`  :: I think you did an excellent job on the article.  I thought your language was anything but ``turpid.``  My only problem was that personally, while I felt that this could not possibly be included in decisive battles, historians said otherwise.  Both of you then filed replied saying yes, it was inconclusive EXCEPT for the strategic implications.  (Those could be that it derailed Attila's long term plan to bring Gaul completely under his heel, which could have nipped the fledging frankish state in the bud, and over the long term, perhaps resulted in the loss of the ``family that forged Europe,`` the Carolingians.  But that was VERY long term).  It is not that Wandalstouring's analyis was better than yours - he just wrote his first - and both of you provided a way for me to get around the accepted historical view that this was a great turning point.  I simply had not thought enough out of the box as you both had.  I do think it had strategic implications, but tactically it was a wash.  I am sorry you were insulted in attempting to nominate the article, personally I thought your work was quite good.  I cannot see what else remains, frankly, the battle is exhaustively examined.  I strongly disagree with the concept that one person can block a nomination - too much of the time personalities get involved in those situations!  `