What do you think?
Rate this book
Attila: The Barbarian King Who Challenged Rome
A stunning biography of history's most infamous warlord, Attila the Hun
For a crucial twenty years in the early fifth century, Attila held the fate of the Roman Empire and the future of all Europe in his hands. He created the greatest of barbarian forces, and his empire briefly rivaled Rome's. In numerous raids and three major campaigns against the Roman Empire, he earned himself an instant and undying reputation for savagery. But there was more to him than mere barbarism. Attila was capricious, arrogant, brutal, and brilliant enough to win the loyalty of millions. In the end, his ambitions ran away with him. He did not live long enough to found a lasting empire―but long enough to jolt Rome toward its final fall.
In this riveting biography, masterful storyteller John Man draws on his extensive travels through Attila's heartland and his experience with the nomadic traditions of Central Asia to reveal the man behind the myth.
For a crucial twenty years in the early fifth century, Attila held the fate of the Roman Empire and the future of all Europe in his hands. He created the greatest of barbarian forces, and his empire briefly rivaled Rome's. In numerous raids and three major campaigns against the Roman Empire, he earned himself an instant and undying reputation for savagery. But there was more to him than mere barbarism. Attila was capricious, arrogant, brutal, and brilliant enough to win the loyalty of millions. In the end, his ambitions ran away with him. He did not live long enough to found a lasting empire―but long enough to jolt Rome toward its final fall.
In this riveting biography, masterful storyteller John Man draws on his extensive travels through Attila's heartland and his experience with the nomadic traditions of Central Asia to reveal the man behind the myth.
336 pages, Paperback
First published March 1, 2005
About the author
John Man
80 books246 followersJohn Anthony Garnet Man is a British historian and travel writer. His special interests are China, Mongolia and the history of written communication. He takes particular pleasure in combining historical narrative with personal experience.
He studied German and French at Keble College, Oxford, before doing two postgraduate courses, a diploma in the History and Philosophy of Science at Oxford and Mongolian at the School of Oriental and African Studies, completing the latter in 1968. After working in journalism with Reuters and in publishing with Time-Life Books, he turned to writing, with occasional forays into film, TV and radio.
In the 1990s, he began a trilogy on the three major revolutions in writing: writing itself, the alphabet and printing with movable type. This has so far resulted in two books, Alpha Beta and The Gutenberg Revolution, both republished in 2009. The third, on the origin of writing, is on hold, because it depends on access to Iraq.
He returned to the subject of Mongolia with Gobi: Tracking the Desert, the first book on the region since the 1920s. Work in Mongolia led to Genghis Khan: Life, Death and Resurrection, which has so far appeared in 18 languages. Attila the Hun and Kublai Khan: The Mongol King Who Remade China completed a trilogy on Asian leaders. A revised edition of his book on Genghis Khan, with the results of an expedition up the mountain on which he is supposed to be buried, was upcoming in autumn 2010.
The Terracotta Army coincided with the British Museum exhibition (September 2007- April 2008). This was followed by The Great Wall. The Leadership Secrets of Genghis Khan combines history and leadership theory. Xanadu: Marco Polo and the Discovery of the East was published in autumn 2009, and Samurai: The Last Warrior, the story of Saigō Takamori's doomed 1877 rebellion against the Japanese emperor, was published in February 2011.
In 2007 John Man was awarded Mongolia's Friendship Medal for his contributions to UK-Mongolian relations.
He studied German and French at Keble College, Oxford, before doing two postgraduate courses, a diploma in the History and Philosophy of Science at Oxford and Mongolian at the School of Oriental and African Studies, completing the latter in 1968. After working in journalism with Reuters and in publishing with Time-Life Books, he turned to writing, with occasional forays into film, TV and radio.
In the 1990s, he began a trilogy on the three major revolutions in writing: writing itself, the alphabet and printing with movable type. This has so far resulted in two books, Alpha Beta and The Gutenberg Revolution, both republished in 2009. The third, on the origin of writing, is on hold, because it depends on access to Iraq.
He returned to the subject of Mongolia with Gobi: Tracking the Desert, the first book on the region since the 1920s. Work in Mongolia led to Genghis Khan: Life, Death and Resurrection, which has so far appeared in 18 languages. Attila the Hun and Kublai Khan: The Mongol King Who Remade China completed a trilogy on Asian leaders. A revised edition of his book on Genghis Khan, with the results of an expedition up the mountain on which he is supposed to be buried, was upcoming in autumn 2010.
The Terracotta Army coincided with the British Museum exhibition (September 2007- April 2008). This was followed by The Great Wall. The Leadership Secrets of Genghis Khan combines history and leadership theory. Xanadu: Marco Polo and the Discovery of the East was published in autumn 2009, and Samurai: The Last Warrior, the story of Saigō Takamori's doomed 1877 rebellion against the Japanese emperor, was published in February 2011.
In 2007 John Man was awarded Mongolia's Friendship Medal for his contributions to UK-Mongolian relations.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 127 reviews
May 24, 2021
The city's Bishop came to confront the advancing Huns and said 'I am Lupus, a man of God.' At this, Attila came up with a smart one-liner, in impeccable Latin:
Ego sum Attilla, flagellum Dei — 'I am Attila, the Scourge of God.', pg. 220
I thought this was well-researched and put together well. The author did a good job at telling the back story and explaining the archaeological, cultural-historical, and folkloric dimensions attached to the mystique of the Huns. The author does a good job of showing the link of the Huns from the pastoral nomadic people, the Xiongnu (also spelled Hsiung-nu). It is a real possibility the Huns came out of present-day Mongolia, migrated west out of the region because of wars/tensions with the Han Chinese, pushed through the Dzungarian Gap, across the steppes of Russia, and settled "somewhere north of the Black Sea, the edge of the Roman world.", pg. 59
"The Huns were on the move westward, away from the grasslands of Kazakhstan and the plains north of the Aral Sea, wanderers who faced a choice between sinking into oblivion or climbing at new heights of conquest, pg. 71". The Huns would enter the region by 404 and Attila would establish his operating base out present-day Hungary between 435-51 AD and further terrorize the Roman Empire. "The Hun advance sent shock waves as far as Jerusalem, where Jerome concluded that God's punishment had descended again on the immoral Roman world in the form of savage tribes, pg. 115".
This book had a lot of information pertaining to the Huns and barbarians: horsemanship, the recurve bow and archery, pastoral-nomadism, and much more. The book can go off into tangents with extra information but it all ties-in nicely. I would recommend this book because it was a fast read, the readability was great, and I honestly learned a great deal. Thanks!
September 6, 2013
I get it. You got this great idea for a book about a Hun, so you pitch it..."yep going to be about 400 pages" and then you start researching.
Oh crap...there's not much on this guy. What's an author to do?
If you're John Man, you fill it with lots of random crap. Like (since it was audio) hours of discussion about this guy in modern day Hungary who taught himself how to shoot arrows from horseback, including how he picked out the land and how Man's translator thought he was hot. And how he made a sport out of it.
Or lots about random visits to towns
Or Attila in folklore (honestly, 1/6 the book).
What you don't do, if you're John Man, is admit you've got less than 100 pages of actual material on Attila the Hun, and 300 pages of mostly uninteresting filler that you're going to pad around the outsides.
I may be a little bitter.
Part of my frustration is this was an audiobook that I was listening to at the gym. As amusing as having the strange girl next to you on the bike groaning "OMIGOD JUST TALK ABOUT ATTILA AT SOME POINT IN THIS BOOK FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HUN-HOLY," it's possibly not the reaction the author was looking for. You can't skim while listening. You also can't throw a book across the room. Or tear out page after page of description of the museum curators. Not the museums...the curators.
The more I think about this book, the more I hate it. I'm sure there is some great info in it, but it's like eating a fatty bunch of ribs--eventually you just send it back and tell them to bring you something else.
Oh crap...there's not much on this guy. What's an author to do?
If you're John Man, you fill it with lots of random crap. Like (since it was audio) hours of discussion about this guy in modern day Hungary who taught himself how to shoot arrows from horseback, including how he picked out the land and how Man's translator thought he was hot. And how he made a sport out of it.
Or lots about random visits to towns
Or Attila in folklore (honestly, 1/6 the book).
What you don't do, if you're John Man, is admit you've got less than 100 pages of actual material on Attila the Hun, and 300 pages of mostly uninteresting filler that you're going to pad around the outsides.
I may be a little bitter.
Part of my frustration is this was an audiobook that I was listening to at the gym. As amusing as having the strange girl next to you on the bike groaning "OMIGOD JUST TALK ABOUT ATTILA AT SOME POINT IN THIS BOOK FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HUN-HOLY," it's possibly not the reaction the author was looking for. You can't skim while listening. You also can't throw a book across the room. Or tear out page after page of description of the museum curators. Not the museums...the curators.
The more I think about this book, the more I hate it. I'm sure there is some great info in it, but it's like eating a fatty bunch of ribs--eventually you just send it back and tell them to bring you something else.
August 5, 2016
I prize accessibility almost as much as scholarly accuracy in historical monographs. Readers of my reviews have heard me rail time and time again against the turgidity of academic writing, which renders even monumental works useless due to their failure to win an audience.
This is not a problem for Man, whose background as a travel writer shines through. He breaks every academic rule, engaging in tangents and flights of fancy, chasing rabbits down holes and building castles in the air, injecting his opinion at every possible opportunity.
But it works because Man layers this over an impeccable command of Jordanes, Marcellinus, Procopius and the rest of the sources, so that the reader winds up feeling like their in a conversation over a beer with a likable guy regarding Attila's life and impact, instead of being lectured by yet another crusty old white dude.
There is precious little secondary scholarship in English (a ton in Hungarian) on Attila, and I'm thrilled that one of the few contributions to the field is something that *everyone*, especially the academically uninitiated, can enjoy.
This is not a problem for Man, whose background as a travel writer shines through. He breaks every academic rule, engaging in tangents and flights of fancy, chasing rabbits down holes and building castles in the air, injecting his opinion at every possible opportunity.
But it works because Man layers this over an impeccable command of Jordanes, Marcellinus, Procopius and the rest of the sources, so that the reader winds up feeling like their in a conversation over a beer with a likable guy regarding Attila's life and impact, instead of being lectured by yet another crusty old white dude.
There is precious little secondary scholarship in English (a ton in Hungarian) on Attila, and I'm thrilled that one of the few contributions to the field is something that *everyone*, especially the academically uninitiated, can enjoy.
June 13, 2014
Hey there, I am a historical non-fiction about Attila the Hun. I might seem like a good read for those military historical buffs who want to get an insight into the general who brought Rome to her knees, but don’t be fooled.
I will spend 400 pages talking about pretty much everything else except the person who is titled on this book. Why do I do this? Because there is not a lot of information on him. Oh, don’t worry, I am are going to talk a lot about the lack of information. I will even dedicate an entire chapter about some dude in Hungary who has brought back horseback archery, because I think that says a lot about Attila.
Parts of the book are decent in terms of Hun history (including how the term was used to describe Germans in WW1), but that’s about it.
I will spend 400 pages talking about pretty much everything else except the person who is titled on this book. Why do I do this? Because there is not a lot of information on him. Oh, don’t worry, I am are going to talk a lot about the lack of information. I will even dedicate an entire chapter about some dude in Hungary who has brought back horseback archery, because I think that says a lot about Attila.
Parts of the book are decent in terms of Hun history (including how the term was used to describe Germans in WW1), but that’s about it.
August 14, 2018
John Man, you always entertain us yet this time you fail us.
Both contemporary chroniclers and the archeological record are too meagre to fill a book on Atilla, so what do we get ? Fifty years of late Roman history, that's a good context for Flavius Aetius. A vivid reconstruction of what it's like to be on the receiving end of a Hun archery volley, that's promising for his showdown at the Catalaunian Plains.
Man fails to deliver on the military history.
Also, some of the filler is of questionable rapport to the biographical sketch of Attila. 18th century theories on the Turkish-Mongolian origins of the Hun deliver us in Man's favorite country to look at mounds that predate the Hun by a thousand years.
I do like his encounter with Lajos Kassai, who gives a unique insight into the art of mounted archery... yet in the end, it failed to do more for Atilla than a not-quite. He had the charisma of the natural leader. His people were sucked into a vortex of plunder because
A) pastoral nomads can NOT survive without the wood or metal obtained by trading beyond the grasslands
B) Humans are lazy ; they grow to appreciate the portable luxuries of civilisation. Those white-teethed children are as short on vitamin C as on sugar.
C) leadership depends on booty and expansion. Again and again and again. Until you ravage the proverbial cow dry and hit a wall too sturdy for your arrows.
So, the Huns weren't as succesful as the Mongols and Atilla was no Djengiz. But for all the reasoning, Man never drives the comparison home. What was the missing element ?
Both contemporary chroniclers and the archeological record are too meagre to fill a book on Atilla, so what do we get ? Fifty years of late Roman history, that's a good context for Flavius Aetius. A vivid reconstruction of what it's like to be on the receiving end of a Hun archery volley, that's promising for his showdown at the Catalaunian Plains.
Man fails to deliver on the military history.
Also, some of the filler is of questionable rapport to the biographical sketch of Attila. 18th century theories on the Turkish-Mongolian origins of the Hun deliver us in Man's favorite country to look at mounds that predate the Hun by a thousand years.
I do like his encounter with Lajos Kassai, who gives a unique insight into the art of mounted archery... yet in the end, it failed to do more for Atilla than a not-quite. He had the charisma of the natural leader. His people were sucked into a vortex of plunder because
A) pastoral nomads can NOT survive without the wood or metal obtained by trading beyond the grasslands
B) Humans are lazy ; they grow to appreciate the portable luxuries of civilisation. Those white-teethed children are as short on vitamin C as on sugar.
C) leadership depends on booty and expansion. Again and again and again. Until you ravage the proverbial cow dry and hit a wall too sturdy for your arrows.
So, the Huns weren't as succesful as the Mongols and Atilla was no Djengiz. But for all the reasoning, Man never drives the comparison home. What was the missing element ?
July 26, 2011
This work was disappointing. I would have liked a lot more information on Attila, the man and person.
Most of the writing was more of a war history during the time and not a true biography on Attila the man.
The first 40% of the book is a three-chapter historical introduction that doesn't even deal with Attila at all. I understand the need for a brief history lesson to put things in perspective and to let the reader know how things and people came into place. But 120 pages of just a 300 page book is ridiculous.
There is also an entire chapter that deals with a person currently living in Hungary who has mastered the art of the mounted archer on horseback that made Attila's warriors so successful. But what does this have to do with Attila?
And the last two chapters is an aftermath following Attila's death.
For a person with such a brutal reputation, there is hardly any of that in this book. And it is almost as though his legend as such a savage barbarian is misunderstood.
Could have been much better than it was.
Most of the writing was more of a war history during the time and not a true biography on Attila the man.
The first 40% of the book is a three-chapter historical introduction that doesn't even deal with Attila at all. I understand the need for a brief history lesson to put things in perspective and to let the reader know how things and people came into place. But 120 pages of just a 300 page book is ridiculous.
There is also an entire chapter that deals with a person currently living in Hungary who has mastered the art of the mounted archer on horseback that made Attila's warriors so successful. But what does this have to do with Attila?
And the last two chapters is an aftermath following Attila's death.
For a person with such a brutal reputation, there is hardly any of that in this book. And it is almost as though his legend as such a savage barbarian is misunderstood.
Could have been much better than it was.
January 17, 2018
For a decade or so, this book has glared down at me from its shelf. I imagined it would be deep and factual, in an intimidating way, mired in received wisdom; something I "really ought to" read. How wrong I was!
The author deconstructs the established truths about Attila, and Hun history, and builds it back up again, in front of our eyes! There are so many empty spaces and non-sequiturs in the standard text, that it takes a real expert, one with imagination and flair, to put this story together. And he does a great job, drawing from personal experience, deep research, and also practical insights (the guy in Hungary who taught himself how to be an archer, how to ride a horse, and then how to be an expert horseback archer... which is fundamental to a revaluation of how effective Hun battle techniques were).
Not just the story of Attila, not just a mapping of the Huns, but also a fresh-eyed account of the collapse of the Roman Empire, and ultimately food for thought for anyone contemplating the present world order.
Hugely entertaining, very insightful. I can't believe it took me so long to open this book.
The author deconstructs the established truths about Attila, and Hun history, and builds it back up again, in front of our eyes! There are so many empty spaces and non-sequiturs in the standard text, that it takes a real expert, one with imagination and flair, to put this story together. And he does a great job, drawing from personal experience, deep research, and also practical insights (the guy in Hungary who taught himself how to be an archer, how to ride a horse, and then how to be an expert horseback archer... which is fundamental to a revaluation of how effective Hun battle techniques were).
Not just the story of Attila, not just a mapping of the Huns, but also a fresh-eyed account of the collapse of the Roman Empire, and ultimately food for thought for anyone contemplating the present world order.
Hugely entertaining, very insightful. I can't believe it took me so long to open this book.
April 14, 2018
Rivayete göre Fransa'da bir kilise psikoposu Attila'ya "Ben Lupus, Tanrı'nın elçisi" demiş. Attila cevap vermiş "Ben de Attila, Tanrı'nın kırbacı". 800 yıl sonra Cengiz Han da benzer şekilde "Ben Tanrı'nın cezasıyım" diyecekti (John Man'ın Cengiz Han isimli bir kitabı da var). Çin kaynaklarında geçen Hiung-nu ile Hun aynı şeydir. Aradaki fark Çinlilerin söyleyişte zorlanmasından kaynaklanmaktadır. John Man, Tanrı'nın Kırbacı Attila'da Hunlar üzerine çeşitli bilgileri karşılaştırarak, özellikle Hunlar aleyhindeki bir takım karalayıcı efsanelerdeki çelişkileri ortaya koymaya çalışmış. Beş verdim. Fakat yine de daha sağlam bilimsel bilgi için İstanbul Üniversitesi Öğretim Görevlisi Ali Ahmetbeyoğlu'nun eserlerine göz atmanızı tavsiye ederim.
August 4, 2022
This book is the definition of three stars. Some occasional tidbits of great interest, such as the prevalence of the Huns before Attila and the wonderful chapter about mounted archery. And some yarns spun seemingly out of nowhere, with the author filling historical gaps with conjecture and not relying on anything else. In that sense, this book is a bit dated - maybe if published today it could draw on a greater historical record about Attila the Hun. Still, there are some things worth mentioning.
For starters, Attila was not the harbinger of the Huns. One would think they just appeared in Europe behind him, their fearless leader. In truth, they had existed in the Balkans and Eurasia for many years before him. They had forced Goths out of their traditional lands (causing in turn the death of a Byzantine emperor at Adrianople), had served as auxiliaries in Roman armies, and had demanded tribute from the Eastern Empire. So they were hardly the newcomers portrayed in so many stories.
As for Attila, the book explains in more detail his motivation for invading the West. He used as a pretense the actions of a promised Roman wife to head West, hoping to attack the Goths and bring the Romans into battle. Interestingly, the author here spends very little time on the otherwise well-heralded Battle of Chalons. At one point, he calls it more a Dunkirk than a Stalingrad, which flouts everything I had ever heard before. Even more interesting, Chalons didn't end Attila's wanderings. He came back two years later, encountering much resistance in Italy and laying waste to much of its northern areas. This was the famous moment when Pope Leo I met him on the plain before Mantua. And then Attila died, likely during one of his wedding feasts, and the Huns frittered away into nothingness.
Perhaps the most interesting chapter in the books is a discussion of his legend. Christians began to tell tales of Attila, naming him the Scourge of God and otherwise painting him as a barbarian with Christendom in his crosshairs. This book persuaded me that those legends are false.
If you want to learn more about him, this is a fine place to start. But don't expect too much!
For starters, Attila was not the harbinger of the Huns. One would think they just appeared in Europe behind him, their fearless leader. In truth, they had existed in the Balkans and Eurasia for many years before him. They had forced Goths out of their traditional lands (causing in turn the death of a Byzantine emperor at Adrianople), had served as auxiliaries in Roman armies, and had demanded tribute from the Eastern Empire. So they were hardly the newcomers portrayed in so many stories.
As for Attila, the book explains in more detail his motivation for invading the West. He used as a pretense the actions of a promised Roman wife to head West, hoping to attack the Goths and bring the Romans into battle. Interestingly, the author here spends very little time on the otherwise well-heralded Battle of Chalons. At one point, he calls it more a Dunkirk than a Stalingrad, which flouts everything I had ever heard before. Even more interesting, Chalons didn't end Attila's wanderings. He came back two years later, encountering much resistance in Italy and laying waste to much of its northern areas. This was the famous moment when Pope Leo I met him on the plain before Mantua. And then Attila died, likely during one of his wedding feasts, and the Huns frittered away into nothingness.
Perhaps the most interesting chapter in the books is a discussion of his legend. Christians began to tell tales of Attila, naming him the Scourge of God and otherwise painting him as a barbarian with Christendom in his crosshairs. This book persuaded me that those legends are false.
If you want to learn more about him, this is a fine place to start. But don't expect too much!
January 4, 2021
A wonderful historical biography of one of the most misconstrued legends of ancient Europe. John Man takes us through the various times, sketching the birth, youth and the demise of the Huns and their most notable and notorious leader, Attila. This story grips you as strongly as a fantastical folklore, which is partly due to the author's prowess and partly to the intriguing subject of this book. Another remarkable biography enjoyed to its very last page.
June 18, 2024
About twice as long as it needed to be.
May 17, 2014
I am sorry but this book have not earned the paper which it has been printed. Since I am Hungarian (you know : HÚNgarian!!!) I think it is a pure and insidious reviling about me and my people.
Beside my feelings this "John MAN" has not the slightest idea of the history of Húns.
firts of all: He was called A-T-I-L-L-A , not A-T-T-I-L-A.
What he and you all in Western Europe know about the Húns and Atilla is 'filtered through Jordanes' works. (He was a Vizygot writer whose people were real murderers, plunderers and rapists)
You know nothing about the Byzantine writer, Rhaetor Priscus/Priskos who was contemporary emissary of the Byzantian Empire and had a long report about the Hunnic Great King. (Unfortunately, this report was lost but its fragment were re-written along the centuries...)
Húns have never been 'barbarians', nor 'nomads' nor uncultured people.
We have invented too much things and technics [ for the sake of provement: shirt with buttons, trousers, wheel, stirrup, soap, fast food soup from grinded meat powder, composite bow/similar to nowadays' AK-47/, special cuneiform writing: ROVÁS - now called Hungarian Runic writing in EU which is the predecessor of all the Runic writings and latin alphabet.
So, our culture is old, very old.
Similarly, Atilla hadn't came from the Nowhere - he had predecessors, too. The Great Hún Empire originated from the Carpathian Basin (Ist centre) and the Turfan Basin ( IInd centre in Asia so-called ' China's ancient mummies', now UYGHURIA or China's Xingchian province).
The Empire has a Heavenly King (tan-hu, kaiser, caesar) who ruled by his aides: the Right Hand Great King and the Left Hand Great King.
The European Húns were the Left Hand, so Atilla's great-grandfather Balambér had defeated the Alans (between 350and 360 A.D.) Eastern Goths(in 374 A.D.) and the Western Goths. Alans and Western Goths became fugitives and escaped to today's Spain /Cataluna/ and France.
The next Heavenly King was Karaton, then Uldin and after him Rua who was Atilla's uncle.
These three had RE-conquered the European Continent, exterminating a degenerated Greek-Roman state (in these times these were Byzantium and the Western Roman 'Empire') - and were WELCOMED by the locals every where.
These were the Time of the Birth of the Nations: at the Hún's example many tribes connected themselves to the Hunnic Empire as a respected, tolerated (not persecuted because of its culture religion or habits) and welcomed ALLIES to the Great Nation of Nimrud. It is fact.
When Atilla (the LeftHand Great King) and his brother Buda (his name is the same as the White Hunnic prophet Buddha =>prononciation is the same: Buda!) became the Right Hand Great King for the Asian Húns.
So, there were NO fratricide in the House of Kings!
After Buda's death (mybe he had fallen in a campaign against Persia) Atilla had risen to the title of Heavenly King (Kaiser,caesar).
There was NO BATTLE at Catalaunum,
because that was at Campus Mariacus. The Húns(at the middle) and their allies Eastern Goths, Gepids (at left wing) and Sarmatians(right wing)
- and faced Roman army: Aetius (Roman left wing), Sangiban Alannic king (at the center) and Theoderich dux with his Western Goths on the Roman right.
The Hunnic center simply grinded Alan troops to dust.
Then, the eastern Goths defeated their Western cousins, killing Theoderich - at that time Theoderich tree sons debated over leadership and the Western Goths/Vizygoths simply left the battlefield!
Aetius, suddenly finding hgimself alone also retreated and Atilla have awaited some kind of emissary from his adversaries to give the Roman's surrender. There were NONE. The Roman army disbanded, left without a trace, so the Húns retreated to their camp and one division (one tuman or tömény : 10.000 warrior on horse with composite bows and warhammers) secured the whole area.
Húns had NEVER lost at Campus Mariacus ('catalaunum'), because next year in 452 they had stormed Aquileia, ruined the city /its inhabitants escaped to the sea and founded Venice/ and accepted the surrender of the Pope of Roma. So, the Húns never stormed Rome, nor destroyed it.
In this way I think mr. John Man is not just a bad scientist of history and intentional betrayer but a LIAR and a traitor to History.
best wishes Atilla
Beside my feelings this "John MAN" has not the slightest idea of the history of Húns.
firts of all: He was called A-T-I-L-L-A , not A-T-T-I-L-A.
What he and you all in Western Europe know about the Húns and Atilla is 'filtered through Jordanes' works. (He was a Vizygot writer whose people were real murderers, plunderers and rapists)
You know nothing about the Byzantine writer, Rhaetor Priscus/Priskos who was contemporary emissary of the Byzantian Empire and had a long report about the Hunnic Great King. (Unfortunately, this report was lost but its fragment were re-written along the centuries...)
Húns have never been 'barbarians', nor 'nomads' nor uncultured people.
We have invented too much things and technics [ for the sake of provement: shirt with buttons, trousers, wheel, stirrup, soap, fast food soup from grinded meat powder, composite bow/similar to nowadays' AK-47/, special cuneiform writing: ROVÁS - now called Hungarian Runic writing in EU which is the predecessor of all the Runic writings and latin alphabet.
So, our culture is old, very old.
Similarly, Atilla hadn't came from the Nowhere - he had predecessors, too. The Great Hún Empire originated from the Carpathian Basin (Ist centre) and the Turfan Basin ( IInd centre in Asia so-called ' China's ancient mummies', now UYGHURIA or China's Xingchian province).
The Empire has a Heavenly King (tan-hu, kaiser, caesar) who ruled by his aides: the Right Hand Great King and the Left Hand Great King.
The European Húns were the Left Hand, so Atilla's great-grandfather Balambér had defeated the Alans (between 350and 360 A.D.) Eastern Goths(in 374 A.D.) and the Western Goths. Alans and Western Goths became fugitives and escaped to today's Spain /Cataluna/ and France.
The next Heavenly King was Karaton, then Uldin and after him Rua who was Atilla's uncle.
These three had RE-conquered the European Continent, exterminating a degenerated Greek-Roman state (in these times these were Byzantium and the Western Roman 'Empire') - and were WELCOMED by the locals every where.
These were the Time of the Birth of the Nations: at the Hún's example many tribes connected themselves to the Hunnic Empire as a respected, tolerated (not persecuted because of its culture religion or habits) and welcomed ALLIES to the Great Nation of Nimrud. It is fact.
When Atilla (the LeftHand Great King) and his brother Buda (his name is the same as the White Hunnic prophet Buddha =>prononciation is the same: Buda!) became the Right Hand Great King for the Asian Húns.
So, there were NO fratricide in the House of Kings!
After Buda's death (mybe he had fallen in a campaign against Persia) Atilla had risen to the title of Heavenly King (Kaiser,caesar).
There was NO BATTLE at Catalaunum,
because that was at Campus Mariacus. The Húns(at the middle) and their allies Eastern Goths, Gepids (at left wing) and Sarmatians(right wing)
- and faced Roman army: Aetius (Roman left wing), Sangiban Alannic king (at the center) and Theoderich dux with his Western Goths on the Roman right.
The Hunnic center simply grinded Alan troops to dust.
Then, the eastern Goths defeated their Western cousins, killing Theoderich - at that time Theoderich tree sons debated over leadership and the Western Goths/Vizygoths simply left the battlefield!
Aetius, suddenly finding hgimself alone also retreated and Atilla have awaited some kind of emissary from his adversaries to give the Roman's surrender. There were NONE. The Roman army disbanded, left without a trace, so the Húns retreated to their camp and one division (one tuman or tömény : 10.000 warrior on horse with composite bows and warhammers) secured the whole area.
Húns had NEVER lost at Campus Mariacus ('catalaunum'), because next year in 452 they had stormed Aquileia, ruined the city /its inhabitants escaped to the sea and founded Venice/ and accepted the surrender of the Pope of Roma. So, the Húns never stormed Rome, nor destroyed it.
In this way I think mr. John Man is not just a bad scientist of history and intentional betrayer but a LIAR and a traitor to History.
best wishes Atilla
September 21, 2019
An absolutely awful book. John Man manages to strains even the loosest definition as he asserts himself into the role. Whereas most historians utilize things such as; evidence, sources, and logic, John Man instead uses conjecture, speculation, and Fiction. I was left unsure if Man is either deceitful or oblivious. He seems to completely misunderstand a host of sources the most egregious to me being the bizarre view he took away from the poem Waltharius. this in conjunction with his penchant for ahistorical misuse of words left me amazed that this book was ever published. On a purely historical level, this book was poor. I just want to mention the oddity that is a chapter that is devoted to his crush on a Hungarian archery teacher.
July 26, 2013
With little information available, Man gives as informative a book as might be expected. Maybe 1/3 of it is about Attila, including what is known of his family, his headquarters, his entertainments and of course his battles.
While the history of Huns and the rise and fall of Attila are the themes of the book, the author presents this period of the Roman Empire in a very readable way. Last year I had read the Peter Heather book on Rome and the barbarians, and for description of Rome in this period, these two books complement each other nicely.
Rome, overly large and waning in ability to defend itself, hires Huns, pays ransom $ to Huns, bribes Huns and fights Huns. There are diplomats, an assassination attempt, competition and integration of other peoples and tribes and turning points. There are marriages, hostages and proposals. There scorched earth seizures and battles.
Man has interesting friends who share his passion for Hun history. They run museums from Mongolia to Hungary, dig up artifacts and study mounted bow hunting. He introduces us to them in diversionary parts of the narrative.
The best part for me, aside from the description of the Hun compound, was the summation at the end. Unlike Ghengis Khan, Attila had no long term vision and built no administrative structure. Nothing much really followed him. Man has some interesting phrases for expressing the ephemeral nature of it all. Attila created a bunch of "speed bumps" in the building of Europe and that his life was "a perfect balance of pluses and minuses, signifying nothing."
A chapter called "Aftermath" citing the numerous poems, paintings and songs that celebrate his image, however misinformed, has the best epitaph of all. Due to these cultural creations from the middle ages to Kipling and Wagner, his name resounds as an "archetype of a certain sort of power." Its really apt... "a certain sort of power."
While the history of Huns and the rise and fall of Attila are the themes of the book, the author presents this period of the Roman Empire in a very readable way. Last year I had read the Peter Heather book on Rome and the barbarians, and for description of Rome in this period, these two books complement each other nicely.
Rome, overly large and waning in ability to defend itself, hires Huns, pays ransom $ to Huns, bribes Huns and fights Huns. There are diplomats, an assassination attempt, competition and integration of other peoples and tribes and turning points. There are marriages, hostages and proposals. There scorched earth seizures and battles.
Man has interesting friends who share his passion for Hun history. They run museums from Mongolia to Hungary, dig up artifacts and study mounted bow hunting. He introduces us to them in diversionary parts of the narrative.
The best part for me, aside from the description of the Hun compound, was the summation at the end. Unlike Ghengis Khan, Attila had no long term vision and built no administrative structure. Nothing much really followed him. Man has some interesting phrases for expressing the ephemeral nature of it all. Attila created a bunch of "speed bumps" in the building of Europe and that his life was "a perfect balance of pluses and minuses, signifying nothing."
A chapter called "Aftermath" citing the numerous poems, paintings and songs that celebrate his image, however misinformed, has the best epitaph of all. Due to these cultural creations from the middle ages to Kipling and Wagner, his name resounds as an "archetype of a certain sort of power." Its really apt... "a certain sort of power."
April 2, 2018
This book gave me fits. I bought it because Attila is a minor character in a couple of my books set in 5C Imperial Rome and I wanted more information on his background--just for my personal education. The author has a degree in history and has written several other "narrative histories" which I take as writing for a general audience (very few footnotes and more conversational style). In that he succeeded.
However he made lots of minor mistakes in his Roman history. Easily checked things such as reversing the birth order of Empress Placidia's children with Constantius (actually daughter Honoria the oldest, son Valentinian second). Man also said that Aetius defeated General Boniface at Rimini with Hunnish troops. Actually General Aetius led regular Roman troops in his rebellion at Rimini and was defeated by Boniface. If he got so many Roman facts wrong, how accurate was he with the Hunnish history? I don't know and that's what troubles me. I would have given this book a single star, but it was written for a general audience and such small things as birth order wouldn't detract from a normal reader's enjoyment of the book, but researchers should look elsewhere.
However he made lots of minor mistakes in his Roman history. Easily checked things such as reversing the birth order of Empress Placidia's children with Constantius (actually daughter Honoria the oldest, son Valentinian second). Man also said that Aetius defeated General Boniface at Rimini with Hunnish troops. Actually General Aetius led regular Roman troops in his rebellion at Rimini and was defeated by Boniface. If he got so many Roman facts wrong, how accurate was he with the Hunnish history? I don't know and that's what troubles me. I would have given this book a single star, but it was written for a general audience and such small things as birth order wouldn't detract from a normal reader's enjoyment of the book, but researchers should look elsewhere.
December 2, 2015
I really enjoyed this one, the time period & historical events are fascinating and Man's writing is enjoyable, suspenseful while closely sticks to the facts. In the rare case where he does stray into speculation, he always clearly states so.
The chapters dealing strictly with Attila fill about a third of the book, while the rest deals with major events in the Balkans, some insights about mounted archery and personal anecdotes about various expeditions the author participated in. I understand why some people find this bothersome, and I do agree that the book does not live up to its title. Maybe a better title would be Attila and the Huns. Personally, I found the whole package entertaining and fascinating and I will definitely read more of Man's work.
It is possible that a hundred pages are all it takes to write everything there is to know about Attila himself. I don't think a historian of Man's stature would miss anything, and such a book would be a much worse read than Attila the Hun.
The chapters dealing strictly with Attila fill about a third of the book, while the rest deals with major events in the Balkans, some insights about mounted archery and personal anecdotes about various expeditions the author participated in. I understand why some people find this bothersome, and I do agree that the book does not live up to its title. Maybe a better title would be Attila and the Huns. Personally, I found the whole package entertaining and fascinating and I will definitely read more of Man's work.
It is possible that a hundred pages are all it takes to write everything there is to know about Attila himself. I don't think a historian of Man's stature would miss anything, and such a book would be a much worse read than Attila the Hun.
March 10, 2018
I feel that in this book Attila is just a unifying topic, and the book itself is about the author's / narrator's quest to learn about Attila, during which he explores different topics (such as literature barely or not at all connected to Huns), travels different places, meets different people etc. I would imagine this book as a voice-over of some National Geographic series, accompanied by visuals and interviews. But as a written narrative about Attila it leaves something to be desired.
There's probably not that much information about the Hunnish war chief - and that little is presented in this book quite lively and eloquently. I loved the story of the failed assassination plot - Attila definitely had a sense of drama! And the sometimes-ironic voice of the narrator gave some distance and informality. The possible connections of Huns and Xiongnu were explored in detail, but it was ok, because I learned a lot and it had a direct connection to the topic.
Not every sidetracking felt as relevant, however. The chapter "The Return of the Mounted Archer" only talks about actual Huns for a couple of pages and the rest of the chapter is dedicated to a present-day Hungarian guy who decided to revive mounted archery. I get how he would be useful in understanding Hunnish battle technique, but do we really need to read about the Hungarian guy's childhood, his piercing blue eyes, and hear his 'life wisdom'?
It's by no means a bad book - I'd like to see it as a documentary featuring the author - but the Attila himself somehow fades into background here.
There's probably not that much information about the Hunnish war chief - and that little is presented in this book quite lively and eloquently. I loved the story of the failed assassination plot - Attila definitely had a sense of drama! And the sometimes-ironic voice of the narrator gave some distance and informality. The possible connections of Huns and Xiongnu were explored in detail, but it was ok, because I learned a lot and it had a direct connection to the topic.
Not every sidetracking felt as relevant, however. The chapter "The Return of the Mounted Archer" only talks about actual Huns for a couple of pages and the rest of the chapter is dedicated to a present-day Hungarian guy who decided to revive mounted archery. I get how he would be useful in understanding Hunnish battle technique, but do we really need to read about the Hungarian guy's childhood, his piercing blue eyes, and hear his 'life wisdom'?
It's by no means a bad book - I'd like to see it as a documentary featuring the author - but the Attila himself somehow fades into background here.
November 21, 2022
As a Hungarian American, I have been caught between thinking of Attila as the wise and ambitious ruler vs. the ruthless pillager, known for his brutality. The truth is somewhere in the middle and I appreciate that Man took the effort to show a more balanced view. Writing about a historical figure of whom very little written records are available meant that Man had to find other ways to establish what life must have been like during Attila's rule. He did this by traveling to Mongolia and researching similar nomadic tribes and their ways of life. To bring to life their famous horseback riding archery techniques and thus describe how effective and fast they were in battle, the author visited a man who dedicated his life to become proficient in the Hun fighting style. Man neatly brings together all the historic and newfound knowledge into an entertaining read of an interesting character and his era.
May 24, 2022
An entertaining and at least somewhat enlightening read, despite sources being few, vague and biased. John Man did what he could with the material, and if taken for what it is, it is worth a few sittings. Obviously there are fair criticisms to be raised when it comes to a work such as this, as have been made clear by numerous others. Some parts fell a bit flat, in my opinion, especially the chapter "In the Court of King Atilla" (retelling bits of Priscus' Byzantine History). However, coming in with nothing but a childhood fascination for Hun legend, I certainly learned a few things. All in all: enjoyable.
February 4, 2022
Well written and researched (I think)
I love when he includes excerpts from dramatised recordings from other places😂
I love when he includes excerpts from dramatised recordings from other places😂
July 31, 2019
this book was quite an engaging in the sense that it shows the fact that attila was not just a barbarian like history makes him look like. Instead like a man that a person can look up to and see as a hero instead of a evil heartless man for his crafty and clever nature . John Man portrays Attila as a very admirable and tricky man that was very smart and was a hero not a villain. this was a very interesting book that put a person who is usually known as a villain as a hero that he was not usually portrayed as which was really cool.
June 23, 2022
A good narrative history about a leader who has been both demonised and lionised but who probably was like so many barbarian leaders of the time, a very successful robber baron, albeit with an Empire that spanned Europe from the Rhine to the Caspian Sea.
September 3, 2023
Well written history of Attila - written like a story more than a textbook. Well researched and footnoted. Definitely recommend if you're interested in learning more about the scourge of God.
It is a bit longer than necessary with a chapter spent on modern day mounted archers in Hungary.
It is a bit longer than necessary with a chapter spent on modern day mounted archers in Hungary.
October 27, 2023
Vabbè, io che leggo una monografia su Attila e mi piace pure. Il tutto perché mia figlia è al primo anno delle medie.
Jon Man non è il solito storico da tavolino, carta e penna: è uno che la storia se la va a cercare sul posto e fa la differenza tra l'ennesimo saggio e un libro avvincente
Jon Man non è il solito storico da tavolino, carta e penna: è uno che la storia se la va a cercare sul posto e fa la differenza tra l'ennesimo saggio e un libro avvincente
September 22, 2016
I read this for a second time as part of an effort to thin my bookshelves, intending to pass it on to local asylum-seekers via a charity, but I can't do it. I just have to keep this and read it again. I've also hooked up with one of the practitioners of Hunnish archery on Facebook in the hope of one day seeing her perform. (I'm a bit long in the tooth to actually attend classes.) Yes, she's a she, Pettra Engeländer - a clear echo of the Hunnish women warriors who may have been part of an Asiatic cultural feature that led the Greeks to stories of the Amazons. Archery from a moving horse would be devastating with or without a masculine body a few percent stronger and bigger, so a clear gendered model of the warrior might simply never have been required. That restores a little of my faith in human nature, even if the Hunnish habit of impaling people dilutes the effect.
Mann has written a series of books about the Turco-Mongol horse tribes, and they are uniformly excellent. He writes well, has a passion for his subjects and he knows the Central Asian regions and their languages. He has also followed and introduced an ascetic Hungarian master who has single-handedly reinvented the art of shooting from a moving horse, the key to the sometime explosive expansion of these tribes. The pulsing heart of Imperial China has sent waves of them rampaging Westwards on and off for millennia, and their very effectiveness requires an explanation. The Turks mainly turned up in Asia Minor as refugees from the Mongols, true, but why were the Mongols so devastating, and why were the Turks in so many other circumstances?
Attila is a difficult subject, however. He is revered in Hungary, apparently, as the founder of their nation, but anyone who knows anything about the Magyar knows that they arrived centuries later. Attila inherited power after beating off a brother, established an empire in the collapsing Roman world with staggering suddenness, and as soon as he died his nation virtually vanished. Later cultures have portrayed him as a mediaeval chivalric King, associated him with ze Germans, made him into a supernatural figure of evil and whatever else suited their own agenda. Who the Hun really were and even what language they spoke are apparently not at all clear to professional historians, as opposed to agenda-serving nationalists. The best bet Mann offers is that the were a Turkic-speaking tribe inhabiting Mongolia prior to Cengiz Khan's people and known as the Xiong-Nu, or in Mongolian the Chun-nu. Sounds as plausible as anything.
Attila was no Muhammad or Cengiz. His own force of personality made his people into a machine of Blitzkrieg, but he could not build a nation state that actually grew after his passing. Mann, on the other hand, is great, and this book had me rivetted for a second time. I'm keeping it, kapish?
Mann has written a series of books about the Turco-Mongol horse tribes, and they are uniformly excellent. He writes well, has a passion for his subjects and he knows the Central Asian regions and their languages. He has also followed and introduced an ascetic Hungarian master who has single-handedly reinvented the art of shooting from a moving horse, the key to the sometime explosive expansion of these tribes. The pulsing heart of Imperial China has sent waves of them rampaging Westwards on and off for millennia, and their very effectiveness requires an explanation. The Turks mainly turned up in Asia Minor as refugees from the Mongols, true, but why were the Mongols so devastating, and why were the Turks in so many other circumstances?
Attila is a difficult subject, however. He is revered in Hungary, apparently, as the founder of their nation, but anyone who knows anything about the Magyar knows that they arrived centuries later. Attila inherited power after beating off a brother, established an empire in the collapsing Roman world with staggering suddenness, and as soon as he died his nation virtually vanished. Later cultures have portrayed him as a mediaeval chivalric King, associated him with ze Germans, made him into a supernatural figure of evil and whatever else suited their own agenda. Who the Hun really were and even what language they spoke are apparently not at all clear to professional historians, as opposed to agenda-serving nationalists. The best bet Mann offers is that the were a Turkic-speaking tribe inhabiting Mongolia prior to Cengiz Khan's people and known as the Xiong-Nu, or in Mongolian the Chun-nu. Sounds as plausible as anything.
Attila was no Muhammad or Cengiz. His own force of personality made his people into a machine of Blitzkrieg, but he could not build a nation state that actually grew after his passing. Mann, on the other hand, is great, and this book had me rivetted for a second time. I'm keeping it, kapish?
August 15, 2016
After reading this book, I want to read more works by John Man. His conversational style and depth of research are top-notch. And he's chosen as the subject of this book a fascinating character from history that I wanted to know more about. Unfortunately, as Man admits, there isn't much of a historical record to work from on this subject; most of what was written down was by his enemies, and much of it was flat-out wrong.
Man does the best one can to craft a book regardless, and you'll learn a lot, about people of the Mongolian steppes that predate the Mongols by hundreds of years to the art and craft of bowmaking and firing arrows while riding a horse. I'll confess to skimming some of those sections, however, despite the masterful writing, because it wasn't really what I signed up for when taking up the book.
Read this book, but go in knowing that Man will take you on a broad journey, at times seeking to distract you with compelling encounters and historical tidbits to disguise the fact that the heart of his work remains impossible to truly cover as a biographer.
Man does the best one can to craft a book regardless, and you'll learn a lot, about people of the Mongolian steppes that predate the Mongols by hundreds of years to the art and craft of bowmaking and firing arrows while riding a horse. I'll confess to skimming some of those sections, however, despite the masterful writing, because it wasn't really what I signed up for when taking up the book.
Read this book, but go in knowing that Man will take you on a broad journey, at times seeking to distract you with compelling encounters and historical tidbits to disguise the fact that the heart of his work remains impossible to truly cover as a biographer.
December 5, 2018
It was interesting, despite not having a lot of specific information on Attila himself. As mentioned in other reviews, that's mainly because there isn't a lot of information. It's not like he was the most approachable guy on the frontier. Still, there a few things I don't quite understand. The Huns pushed a whole lot of peoples westward--who pushed the Huns? They, or it, must have been formidable indeed. Man theorizes a combination of leadership and the inability to find new pasturage, hence the conversion to brigandage on a large scale. From Man's description of Hun prowess at archery, they seemed unbeatable, yet they got beat at the Catalaunian Plain. It was supposed to be fairly flat ground, so there wasn't anything to interfere with their bowman's aim (I suspect that, with losses over the years, they weren't as good as when they started out, like the Wehrmacht, and their allies weren't up to the job against Aetius and the Visigoths). There's some interesting reading here, but it's not the definitive biography, and there may not ever be.
July 11, 2015
Maybe the book's title is deceiving since not much is really known about Attila the Hun (not even his birth name). Huns aren't known as chroniclers of their own stories (much is learned from a Roman soldier and historian called Ammianus and a Goth named Jordanes). "Attila" by John Man is about everything else around the subject its title suggests. I found it to be quite interesting, kind of chatty and at times personally funny (at the moment I'm remembering that the author liked a Disney movie with the character, Mulun.) Thus I read of Huns, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, and Romans; Valens and Gratian. This book isn't my only informed source, by any means; but it is a quirky one that I will remember.
May 19, 2018
Attila the Hun is well known as a brutish barbarian but the details of his acheivements were little known until the telling of this story.
John Man has researched this subject extensively, which was a difficult task seeing as few people kept reliable records of this saga. The author disected historical records against probable biases to speculate what would likely have occurred.
The book is easy to read and doesn’t take alot of concentration.
I would recommend this book to anyone who likes history.
John Man has researched this subject extensively, which was a difficult task seeing as few people kept reliable records of this saga. The author disected historical records against probable biases to speculate what would likely have occurred.
The book is easy to read and doesn’t take alot of concentration.
I would recommend this book to anyone who likes history.
June 1, 2021
This is an entertaining popular narrative, as much history as biography, which seeks to place Attila and the Huns in the context of the declining Roman empire of the west and the emerging Gernanic kingdoms of the barbarian tribes in fifth century Europe. The approach is very much personal, with John Man, as in his other books, detailing his own travels and meetings with experts, including a fascinating chapter on an Hungarian who has revived the arts of Hunnish horsemanship, so as to bring to life a past, which due to the limited literary resources, is mostly hidden.
Man's prime objective is to record that which is known and can be inferred about Attila, while also exploring conjectures, such as with relation to the ethnic and geographical origins of the Huns, through going beyond the surviving sources, which being Roman and Christiian, whether Latin or Greek, are partial and prejudiced, and, of necessity in a pre-literate culture, written by outsiders.
What this book achieves, besides the debunking of myths, the subject of the final chapter, is to show how the Hunnish invasions of the European landmass, and the consequent barbarian migrations to which they gave birth, driven as they were by the need of a steppe people to obtain wealth and plunder, can be understood generally as part of the historical development of late antiquity, as the classical world gave way to the Gernanic medieval, and particularly as a catalyst, more than cause, of the emergence of the early medieval Gernanic kingdoms.
As to Attila himself, he must remain largely unknown, leaving as he did no memorial or literary remains, but, as Man describes, there are at least enough non-Hunnish documents to at least sketch a portrait of him as political and military leader, where, tactically more than strategically, he was remarkably successful. However, his empire did not long outlast him, as ultimately unsuccessful in, first, conquering the eastern Roman empire, and then, in defeating the western empire with its Gernanic federates, he and the Huns were unable to create both the settlements and the unified polity required to create a durable society. It is therefore of interest to compare how the vast Hunnish empire, which extended across most of eastern and northern Europe, but was based upon fast-moving cavalry and exploitation of defeated tribes and not upon land occupation, withered within a generation of its founder's death, which Man concludes was of natural causes after the alcoholic excesses of a wedding night, while the Germanic peoples of the east, pressed westward by the Huns, were able to force themselves into the Roman empire, become settled, and, influenced by the culture they found, and, unlike the Huns, admired and wished to emulate, develop through Christian conversion and the development of kingship into the nations that emerged in later medieval Europe. The military might of the Huns, devastating and fearful for a time, was to have far less impact upon European development than the cultural and social practices, and, indeed, acculteration to the classical, of the gothic tribes that had fled from their path and later allied themselves with the Romans, ultimately to their advantage at the cost of the latter, against the Hunnish threat.
And so, for all their terrifying reputation, Attila and the Huns proved to be a temporary historical phenomenon, whose active influence upon European civilisation was minimal, except in so far as they affected the barbarian migrations, meaning western Europe emerged out of a confluence of Germanic tribalism and Latin antiquity, rather than as a Hunnish dominion. Hun today and gone tomorrow, as it were.
Man's prime objective is to record that which is known and can be inferred about Attila, while also exploring conjectures, such as with relation to the ethnic and geographical origins of the Huns, through going beyond the surviving sources, which being Roman and Christiian, whether Latin or Greek, are partial and prejudiced, and, of necessity in a pre-literate culture, written by outsiders.
What this book achieves, besides the debunking of myths, the subject of the final chapter, is to show how the Hunnish invasions of the European landmass, and the consequent barbarian migrations to which they gave birth, driven as they were by the need of a steppe people to obtain wealth and plunder, can be understood generally as part of the historical development of late antiquity, as the classical world gave way to the Gernanic medieval, and particularly as a catalyst, more than cause, of the emergence of the early medieval Gernanic kingdoms.
As to Attila himself, he must remain largely unknown, leaving as he did no memorial or literary remains, but, as Man describes, there are at least enough non-Hunnish documents to at least sketch a portrait of him as political and military leader, where, tactically more than strategically, he was remarkably successful. However, his empire did not long outlast him, as ultimately unsuccessful in, first, conquering the eastern Roman empire, and then, in defeating the western empire with its Gernanic federates, he and the Huns were unable to create both the settlements and the unified polity required to create a durable society. It is therefore of interest to compare how the vast Hunnish empire, which extended across most of eastern and northern Europe, but was based upon fast-moving cavalry and exploitation of defeated tribes and not upon land occupation, withered within a generation of its founder's death, which Man concludes was of natural causes after the alcoholic excesses of a wedding night, while the Germanic peoples of the east, pressed westward by the Huns, were able to force themselves into the Roman empire, become settled, and, influenced by the culture they found, and, unlike the Huns, admired and wished to emulate, develop through Christian conversion and the development of kingship into the nations that emerged in later medieval Europe. The military might of the Huns, devastating and fearful for a time, was to have far less impact upon European development than the cultural and social practices, and, indeed, acculteration to the classical, of the gothic tribes that had fled from their path and later allied themselves with the Romans, ultimately to their advantage at the cost of the latter, against the Hunnish threat.
And so, for all their terrifying reputation, Attila and the Huns proved to be a temporary historical phenomenon, whose active influence upon European civilisation was minimal, except in so far as they affected the barbarian migrations, meaning western Europe emerged out of a confluence of Germanic tribalism and Latin antiquity, rather than as a Hunnish dominion. Hun today and gone tomorrow, as it were.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 127 reviews