Talk:Battle of Nedao

Ostrogoths

I have Wolfram's book. He clearly says that Ostrogoths were on the defeated side i.e. the same side with the Huns. What is the point of this badly formatted dispute? Is there any scholarly source supporting the claim that Ostrgoths fought against Huns in the battle of Nedao?--Dipa1965 (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

There some scholars who support that they fought against them or did not fought along the Huns. I read "Jordanes claims that, in the battle of Nedao, Ostrogoths fought against the Huns but this is rejected by the modern historians as a forged story", cited are Wolfram (pg. 259) and Jin Hyun Kim (pg. 113). As recently used the work The World of the Huns (1973) by Otto Maenchen-Helfen, who on pg. 144 wrote "A coalition of Germanic tribes", but did not include the Ostrogoths. He wrote separately "The Goths did not fight on the Nedao.[702] Some Goths may have joined the rebels; others probably remained loyal to the Huns. Goths trekked with Huns as late as 468. The great mass of the people remained neutral. On this point there is general agreement". Under [702] are noted Andreas Alföldi (1926), L. Schmidt (1927), Wilhelm Enßlin (1947), Edward Arthur Thompson (1948), Franz Altheim (1962) "Altheim's arguments for the participation of the Goths in the battle on the Nedao are unconvincing".

I currently can not look at Kim's work, but Wolfram did not reject or say something along this lines on pg. 259. He is "mainly" positive, but this line "At least until the battle of Nedao Valamir and his people had remained loyal to the Huns[87]", and under [87] on pg. 488 mentions "...there is a widespread notion that the Ostrogoths did not participate in the battle of Nadeo at all. See Maenchen-Helfen. In contrast, Altheim expresses the opinion that the Ostrogoths certainly did fight with the Gepids and the other peoples against the Huns. Martindale supports Altheim's argument. But Rosenfeld, got it right when he has the Ostrogoths march alongside the Huns until the battle of Nedao, which the heroic saga supports. This interpretation is also supported by Theophanes, a. 5977 but esp. by the pleas for admission into the Roman Empire by all defeated tribes, whereas the victors remained outside. Jordanes says explicitly that the Goths could not mantain themselves in their old settlements and fled into the Roman Empire".

That's why added (disputed) along the Ostrogoths in the infobox. The article can be extensively edited too.--Crovata (talk) 03:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with "disputed" being placed in the template as long as there are source(s) to support it. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all for responding. To my understanding, the phrase At least until the battle of Nedao Valamir and his people had remained loyal to the Huns[87] means that they changed mind after the result of the battle. But in any case it seems that the opinion on Ostrogothic participation is not unanimous, so the text in the main body must be edited accordingly and sources must be added. I will try it soon, I hope.--Dipa1965 (talk) 08:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I have found several good sources on the battle, and can edit the article this days. If you will, mostly search the work of Maenchen-Helfen, Wolfram, for confirmation of Peter Heather even Kim, and in The Fragmentary History of Priscus, pg. 114–116, is the whole Jordanes recount of event to be (partially) cited which would be nice. Note that in the Jordanes recount there's no mention of Ostrogoths, Valamir or Theodemir, especially not on which side they fought, but only Goth-spikes. The Ostrogoths dispute is scholars dispute, and has to be treated as such. --Crovata (talk) 08:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I also have Heather's and Jones' works so today I hope I 'll be able to work on removing unsourced info and clearing up things. But I think your sources are better than mine so, after I finish, please feel free to add/edit content as you wish. My only reservation is that the primary sources (mainly Jordanes) must not be given undue weight, especially if you consider how great a forger Jordanes was and the fact that he wrote second-hand info many decades after the events.--Dipa1965 (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Alright. Also would note another two separate cites by Jordanes, found in Ellac, Dengizich and Ernak articles. To me it seems Goths didn't participate on the side of the Huns as received Pannonia, like some other revolted Germanic tribes lands in Roman Empire. Especially the claim "regarding the Goths as deserters from their rule, came against them as though they were seeking fugitive slaves and attacked Valamir alone". Were the Goths deserters and fugitive slaves like other Germanic tribes? That's just my opinion, it's all up to scholars.--Crovata (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Huns didn't disappear from Europe after Nedao

The article states that: "...defeated in 469. After that point, Huns cease to exist in European history." - which is false. The most of them retreated to the Pontic steppes which is still Europe (today Southern Ukraine), so if we only take them as Huns, they didn't disappear from Europe. And we shouldn't forget their remnants who stayed where they were in Pannonia and Transylvania, Bessarabia, and the Balkan. Secondly, they never disappeared, but after their retreat to eastern Europe, they started to be called bulgars, onogurs, akatzirs, khazars, kutrigurs, utrigurs, magyars, alans, then tartars, timurids, seljuks, etc. The first fragments of them came back to western Europe with the Avars only 100 years after Attila, and then their migration towards west was continous until and even after the Hungarian Conquest. It is ridiculous to state that they 'ceased to exist in Europeam history'. They disappeared only for 100 years and only from western Europe, but when they came back under the names of Avars and Magyars, they defeated the whole European company and definitely had some serious impact on European, even on western European history. 178.48.177.1 (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Your statement is only partially correct, however, you've proven the article's statement - the Huns did disappear from history in Europe - the coalition led by whatever the original "tribe" was had completely fallen apart. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Magyars were Hunnic, by the way.50.111.57.100 (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)