INTRODUCTION The fourth-seventh centuries went down in the history of Eurasia and Europe as the era of the Great Migration. These four centuries experienced a peak of migration that swept almost the entire continent and changed its political, ethnic and cultural character radically. This was the period of death of ancient foundations and orders and the time of formation of new social relations and a new civilization – that of the middle Ages. Today, it is of particular importance to single out the Great Migration as a transitional historical period. It allows not only study of the specific history of the Great Migration, but also opens some opportunities to study the history of traditional views of the Great Migrations. At the turn of classical antiquity and the middle Ages, not only did tribes and nations started to migrate, but also, so to speak, knowledge and understanding of the various tribes and peoples ‘came to life’ and intensified. The Great Migration, which was initiated by the Huns’ tribal union, starting from the depths of Central Asia to the west of the European continent, became a turning point in world history. Since that time, the social relations, cultures and traditions of the tribes and peoples who inhabited the Eurasian space have become synthesized and integrated. This was an epochal event, common to all the countries of Europe and Asia. Therefore, we have compelling reasons to date the beginning of medieval history on a global basis, including the history of Kazakhstan, from the second half of the fourth century (375 AD) - the turning point of the Great Migration in Eurasia. This is related primarily to the history of the Huns, which is an integral part of Turkish history, and therefore the history of Kazakhstan. In Soviet historiography, the history of the Huns and their relationship with the Great Migration in the West was hardly studied. In Soviet times, as is known, historical studies were too idealized and politicized. This made an impact on both the development of world history problems and those of the history of Kazakhstan. Central scientific institutes, i.e. those located in Moscow and Leningrad monopolized the study of world history. Modern Russian science also mentions the Huns in Europe very briefly. The history of the Xiongnu (Hunnu) in the East was studied by L.N. Gumilev. Gumilev wrote: Victory and join him Alans, the Huns formed a huge tribal alliance ... In the seventh decade of the Fourth Century ... they crossed the Don and the victory over the Ostrogoths opened a new period of history known as the ‘Great Migration’ ... Here we have the right to interrupt the narrative, as the newly opened page belongs to the history of Europe. The years of independence that came after 1991 provided a good opportunity to deal objectively with the problems of general and national history in Kazakhstan. Scientists and experts could travel more frequently to foreign countries for research purposes. Professor K.T. Zhumagulov the author of this article, being a winner of international grants and invited to deliver lectures at universities in Germany and Italy, also worked in the largest libraries and museums in Europe. In the rich library resources of the University of Tübingen, Professor K. Zhumagulov found the rarest source materials on the history of the Huns, the majority of which is dated from the fourth-fifth centuries, i.e. they relate to the heyday of the Hun Empire in the West. The rarest written sources for the period of late antiquity and the early Middle Ages have come to us in the original Latin, Greek, Early Germanic and Scandinavian languages. There is also evidence regarding the Turkic world and the Huns. In particular, these are the chronicles of Ammianus Marcellinus, Sidonius Apollinaris, Claudius Claudianus, Hidatii, Marcellinus Comes, Orosius, Jordanis, Priscus of Panitus, Prosper Tiro, Joahn Antioch, etc. The documents and materials in scientific collections and museums of the Vatican, as well as the materials in the interiors of St. Peter’s Basilica - the world’s largest Catholic Church - are of particular value. There is papal correspondence, and also chronicles, eyewitness accounts of those years, exhibits that could shed much light on the nature of international relations during this tumultuous period in world history. In addition, we have extensively used the modern materials of archaeological excavations and interdisciplinary research, witnessing a high level of development of industry, trade, military art and other aspects of the social development of the Hun society. We will focus on the complicated vicissitudes of the relationship between the Hunnic Empire and the Western Roman Empire during the reign of Attila. Migration of Hun tribes and its role in the Great Migration. The resettlement and migration in Europe had taken place even before the Huns. The Germans were the first to be written about. The earliest ancient sources on the middle and northern European regions are pieces of information by Pytheas of Massalia (fourth century BC), a Greek author and follower of Aristotle. Pytheas was the first to stress distinguishing features of the Celts and Scythians (Skythen) and to give evidence of the lands and their inhabitants, who later were called the Germans. South Scandinavia, Denmark and the German area of the North and Baltic Seas were the ancestral home of the tribes who later identified themselves as the ‘Germans’. In the fifth century BC, they moved towards the south as far as the Harz and Hall, where the Germans faced with the Celts. Then, from the beginning of AD, the Germans tribal unions were in constant movement and confrontations with the Roman Empire. The apogee of the Great Migration was the Huns’ travels from the east the Eurasian continent to its west. The Huns (Hunnoi) had inhabited Central Asia since ancient times. They belonged to the Turkic tribes. As far back as the fourth century BC, the Chinese called the Huns their most serious enemies, because the Hun chieftains had made real progress in the wars against the Han Empire. In the first centuries of A.D., the Hun tribes migrated actively and they also travelled from the territory of modern Kazakhstan and other regions of Central Asia to the West. In the middle of the fourth century BC, the Huns invaded the land between the Volga and the Don, having conquered the Alans in the Northern Caucasus, brought to heel the Kingdom of Bosporus, crossed the Don and broken the neck of the multitribal power of Ermanaric, the king of the Ostrogoths in South-Eastern Europe (in the year 375). That year was the beginning of a series of movements that led to the Great Migrations in Eurasia and Europe. In 376 AD, the Visigoths, narrowed by the Huns, crossed the Danube, and, with the permission of the Roman government, settled within the Roman province of Moesia with an obligation of military service and obedience. After that, the Huns attacked the Balkan provinces of the Eastern Roman Empire repeatedly. The relationship between the Huns and the Western Roman Empire was initially on a different basis. So, the detachments of the Hun warmongers were a part of the Roman Army, especially since the 20s of the fifth century. In particular, the empire used them to fight with the Franks and Burgundians who had settled on the Rhine and rebelled repeatedly, as well as to master the Bacaudae – peasants of north-western Gaul, who had tried to secede from the Roman Empire. In the late 40s, the situation changed. Attila, the ruler of the Huns, (born ca. 395, died in 453) started to interfere in the internal affairs of the Western Roman Empire. Attila ruled from 434 to 453, and in his reign the Hun Empire reached its greatest strength and territorial expansion in the West. Greek and Latin sources indicate that Attila was from a royal lineage, which had ruled the Huns for generations. At that time, the territory of the Hunnic Empire stretched from east to west, from the Altai Mountains, Central Asia and the Caucasus to the Danube and the Rhine. The Huns’ tribal union in Central Asia contributed to the later formation of the Kazakh ethnic group and other Turkic peoples. Attila the Hun’s campaigns against Rome Attila’s time left an indelible mark on the history of Eurasia, which has been not only preserved in historical works, chronicles and epic creations. We have also been able to establish that the great deeds of the Huns and their ruler were reflected at least in eighteen works of the German heroic epos and Scandinavian sagas. At the same time, one might ask why so much attention is paid to the Huns in the scriptures and legends if they came to the West as conquerors. In our opinion, the answer may be as follows. Many European nations considered the Hun power as a counterbalance to the Roman Empire, as the savior from the Roman expansion. Thus, a number of Germanic tribes who were dependent on the Hunnic Empire participated in the wars against Rome. By the middle of the fifth century the relations between the Western Roman Empire and the Hunnic Empire had increasingly deteriorated. It became obvious that those forces were on the brink of a great confrontation. The events that took place in the mid-fifth century gave evidence of the military might of the Hunnic Empire. Having accumulated and concentrated power, Attila, the ruler of the Huns, launched a military campaign against Western Europe, i.e. against the Western Roman Empire. The struggle against the Huns united the Roman Empire, the Visigoths and other unions of Celtic and Germanic tribes. Old contradictions and struggle were forgotten. The combined army of the Roman Empire, the Visigothic Kingdom and other tribal alliances of the West, was headed by the patrician Flavius Aetius. In the period of struggle for power in Rome, he had fled to the Huns, who lent him support, so returning to Italy in 433 with the Hunnish cohorts; Flavius Aetus took a top position in the state again and gained command of the armed forces of the Empire. In addition to the chronicles, the archives and materials of the papal correspondence, which, unfortunately, has not yet become the subject of a proper analysis, are valuable sources for that era. They were not studied in the literature of the Soviet period either. Yet, the rarest, by definition, of the sources allow a reconstruction of the complex vicissitudes of that time. Thus, in a letter on 23April 451 to Marcian (450-457), Emperor of the East Roman Empire, Pope Leo I (the Great) (440-461) made it clear that understanding between the two Christian Emperors of the Eastern and Western halves of the Roman Empire would have withstood the heretical encroachments and the Barbarian invasions: nam inter principes Christianos spiritu dei confirmante concordiam gemina per totum mundum fiducia roboratur, quia profectus caritatis et fidei utrorumque armorum potentiam insuperabilem facit, ut propitiato per unam confessionem deo simul et haetretica falsitae et barbara destruatur hostilitas .... We get very important information from Priscus of Panium, a fifth century chronicler of Greek origin, who participated in the Byzantine embassy to the court of Attila. During the whole journey, and the Byzantines’ stay at the headquarters of the ruler of the Huns, he was keeping detailed records, which formed the basis of his famous work that has survived only in fragments. Priscus describes his journey to the court of Attila, meetings with him, and the life and customs of the Huns in detail. According to Priscus, Attila also sent an embassy to Rome, to Western Roman Emperor Valentinian III, with a request to give Honoria, Valentinian’s sister, in marriage, together with her share of wealth. However, the emperor refused... According to Priscus, the embassies’ mission failed. Attila did not know what to do, but gradually finding tranquility, he decided to launch a war against the West: Illic enim sibri rem fore non solum cum Italis, sed etiam cum Gothis et Francis; cum Italis, ut Honoriam cum ingentibus divitiis secum abducereret; cum Gothis, ut Genserichi gratiam promereretur. However, Attila did not discriminate against the population of the Empire; he was going to fight against the Goths and Franks, against the ruling elite of the Italic peoples to take Honoria with her wealth. Immediately after returning from the Campaign for Gaul, 451 AD, Attila resumed demands to the Eastern Roman Empire for the payment of tribute in what had been an earlier scale, in the times of Emperor Theodosius. Otherwise, according to Priscus, Attila threatened to go to war. This fact also shows that the strength and fighting ardor of the Huns were far from being exhausted. On the contrary, their ruler continued to challenge the two Roman Empires at the same time. A contemporary of that driving age, Prosper Tiro, a native of Aquitaine, calling Attila’s campaigns against the West the main event, wrote: Attila post necem fratris auctus opibus interempi multa vicinarum sibi gentium milia cogit in bellum, quod Gothis tantum se inferre tamquam custos Romanae amicitati denuntiabat. sed cum transito Rheno saevissimos eius impetus multae Gallicanae urbes experirentur, cito et nostris et Gothis placuit, ut furori superborum hostium consociatis exercitibus repugnaretur, tantaque patricii Aetii providentia fuit, ut raptim congregatis undique bellatoribus viris adversae multitudini non inpar occurreret. Attila’s campaigns against Italy In the spring of 452 AD, a few months after the Battle of Catalaunian Fields, Attila the Hun gathered effective forces and began to organize a new campaign to Italy, the heart of the Roman Empire. Apparently it was the achievement of the Byzantine diplomacy that managed to send Attila against the West through complex intrigues, and thereby averted the impending threat. During that campaign, the Hun army captured Aquileia, Concordia, Altin, Patavy (now Padua), Vinsentia (now Vicenza), Verona, Brixia (now Brescia), Bergamo, Milan, and Ticinus (now Pavia). Those cities that showed resistance were ruined; some of them preferred to surrender, giving under the onslaught of the Huns. After the Huns had occupied Northern Italy, it did not take them much time to reach Rome. It was plain that the Western Empire did not have a force capable of stopping the onslaught of the menacing invaders, and Attila was close to world domination. His empire consisted of four parts, stretching from so-called Scythia (the kingdom of the Huns) to Germany (Scythica et Germanica regna) on the northern borders. In the South, both the Roman Empires (the Eastern and the Western) paid tribute to Attila. On a scale of territory and influence, the Empire of Attila geographically covered almost four parts of the world: from east to west and from north to south (the ancient Turkic: tört bulun, the Kazakh ‘dүnienіn tort byryshy’). But how was the dramatic situation developing in Italy, where Attila and victorious army were staying? This situation was difficult for the Western Roman Empire, but Valentinian III was in Ravenna, sitting out and anxiously watching the development of affairs. As for the commander Aetius, he was also confused. The army of Rome could no longer resist the onslaught of the Huns, as it had been paralyzed by their successes in Northern Italy. In the end, it was decided to use a way that had been well proven by the Eastern Romanians (Byzantine): they delegated an embassy to the court of Attila. It was headed by Pope St. Leo I, later named the Great; Consul Gennadius Avienus and urban prefect of Rome Trygetius also participated in the mission. A contemporary of those days, Prosper Tiro, wrote: et tot nobilium provinciarum lattissima eversione credita est saevilia et cupiditas hostilis explenda, mhilque inter omnia consilia principis ac senatns populique Romani salubrius visum est, quam ut per legates pax truculentissimi regis expeteretur, Suscepit hoc negotim cum vim consulari Avieno et viro praefectorio Trygetio beatissimus papa Leo auxilio dei fretus, quem scirel numquam piorum laboribus defuisse. nee aliud secutum est quam praesumpserat fides, nam tota leganione dignanter accepts ita summi sacerdotis praesentia rex gavisus est, ut bello abstinerc praeciperet et ultra Danuvium promissa pace discederet The meeting took place on the Ager Ambuleius, in the middle reaches the Mincius (now Mincio): igitur dum eius animus ancipiti neaotio inter ire et non ire fluctuaret secumque deliberans tardaret, placida ei legatio a Roma advenit. Nam Leo papa per se ad eum accedens in agroVenetum Arabuleio, ubi Mincius amnis commeantium frequentatione tmnsitur. qui mox deposuit exercitatu furore et rediens, quo venerat, iter ultra Danubium promissa pace discessit. At first glance, the meeting of two persons seems to be paradoxical. On the one hand was Attila, the ruler of the Hunnic Empire, a formidable conqueror, a man deeply absorbed the pagan ideas of his people. His name roused the pagandom of East and Northern Europe again at the time of the beginning of Christianity. On the other hand was Pope Leo I, the head of the Christian church hierarchy. Analyzing the rare sources available in the archives and collections in Europe, we do not find a detailed description of the mission to the court of Attila made by Leo I, which, incidentally, raised the authority and the prestige of the Pope objectively high, because he was able to influence the ruler of the peoples of East and West at such a formidable time for the Roman Empire. After that, Pope Leo I was named the Great. And if Attila, who was standing near the walls of Rome, was stopped by the Pope, the same cannot be said about Geiserich, the king of the Vandals, another actor of that time. Three years later, in 455, Pope Leo I could not hold him. The Vandals looted and destroyed the city, and robbed its population blind; it brought the term ‘vandalism’ - the mass destruction of cultural and material values, brutality and senseless cruelty – into use. After a fourteen days’ plunder of Rome, Geiserich and his army left the city. There is evidence that the king of the Vandals brought out thousands of Roman artisans as prisoners. According to Procopius of Caesarea, Geiserich ‘having loaded his ships with huge amounts of gold and other royal treasures and having taken the copper items and everything else from the palace, sailed to Carthage. He robbed the temple of Jupiter Capitoline and took half of its roof off. That roof was made of the best copper and covered with a thick layer of gold, representing a majestic and amazing sight. They say one of Geiserich’s ships that had been load with statues was lost, but all the rest of the ships of the Vandals sailed into the harbour of Carthage safe and sound. The fact that the ruler of the great Hunnic Empire, whose tributaries were both the Roman Empires, stopped before the city of Rome, throwing out a white flag, and took up the appeal of the embassy headed by the Pope, says much about Attila’s wisdom. He stopped the riot of his army, preventing wanton destruction and casualties. In this case, Attila differs favorably from Geiserich, the king of the Vandals, or Alaric, the king of the Visigoths, despite the fact that some church legends tagged him the ‘Scourge of God’. But let us return to the momentous meeting of 452 AD. Reading the papal correspondence of those years, we came across a letter of 512 or 513, which the bishops of the eastern regions addressed to Pope Symmachus (498-514). Its content reveals that Pope St Leo I also spoke with Attila about releasing the prisoners who had been captured by the Huns. Russian historiographers, including those of the Soviet period, barely covered the history of the Huns in Europe apart from a few references. They had a negative attitude to the history of religion. For example, in the book summarizing the degeneration of the Western Roman Empire and the emergence of the Germanic kingdoms, the Soviet medievalist A.R. Korsun and the historian R. Gunther confined themselves to one or two sentences: ‘but the situation in Italy proved to be dangerous to the Huns themselves, as the country suffered from famine and an epidemic had began. This facilitated a dialog between the Roman embassy headed by Pope Leo I to negotiate with the Huns’. Continuing the analysis of the meeting of Attila and Pope St. Leo I on the Ager Ambuleius, it should be noted that the authority of the church and the papacy began rising straight afterwards. This meeting was of objectively great importance for the history of the papacy, and for medieval Europe as a whole, in terms of the growth of the political influence of the Popes and clergy throughout the middle Ages and in subsequent history. The papacy gradually became an active force capable of administering secular affairs across Europe. This point of view should prevail in considering, for example, the activities of the Popes towards the Kingdom of the Lombards in Italy in the middle of the eighth century, i.e. as the logical end of the active policy, which was launched in 452 AD. In 756 AD, Pope Stephen II, supported by the Frankish kingdom, was able to get rid of the Lombards and found a secular state in Central Italy. This was follow-on to the sanction that Pope Zachary gave to Pepin the Short, the major domo of the Franks a little earlier, to be conferred with a royal title and to depose the Merovingian dynasty. We could cite other examples from the history of the middle Ages: for example, the meeting of Pope Leo III and Charlemagne-to-be in Paderborn (Germany) in 799. This was the meeting after which Pope Leo III crowned the Frankish king with the crown of the Roman Emperors in St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. The fight of the German kings and the papacy for investiture, etc. is also worth mentioning. Returning to the said meeting on the Ager Ambuleius in 452 AD, we can recall a fact of the modern history of Europe of the nineteenth century, when, after the Battle of Solferino in 1859, Napoleon III invited Emperor Franz Joseph I of Austria to conduct negotiations. The negotiations took place 5 km away from the historical place where, 1,400 years before, Pope Leo I carried out his mission at the court of Attila. Around there, people are still talking about the meeting between the Pope and the King of the Huns. The above allows us to say that the Huns, who worshiped celestial bodies, practiced Tengriism and showed tolerance towards the religious beliefs of the conquered peoples. Among his contemporary warriors undertaking marches on Rome, Attila stood out. He showed respect for the Christian religion and the Pope. It is no coincidence that the images of the great ruler of the Hunnic Empire can be seen in the main Catholic Church, St. Peter’s Basilica, in Rome. Having returned to Pannonia, the ruler of the Hunnic Empire started preparing a new military campaign against the Eastern Roman Empire. According to Jordanes, reversus itaque Attila in sedes suas, et quasi otii penitens graviterque ferens a bello cessare, ad Orientis principem Marcianum legatos dirigit, provinciarum testans vastationem, quod sibi promissum a Theodosio quondam imperatore minime persolveretur ... The King of the Huns spent the last months of his life preparing a campaign against the East. But a new war on the Byzantine Empire was not destined to break out. In the spring of 453 AD, Attila, the ruler of the Hunnic Empire, died. Conclusion Thus, we have analyzed the events of 451 – 452 AD. Both European wars waged by the Huns evidence the military power of the Hunnic Empire. If, in 451, the Western Roman Empire united almost the whole of the West against the Huns, then a few months later (less than a year) it could not resist their invasion into the heart of the Empire. The fact that the ruler of the huge state of the Huns, who had both the Roman Empires as tributaries, stopped before the city of Rome, because he had listened to requests of the embassy headed by the Pope, speaks for Attila’s wisdom. He stopped the rampage of his troops, preventing senseless destruction and sacrifices. Here Attila compares favorably with Geiserich, King of the Vandals, or Alaric the Visigoth. During the age-long existence (the fourth – fifth centuries) in Europe, in the turbulent era of the Great Migration, the Hunnic Empire was centered in Pannonia (in the territory that later became Hungary, Austria and parts of Yugoslavia) and objectively had an impact on the fate of European history. In addition to wars and migrations, that historical epoch showed multifaceted interaction between the East and the West, synthesis and integration of traditions and cultures. The Hunnic invasions of the middle of the fifth century – 451-452 AD –undermined the Western Roman Empire all the more, bringing about its decline. This was going to happen very soon, namely in 476 AD, when Romulus Augustulus, the last Western Roman Emperor, was deposed by Odoacer, the leader of German mercenaries and the son of Edeko (Edikon), who at one time held a high position under Attila. Here, we would like to mention the periodization of the world history of the turn of the antiquity and the middle Ages, which deals with the history of Eurasia and Kazakhstan. It is known that Russian and Soviet historiography considered the year of 476 AD to be the end of ancient history and the beginning of the middle Ages. This date appeared in Soviet historiography and it is accepted by that of Russia and the CIS countries. But it is simply a conditional date, the year of deposition of the last Western Roman Emperor, which was not a major historical event. The background was founded a century before, when, after the year 375 AD, the Great Migration in Europe began, and the Hunnic invasions of Europe agitated the entire Eurasian continent, Europe; they had global far-reaching consequences and contributed to the transition from one era to the next, from one civilization to another. This was an epochal event, common to all the countries of Europe and Asia. Therefore, we have compelling reasons to date the beginning of medieval history on a global basis, including the history of Kazakhstan, from the second half of the fourth century (375 AD) – the turning point of the Great Migration in Eurasia. Such an approach to the question of the end of the history of antiquity and the beginning of medieval history has been presented, in particular, in a number of publications of professor Zhumagulov in Kazakhstan and abroad. And it was included in the sample syllabus on the history of the middle Ages, developed and published by the Department of World History, Historiography and Source Studies of Al-Farabi Kazakh National University for all the humanities specialties of the universities of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The syllabus has been approved by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan. After Attila’s death, the Hun Empire collapsed in the West during the reign of his sons. Some of the Huns stayed in the area northward of the Lower Danube. However, most of them went to the Greater Black Sea area and farther to the east, towards the Urals and the Aral Sea, i.e. to the fontal eastern limits of the huge Hunnic Empire. The local Huns continued marching on the neighbouring countries. So, the Huns-Ephtalits subjugated Gandhara at the end of the fifth century after a successful struggle against the Sassanids. Their leaders Toramana and Mihirakula captured the Gupta Empire in India in the first quarter of the sixth century. The problems of the history of the Huns are still waiting to be studied. Based on a thorough analysis of the sources, we have a need to open an objective picture of historical reality. In research and practice of teaching in universities it is necessary to show that many of the nations of Europe considered the Hunnish state as a counterbalance to the Roman Empire and saw it as a savior from Roman expansion. It is necessary to study the life of the Huns in detail, as the representatives of particular steppe civilization (Reiternomadische Kultur). Having existed for about one hundred years in the turbulent era of the Great Migration, the Hunnic Empire had an objective impact on the fate of European, Eurasian history in terms of the transition to a new era and the civilization of the Middle Ages. АТТИЛА В МИРОВОЙ ИСТОРИИ Жумагулов К.Т. Д.и.н., профессор, академик НАН РК, зав. кафедрой КазНУ им. Аль-Фараби. Садыкова Р.О. К.и.н., доцент кафедры всемирной истории, историографии и источниковедения КазНУ им. Аль-Фараби Резюме Великое переселение народов IV-VII вв. началоcь именно с гуннского продвижения из глубин Центральной Азии в Европу. Наибольшего территориального расширения и наибольшей мощи Гуннская держава на Западе достигла под предводительством Аттилы. Аттила оставил неизгладимый след в истории. С полным основанием его следует считать наиболее выдающейся личностью I тысячелетия. Методы исследования и доказательства заключаются в использовании редчайших письменных источников на латинском, греческом, раннегерманских, скандинавских языках. Особенно широко привлекаются данные археологии, этнологии, исторической лигнвистики и современных междисциплинарных исследований. Ключевые слова: Гуннское передвижение, Гуннская империя, процесс Великого переселения народов, Римская империя, Аттила. Жұмағұлов Қ.Т. Т.ғ.д., профессор, ҚР ҰҒА академигі, әл-Фараби ат. ҚазҰУ-дың кафедра меңгерушісі Садықова Р.О. Т.ғ.к., әл-Фараби ат. ҚазҰУ-дың дүние жүзі тарихы, тарихнама және деректану кафедрасының доценті Түйін IV-VII ғасырлардағы Ұлы Қоныс аудару ғұндардың Орталық Азиядан Еуропаға қарай жылжуынан басталды. Әсіресе Ғұн империясы Аттиланың басшылығымен Батыста ауқымды территориялық кеңею мен айрықша алыптыққа қол жеткізді. Аттила тарихта өшпес із қалдырды. Оны І-ші мыңжылдықтың ең көрнекті тұлғасы деп қарастыруға болады. Ғылыми мақаланың әдістері мен тәсілдері латын, грек, ерте германдық пен скандинавтық тілдіердегі сирек кездесетін жазба деректерді пайдалануға негізделген. Әсіресе археология, этнология, тарихи лигнвистика мен қазіргі пәнаралық зерттеулердің мәліметтері кеңінен пайдаланылған. Кілт сөздер: ғұн қозғалысы, Ғұн империясы, Ұлы Қоныс аудару үдерісі, Рим империясы, Аттила. References: 1 K.T. Zhumagulov, ‘The Huns and the early history of Kazakhstan’, Bulletin of KazNU, hist. series, i (2002), 3-7. 2 V. Budanova, Varvarskyi mir epohi Velikogo pereselenya narodov, (Moskow, 2000), pp. 48-70. 3 L. Gumilev, Hunnu. Srednya Azia v drevnye vremena. (Moskow, 1960), pp. 247-248. 4 Ammianus Marcellinus. Romische Geschichte. Lateinisch Und Deutsch. (Darmstadt, 1971). 5 Apolinarius Sedonii. ‘Epistulae et Carmina’, – in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Liber VIII. (Berolini, 1887), pp. 82-85, 118-121, 146-149. 6 Claudii Claudiani, ‘Carmina’, in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, T. X. ed. Th. Mommsen (Berolini, 1892). 7 Hydatii Lemici, ‘Continuatio Chronicorum Hieronymianorum. AD A. CCCCLXVIII’, in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Chronica Minora, Saec IV, V, VI, VII, ed. Th. Mommsen. Volumen II (Berolini, 1894), pp. 3-36. 8 Marcellini v.c.Comitis. ‘Chronicon. AD A. DXVIII. Continuatum AD A. DX XXIV, CVM Additamento AD A. DXLVIII’, in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Chronica Minora, Saec IV, V, VI, VII, ed. Th. Mommsen. Volumen II (Berolini, 1894), pp. 37-109. 9 Paulus Orosius. Die Antike Weltgeschichte in christlicher Sicht. Buch I-IV. (Zürich und München, 1985), pp.64-73, 117-365, 431-564. 10 Jordanis. ‘Romana et Getica’, in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, T. V, ed. Th. Mommsen (Berolini, 1882). 11 Priscus Panites‚‘Historia Byzantina fragmenta‘, in 15 - Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum (FHG). Vol. IV, ed. C. Müllerus (Parisiis,1851), p. 98. 12 Prosper Tiro, ‘Epitoma de Chronicon 1364’, in Monumenta Germaniae Historica (MGH). Auctores Antiquissmi, t. IX, Chronica minora, Vol. I., ed. T. Mommsen Berolini, 1892), p. 481. 13 Ioannis Antiocheni, Fragmenta ex Historia chronica. Ed. Umberto Roberto (Berlin – New York, 2005). 14 K. Zhumagulov, ‘Material culture and the art of war of the Huns in the exposition of the historical museum in the city of Speyer (Germany)’, in Proceedings of the international scientific-practical conference “Contribution of the scientists of Al-Farabi Kazakh National University to the program ‘Cultural Heritage’: achievements and prospects (Almaty, 2009), pp. 17-19. 15 Pytheas von Marseille, Über das Weltmeer. / Die Fragmente/. Übers und erl. von D. Stichtenoth (Köln-Gray, 1959). 16 K. Zhumagulov, The problems of the history of the German tribes (from ancient times to the early Middle Ages (Almaty, 2002), pp. 22-75. 17 In German heroic epos and Scandinavian sagas he was called Attila, Etzel, Atzel, or Atli. 18 Leo Magnus, ‘Epistolae 39, 41’, in Acta conciliorum oecumenicoru, ed. E. Schwarz, t. 2, Vol. 4 (Berolini-Lipsiae, 1932), pp. 41-43. 19 Priscus Panites, ‘Historia’, p. 98. 20 Prosper Tiro, ‘Epitoma’, p. 481. 21 Prosper Tiro, ‘Epitoma’, p. 482. 22 Jordanes, ‘Getica’, p. 223. 23 Procopius Caesariensis, Opera Omnia, ed. J. Haury, G. Wirth. T. I,V (Leipzig, 1962-1965), pp.4-6. 24 Patrologia Latina, ed. J-P. Migne (Paris, 1865), pp. 59-60. 25 K. Zhumagulov, ‘Pokhod Attily v Gallyu’, Bulletin of KazGU. Historical series, xv (1999), 130-131. 26 A.Кorsunskii and R.Gunter. Upadok y gibel Zapadnoy Rymskoy ymperyi y vozniknovenye germaskikh korolevstv do seredyny VI v. (Мoscow, 1984), p. 115. 27 Kurze Biographien – Alle Päpste. Von Petrus bis Benedikt XVI (Lozzi Roma, 2005), pp. 3,13. 28 Jordanes, ‘Getica’, p. 225.