Fucking HUNS!!!

2000 years later and I am still salty.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Catalaunian_Plains
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>Huns

>2000 years ago.

Might I presume you graduated from an American institute of higher education?

Not OP but, the Western Empire was controlled mostly by Germanic peoples.

...

Don't you think you are exaggerating a little bit?

I am not super into history but I pretty sure the hunic empire wasn't that big.

But the Romans defeated the Huns

The Romans kicked the Huns the fuck out of their empire

Protip: The Huns got BTFO within literally 30 years of becoming a major power.

This is more accurate.

you're retarded
hungarian propaganda, probably. Nationalism is so ridiculous.

>huns made it to scandinavia

Dont make me laugh mongrel

1)Wasn't 2000 years
2)Huns were, at best, a small annoying raiding group that got BFTO 3)The mains threats and cause of decline was corruption and civil war

I don't want to seem like a /pol/tard conspiracy theorist but there's something funky going on with the Huns on Wikipedia

All the articles about Battles between the Huns and the Romans are being changed from "Roman victory" into "Hunnic victory" with no citations or even worse, citations which prove the Romans won, despite the article saying the opposite.

Like just look at the article for the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Catalaunian_Plains

There's an entire section of the article dedicated to it "as a Roman defeat" for fuck's sake. The entire section is just two quotes from fringe theorists that believe the Battle didn't happen at all.

Wikipedia is a fucking joke.

THE
ETERNAL
HUN

But seriously, a "Hunnic Empire" never really existed, and by the time that western Rome fell, the Huns didn't exist anymore either

user, in fairness, they aren't saying 'IT WAS A HUN VICTORY'.

They're saying 'Here's the traditionalist view, here's the revisionist view'.

Wikipedia is only as good as the individual faggots working on the article.

It sounds like you got a bad one.

user is spurging out.

Wikipedia isn't a 'this is all the mainstream traditional views'.

It's a 'here are the old views and the debate on it. And here's some newer histriography too,'

we literally teach we have nothing to do with huns you butthurt slavshit
drown in shit

/pyrrhic/ as fuck stop LARPing

Yeah but a Wikipedia article shouldn't be a battleground for historiographical schools of thought. It should reflect the majority opinion throughout and have a separate section detailing newer revisionist theories.

As it stands the article is unreadable, even from a literary standpoint. If one of my students handed this to me as an attempt to summarise the battle I would fail them.

Yeah it's literally just one guy. Looking at the talk page it's one dude who seems to have an ideological attachment to the Huns arguing that the Romans actually lost, and everyone else is calling him on it but they're too lazy to change it.

It needs to be rewritten, true.

But Wiki should display the different schools of thought on a topic.

It should, I totally agree with that, but not all schools of thought are equal. The article spends like four paragraphs talking about how the battle might not actually have happened.

That's not even a school of thought, it's a fringe theory devised by a Korean student who specialises in Greek ethnography. That's barely worthy of a one line passing mention. It shouldn't take up a significant portion of the article.

Hungarians are from different nomads

Pretty sure peak pre-divided Roman Empire would would've beaten them with some effort. IIRC going up against the Persians also ended badly for the Huns both times in the Caucasus which is why they were deflected toward the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire and later the WRE half.