Attila: King of the Huns: The Man and the Myth

for everyone who wanted more on Attila after west. civ. 101,this is the one.answers almost all of the questions you wanted to ask but shyed off because the business majors were giving you "funny looks".(you could be a closet Hun bent on world conquest or an idler searching after esoteric trivia)!!!!The story i always believed was that these rabid horsebound sadists stormed mysteriously from the East,tore everything up for awhile in the 400's and then through the grace of god disappeared.(WHEW!!)this book shows how the Huns were politically astute,absorbing other tribes and nations over a period of hundreds of years and if at times seemed less than enlightened were no more inhumane than the Goths or the Romans.The book has alot of fresh interpretations like Mr. Howarth's statement that the eastern Roman Empire was less vulnerable than the west to invasions due to better leadership.There is alot of movement in this book with tribes moving everywhere,the names of which,some i have never heard of before.The last few chapters are a summary and a "where are they now"(the Huns that is)

Patrick Howarth had a rich and varied career, that included study in languages at Oxford, work during the second world war in special operations and intelligence, and a wide ranging writing career, all of which have come together to help craft this interesting overview and introduction to the Huns and their most illustrious leader, Attila.This book is less a biography of Attila the Hun, the Scourge of God, as it is an overview of the cultural, military, political and personality aspects of the late Roman Empire and the expansive but short-lived Hunnish Empire. It also addresses how the mythology of Attila and the Huns is far more pervasive throughout history than the truth has been, or continues to be. Howarth's thesis begins that the Huns are a much-maligned people, and that most of our historical information comes with a distinct political taint, handed down by the victors (those who win get to write the history), the Romans, the Byzantines, and that longest-of-lasting institutions, the Christian church. Little known and less taught is the fact that the Roman Empire did in fact have major, if disorganised, rivals for their power. The Celtic Empire prior to the Common Era was one such; the Hunnish Empire from the middle fourth century to the late fifth century held more territory than Rome and Constantinople. This makes it more credible that Attila, who in fact only ruled as king of the Huns for a little under a decade, such a threat to both the Eastern and Western Empires. Howarth's text looks at the pieces that make up the history of the period. He looks at the internal politics and dynamics of the courts and general population of Rome and Constantinople, how they played off each other in addition to the Huns. He looks at the military situation was some insight, showing the difficulties of troop movement and support, the problems of intelligence gathering and planning, and the difficult time the Romans East and West had defending their territories, which also made it difficult in the end for the Huns to hold the gains, too.One of the more interesting chapters involves one of the great legends that has been spun around the interaction of Attila and Pope Leo. Howarth describes the effects of art and legendary stories on the way history is popularly perceived, and even academically transmitted - examples of Raphael and Gibbons commenting on the legends of the Pope's eloquence (and the appearance of Sts. Peter and Paul to threaten Attila) compared with other, more rationally likely explanations for Attila's reluctance to attack Rome. The controversy over Attila's death is also explored, drawing on sources contemporary and later, that Attila died on the night of his wedding to Ildico. Whether he was murdered or died of natural causes will likely never be known; where his grave is located also remains a mystery. Howarth discusses several possibilities, again drawing from ancient sources.Howarth combines a lot of ancient primary sources w

A short biograhy of the Great Hun's life and death tells us much less about him than we would like to know. Doubtless this arises from limitations on the archaelogical evidence. The myth, sustained by serveral miniseries and Hollywood productions, is much more satisfying, particularly the story that he was poisoned by his wife. The Battle of Chalons concludes virtually half way through; thereafter the author discusses the interpretation of the Atlia myth by Christian and other writers. Apparently Atlia is still considered a folk hero in Hungary. Altogether a competent treatment but I preferred J.B. Bury's discussion of the Battle of Chalons in "The Barbarian Invasions of Europe."

This was a great book. It starts with the birth of the huns and ends at the point where attila bursts an artery. It goes into a lot of detail about roman diplomacy, and the book is pretty boring until you get the chapter about constantople.

I am enjoying this book a lot; however it is very frustrating because the book does not provide ready reference to the maps of the many ancient countries and cities, especially Roman and Hungarian. Instead, there are several pages of black & white 'artists conceptions' (19th & 20th century) of Atilla. What I could have used was a few maps (by century) with the location of the myriad locations referred to therein.