Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jan 27, 2009 20:35:04 GMT 3
Perhaps, but I think in them may there is some political bias like in Jordanes.
But if they had right, where was that victorious Roman army when Attila was at the gates of Rome?
But if they had right, where was that victorious Roman army when Attila was at the gates of Rome?
The key point here is that, it wasn't a truely Roman army at all - most of the forces of Western Roman armies that fought against the Huns at that time were comprised of several Germanic peoples, the Western Goths (Visigoths) being the most prominent ones. After the Pyrrhic victory at 452, the relationships between Western Goths and Romans grew worse, so when Attila invaded Italy the next year, the Goths did not send their troops to help the Romans, who did not have enough forces (actually, any forces at all) to stop the Huns. Funny thing is that it was only the city of Aquilia that gave the longest resistance to the Huns, but even the garrison there was non-Roman (it was comprised of Goths that had stayed loyal to Rome) ;D ;D ;D
And if the Western chronicles were so reliable, did they only go wrong when they constantly identificate the Hungarians as the descendants of Huns?
I don't think 5th-6th century Roman chronicles mentioned any Magyars at all The connection between Huns and Magyars was made up a much longer time, several centuries later. In that sense, medieval European chronicles are as inaccurate as medieval Hungarian ones Hope you get the point (my point was that, sources from 5th-6th centuries would be way more accurate regarding the events of that time, when compared with sources written several centuries later).