrows, hundreds thousand of them. No one missed target? No single arrowhead was found in field. Nasz 07:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No idea. But the exact battle site isn't known.Jacob Haller 17:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I mean that the article only points to one item of archaeological evidence: a single 'Gothic' burial. And it might be Roman or German but it is certainly not Gothic! Jacob Haller 17:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Menghin 1983 dates the burial to 430-490 CE. And there is only one sword and one sax not two swords. Jacob Haller 17:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Check Gothika the main source for this batle. 24.13.244.169 03:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That links to some movie. Did you mean Getica? Jordanes isn't that trustworthy. Moreover, why is this in the archaeological evidence.Jacob Haller 03:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the point of this discussion. Many battlefields lack any archeological evidence: the number of dead were in the hundreds -- sometimes buried, sometimes left to the scavengers to dispose of -- & afterwards the local inhabitants would pick over what was left to make their lives easier (for example, the blade of a broken sword would be very useful in improving a plow.), and a few centuries of plowing would obscure any battlements.

Jordanes is considered the most important primary source for this period; every account I have seen about the Battle of Chalons relies on what he wrote, & quotes it extensively. If you want to argue that his account is untrustworthy, please provide cites to experts who question & argue against his reliability.

On the other hand, the archeological evidence section merely repeats some 19th century finds of questioned relevance. The grave may be related to the battle -- or it may not; the point is that some older books mention the connection, so due diligence requires Wikipedia to mention it. Lastly, the {{Sectiondisputed}} template does not exist; would the person who wants it there find the correct name for the template he wants to use -- or I'll revert this edit. -- llywrch 02:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to spend 40 minutes searching for the "right tag" for the disputed section. What is there may not code for anything, but it does warn the reader. Deleting it will no longer warn the reader. As for Jordanes ... see Goths Jacob Haller 03:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You may want to reconsider that response. From the tone of your first sentence, it sounds as if either you don't care enough about how you appear to be taken seriously -- or you don't care enough about the rest of to be worth the effort to properly talk to. Fixing that problem helps you in the long run. Since I, for one, do take the time to find the "right tag" -- especially if the template doesn't link to anything -- I'd appreciate it if you took the time to do the research.

And as a postscript, having looked at that article, all it indicates is that the reliablity of portions of Jordanes' Getica has been questioned. I'd go further, & admit that those portions are legendary or mythical -- but the same could be said of many otherwise reliable histories. Do Heather or Kulikowski question Jordanes' account of this battle -- which earlier historians have argued is based on the work of contemporary writers like Priscus? I don't see any mention of that. I have to otherwise conclude that your use of these two scholars to entirely dismiss Jordanes' work is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. -- llywrch 20:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Wikipedia pages can take forever to load; wikipedia searching is worse; and wikipedia kept logging me off each time I opened a page that day. It often does take 40 minutes to find the right template. As for Jordanes, in the 5th century he may be fairly reliable, but in the 4th century he does make clear mistakes (e.g. Athanaric as successor to Fritigern). Jacob Haller 00:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The Huns used lots of arrows and these had mostly warheads made from bone or other cheap materials. Metal was expensive and most likely bronze warheads were used if not bone(some findings, has better armorpiercing ability, but less range - heavier missile), making ferromagnetic iron remains extremely rare. As far as anything valuable goes that is a bigger piece of metal, like spears, seax, swords, daggers and shieldboss, these things were likely retrieved by natives long ago. For similar examples look at the economic history of Lybia, before exporting oil they exported mainly the metal remains of the battles between the Axis and Allies of WWII on their territory. Wandalstouring 23:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)