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
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."
What do You think about Attila The Hun (2006)?
this book was confusing. in the beginning I wanted to give four stars, then two, and now settle for three. first of all, the title of the book is wrong. this is not about attila, this book is about the huns and their success under attila. I understand that not much is left of attila and whatever documents we have are not written by huns since they did not document their history. thus man had to grab at thin threads, suspicions and unverified info. he tried very hard and went to most places himself. still this book seems to me scattered. there is a collection of so very different informations, it just does not fit together, not under the name of attila. attila is mentioned in about a third of the book, maybe even less. still, man trie to explain the relations and did a good job in illustrating the different sides. still he too often wonders of and tells us at length about other things. there were times when I was bored, times when I was thrilled, interested but also indifferent. a good book, but with a wrong title and not good enough to capture me.
—Katrin
while not as good as the same authors genghis khan study, this book uses the available source material to show attila's journey through life. it's a very interesting read that gives you some facts about other subjects along the way too. you learn not only about the huns but also about the vandals, the two tribes of goths and the eastern and western roman empires... which attila took center stage to. one of the most interesting chapters is about the mounted hun archer and the devastating bow weapon used by them. if you want to know about attila and the huns then read this book. not for casual reading!
—Sanity Assasin
A very interesting book about a people, the Huns, and the period they lived in with quirky tangents including one man's obsession to resurrect the lost art of horseback archery (which frankly should replace the current horseback and archery disciplines at the Olympics). The one gripe I have, although through no fault of the authors, is that I felt like you get to know many characters around Attila but very little about the main man himself. That's largely because of a lack of sources but even so, unlike Man's books on Ghengis and Kublai Khan, I didn't feel this one actually taught me much about Attila himself. This may be as close as one can get to such mysterious historical figure, but I still felt a little disappointed. Still, that should not detract from what is an excellent and interesting book.
—Barnaby Chesterman
