can annyone tell me who the Huns(hunnic empire) were? what they did and what they fought, really wanna know who the Huns are :)

google, anyone? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns)

All I know is they were from eastern Europe Western Russia area, I believe the country Hungary was named after them

Wasn't the Hun Epire original based near the Don River, from here they would usually attack the Eastern Empire I beleive.

The most accepted current theory is that they were originally the Hsing-nu or Xiong-nu in the Mongolian region to the northwest of China; they were defeated by the Han, and fled westward. They drove the Epthalites into Persia and India (also known as the White Huns), shattering the Persians and devastating the Guptas in India. Meanwhile, the Huns continued on a westward path, ending up around the Ukraine area through Hungary. United by Attila, they established a steppe empire that was a loose coalition of barbarian tribes fighting under their banner. The cracks became evident once Rome beat Attila in Gaul, and their invasion of Italy greatly diminished their army due to disease (in the Italian invasion, they drove the people of Aquelia away, leading to the founding of Venice). Attila died of a nosebleed in his sleep, and the empire fell into ruins.

The most accepted current theory is that they were originally the Hsing-nu or Xiong-nu in the Mongolian region to the northwest of China; they were defeated by the Han, and fled westward. They drove the Epthalites into Persia and India (also known as the White Huns), shattering the Persians and devastating the Guptas in India. Meanwhile, the Huns continued on a westward path, ending up around the Ukraine area through Hungary. United by Attila, they established a steppe empire that was a loose coalition of barbarian tribes fighting under their banner. The cracks became evident once Rome beat Attila in Gaul, and their invasion of Italy greatly diminished their army due to disease (in the Italian invasion, they drove the people of Aquelia away, leading to the founding of Venice). Attila died of a nosebleed in his sleep, and the empire fell into ruins.

Death by nosebleed... tis an honorable death.

On his wedding night (or one of his wedding nights anyway).

It should be noted too that it was the advance of the Huns that was part of the reasons that drove tribes like the Visigoths to the Roman frontier on the Danube to find refuge in the Roman Empire. They destroyed the Ostrogothic Empire centering on the Dnieper. Tribe in the area have two choices: became Hunnic vassals or flee south to the Roman Empire. When their request to seek refuge in Roman land were denied they start invading, hastening the fall of the Roman Empire.

The Huns were united only in AD432 under Roas (Attila's father) who based himself in Hungary (hence the name). It was only during this time that they have the strength to start attacking the Roman Empire. The Romans paid tribute to Roas. When it's not paid the Huns attack the Romans, but largely to extort tribute rather than conquer. True the Hunnic Empire was large but it was very loosely-held.

After Roas died Attila became co-ruler with brother Bleda. Attila killed Bleda, led his troops to invade the Western Roman Empire (this time the objective was to collect dowry for his lover Honoria who happens to be Emperor Valentinian's sister. In Attila's view he owed him the Roman Empire and he was going to take it by force.) and was promptly defeated in Gaul (the Romans shouldn't claim all the credits though. Most of the fighting were done by Visigoths). On the way back he sacked Italy but was convinced to turn back from Rome by Pope Leo I. He returned to Hungary (the Huns didn't settle the areas they had conquered), and died (it was nosebleed but he had a lot of drink that night so it could've been alcoholic poisoning).

Like Genghis Khan the people who buried Attila were killed to keep his tomb a secret. Like Genghis Khan's Attila's sons fought among themselves and so the empire disintegrated. Ostrogoths claimed their independence and defeat the Huns at Nedao (454) ending Hunnic dominance. Those Huns who were left lend their service to the highest bidder and soon they were absorbed into surrounding cultures. Appearantly some of their descendents became the Bulgars, terrorising Europe well into the Middle Ages.

The Hunnic military strategy is somewhat similar to those of the Mongols eg swift movements, feigned retreat then encircle the enemy. They relied almost totally on cavalry (mostly horse archers, but also some carrying swords and lances). Like the Mongols they lived off the land or their horses, and like the Mongols they used terrorism to scare the enemy into submission.

All I know is they were from eastern Europe Western Russia area, I believe the country Hungary was named after them

Hungary was founded by the Magyars, though.

Wasn't the Hun Epire original based near the Don River, from here they would usually attack the Eastern Empire I beleive.
They have capital on Volga. In that times this river was named "Itil". Name "Atilla" means "man from Itil region"

Some interesting facts

Hun means king
Genghis khan is actually pronounced Jenghis Hun in the native tongue, hun too meaning king.

Both of them are central asian nomadic steppes people.

Like Genghis Khan the people who buried Attila were killed to keep his tomb a secret. Like Genghis Khan's Attila's sons fought among themselves and so the empire disintegrated. Ostrogoths claimed their independence and defeat the Huns at Nedao (454) ending Hunnic dominance. Those Huns who were left lend their service to the highest bidder and soon they were absorbed into surrounding cultures. Appearantly some of their descendents became the Bulgars, terrorising Europe well into the Middle Ages.
It was Genghis Khans grandsons, not sons, that destroyed the empire. And the Bulgars were not Hun descendents, that is just one of the many false myths surrounding the Huns.
Hungary was founded by the Magyars, though.
Yes, but the name in English is a remnant of the Huns, who did in fact "settle" (I use the term very lightly here) in the Carpathian basin of what would become Hungary.

Actually Hungary is a misnomer in English. The Kingdom of Hungary was founded by Magyar invaders. The Magyars were nomads of Turkic origin like the Huns so their invasion in the late 9th and 10th centuries was seen as another hunnic invasion 450 years later; therefore, the Magyars were called Huns. Today Hungarians call themselves Magyars, not Huns. Perhaps they may have some Hunnic blood, but the name Hungary comes from the mislabeling of the Magyars.

Actually, there is another hypothesis that says the name Hungary might be derived from the Turkish term Onogur meaning 'Ten Arrows', signifying united military strength in nomadic symbolism, and in fact this is the general accepted theory. :)

Actually Hungary is a misnomer in English. The Kingdom of Hungary was founded by Magyar invaders. The Magyars were nomads of Turkic origin like the Huns so their invasion in the late 9th and 10th centuries was seen as another hunnic invasion 450 years later; therefore, the Magyars were called Huns. Today Hungarians call themselves Magyars, not Huns. Perhaps they may have some Hunnic blood, but the name Hungary comes from the mislabeling of the Magyars.
Except the Magyars spoke and speak an Ugrian language, like the Finns, Estonians and a bunch of smaller nations inside modern Russia. Nothing Turkic about that.

Actually it is believed that Ugric and Turkic are distantly related; although, this is highly controversial. Not being a linguist; I am nonetheless inclined to believe that they are not related.
I mispoke about them being Turkic; however, my point being that they were perceived as being Turkic (Hunnic) due to their similar nomadic lifestyle.

Actually it is believed that Ugric and Turkic are distantly related; although, this is highly controversial. Not being a linguist; I am nonetheless inclined to believe that they are not related.


Actually, I'd say they are related. I've been in both Hungary (quite a lot of times) and Turkey, and first of all I noticed some weird similarities, the languages sound vaguely resemblant. Then I was talking with a Turk guy, about pretty much everything. And he mentioned when we were talking about Hungarian that "yeah, it's a related language". This intrigued me, so I searched a little deeper. I found out a lot of words are common, like for example the word for "light". if we think better, we realize Turks migrated about in the same time as the modern day Hungarians' ancestors, from central Asia, so it wouldn't be at all surprising to see some similarities.

Actually, I'd say they are related. I've been in both Hungary (quite a lot of times) and Turkey, and first of all I noticed some weird similarities, the languages sound vaguely resemblant. Then I was talking with a Turk guy, about pretty much everything. And he mentioned when we were talking about Hungarian that "yeah, it's a related language". This intrigued me, so I searched a little deeper. I found out a lot of words are common, like for example the word for "light". if we think better, we realize Turks migrated about in the same time as the modern day Hungarians' ancestors, from central Asia, so it wouldn't be at all surprising to see some similarities.

A lot of Turks seem to think their language is related to Hungarian and Finnish, but this actually is not the case. Some words may resemble each other or be common to two languages, but that is because of the people living side by side for years and borrowing words from each other, not because of the languages are from the same origin. Turkish is a member in the Altai language family, whereas Hungarian is in the Finno-ugric family.

We finno-ugric speakers are not related to anyone else in Europe - linguistically speaking, that is.

A lot of Turks seem to think their language is related to Hungarian and Finnish, but this actually is not the case. Some words may resemble each other or be common to two languages, but that is because of the people living side by side for years and borrowing words from each other, not because of the languages are from the same origin. Turkish is a member in the Altai language family, whereas Hungarian is in the Finno-ugric family.

We finno-ugric speakers are not related to anyone else in Europe - linguistically speaking, that is.

Turkey is not in Europe, so what you said does not contradict what I said, at all.

That's clearly a case of pride. The categorization of the language families, into Altaic, Finnic, Slavic, Romance, Bantu and whatever you want is done by linguists, based on existing similarities. It's stupid to say any resemblance may never be observed between two languages just because they are placed in different families. "We finno-ugric speakers are not related to anyone else in Europe" resembles the way demagogic politicians speak on TV.

You see, it is very hard to prove two languages are not related. I have several examples to back up my opinion, and as I said these are just examples, there are a lot more out there. Do you have anything to support this great magnificent uniqueness that you are talking about?

Actually Hungary is a misnomer in English. The Kingdom of Hungary was founded by Magyar invaders. The Magyars were nomads of Turkic origin like the Huns so their invasion in the late 9th and 10th centuries was seen as another hunnic invasion 450 years later; therefore, the Magyars were called Huns. Today Hungarians call themselves Magyars, not Huns. Perhaps they may have some Hunnic blood, but the name Hungary comes from the mislabeling of the Magyars.

Its interesting, I was interested why in English is used nonsense Hungary. In the Czech is Hungary "Maďarsko" and inhabitant is "Maďar" and language is "maďarština". But Czech also using another word for Hungary in history and now maybe because minorities. Middle ages Hungary is called "Uhry" (same word in Czech means acne:D), Austria-Hungary is called "Rakousko-Uhersko). "Uherák" is famous Hungarian salam. When Czechs realy want insult Slovaks, they call them Hungarians :mischief:

Its interesting, I was interested why in English is used nonsense Hungary. In the Czech is Hungary "Maďarsko" and inhabitant is "Maďar" and language is "maďarština". But Czech also using another word for Hungary in history and now maybe because minorities. Middle ages Hungary is called "Uhry" (same word in Czech means acne:D), Austria-Hungary is called "Rakousko-Uhersko). "Uherák" is famous Hungarian salam. When Czechs realy want insult Slovaks, they call them Hungarians :mischief:

Heh, that's nothing, we use both Hungarian and Magyar for Hungary! "Ungur" - Hungarian, "Ungaria" - Hungary, but "(limba) Maghiara" - Hungarian (language). :smug: Also we call the Germans in 3 totally different names.

Heh, that's nothing, we use both Hungarian and Magyar for Hungary! "Ungur" - Hungarian, "Ungaria" - Hungary, but "(limba) Maghiara" - Hungarian (language). :smug: Also we call the Germans in 3 totally different names.

I thought now we were all in the EU we had to stop calling the Germans names? :mischief:

I thought now we were all in the EU we had to stop calling the Germans names? :mischief:

Or else!! Ve haff vays to make you talk.... right! ;)

OT (more or less): Hungary is also Ungarn in German.

When Czechs realy want insult Slovaks, they call them Hungarians :mischief:

Hehe, when Hungarians want to insult Czechs, they call them Slovaks. ;)
Anyhow, dannyshenanigan was right about the reason of mislabeling the magyars as huns.

In English, "Magyar" and "Hungarian" mean two different things. A Magyar is a barbarian who comes in on horseback and burns your local church. A Hungarian is just some guy with a funny accent. Maybe also a funny mustache, but not always.

In any event, I do believe that there is a notable movement of people in Hungary who do believe that they are descended from the Huns, and that this belief is even stronger among the Hungarian minority living in Transylvania. So it's not just a misunderstanding in the English-speaking world only.

In English, "Magyar" and "Hungarian" mean two different things. A Magyar is a barbarian who comes in on horseback and burns your local church. A Hungarian is just some guy with a funny accent. Maybe also a funny mustache, but not always.

In any event, I do believe that there is a notable movement of people in Hungary who do believe that they are descended from the Huns, and that this belief is even stronger among the Hungarian minority living in Transylvania. So it's not just a misunderstanding in the English-speaking world only.

Well, I don't know if such thing exists in Transylvania, but in Hungary that movement is actually people who call themselves "ancient magyars" (ősmagyar), referring the "true Magyar blood" before the royal bloodline of Arpad was finished in 1301. It is kind of like a right wing, uberculture movement with a xenophobic touch.
We have all kinds of idiots though who claim that the Magyars are descendants of Sumerians, Japanese, UFOs etc. :crazyeye:

All I know is they were from eastern Europe Western Russia area, I believe the country Hungary was named after them

Well, it is believed that the Huns originated in the Steppes of Russia, most say Mongolia. But they did move West.

In English, "Magyar" and "Hungarian" mean two different things. A Magyar is a barbarian who comes in on horseback and burns your local church. A Hungarian is just some guy with a funny accent. Maybe also a funny mustache, but not always.

In any event, I do believe that there is a notable movement of people in Hungary who do believe that they are descended from the Huns, and that this belief is even stronger among the Hungarian minority living in Transylvania. So it's not just a misunderstanding in the English-speaking world only.

Yes that's right. I met some people who believe the Szekely are "the only true descendants of the Huns". :crazyeye: But that's a stupid thing to say anyway, as that region is extremely mixed with all kinds of people (5 different ethnic groups...). Then again, I met a guy from France who was calling himself a Viking. (because he was from Normandy)

The Huns were united only in AD432 under Roas (Attila's father) who based himself in Hungary (hence the name). It was only during this time that they have the strength to start attacking the Roman Empire. The Romans paid tribute to Roas. When it's not paid the Huns attack the Romans, but largely to extort tribute rather than conquer. True the Hunnic Empire was large but it was very loosely-held.

They appear to have been at least loosely united before that. They reached the Roman Empire around the years 395-400 and initially allied with the romans against the Goths and the Vandals (who had anyway been pushed against the empire's borders by the Huns!).
After emperor Arcadius death they turned against the romans and fought a first war against the Eastern Empire between 408-412, when a peace treaty was concluded with chief named Khoraton representing the Hun side already as some sort of supreme king.

They later invaded the Western Empire at the request of Aetius to support the usurper Joannes in 422. By then they were ruled by Ruga (also known as Roas), from somewhere near river Tisza in modern day Hungary. Aetius used them intermittently against the Visigoths and other german tribes and, in 434, even gave away to Ruga some provinces in exchange for help against his roman rivals. Ruga then turned against the Eastern empire, but his death in the same year temporarily stopped the attacks. The attacks were resumed in 441 and by 443 the Eastern Empire was forced to pay a huge tribute.

The later history of the Huns under Attila is famous. Attila was succeeded by his son Ellac, defeated and killed in the battle of Nedau. Another of Attila's son (Dengizich) fled east and managed to partially rebuild the hun kingdom, but was decisively defeated after attacking the Eastern Roman Empire in 469.

It's not clear how many were the Huns. Despite having build a very large empire most of it was composed of vassal kingdoms, and they were willing to integrate in their command structure and make use of foreigners. The power structure, however, was hierarchic and clearly military. As a people ruled by a warrior caste attacking and razing the roman cities, the hunnic invasion of the Roman Empire hastened the emergence of the feudal system that would replace the ancient imperial government system based on cities.

In English, "Magyar" and "Hungarian" mean two different things. A Magyar is a barbarian who comes in on horseback and burns your local church. A Hungarian is just some guy with a funny accent. Maybe also a funny mustache, but not always.

In any event, I do believe that there is a notable movement of people in Hungary who do believe that they are descended from the Huns, and that this belief is even stronger among the Hungarian minority living in Transylvania. So it's not just a misunderstanding in the English-speaking world only.
I've heard Magyar used as a romantic term for Hungarians. Similar to Teuton.

oh.. totaly forgot this topic, many answers but ila answer the first, the reason i din't search google is that i just wanted a short discription who the huns wer :)

The Huns were the first nomadic Turkish state in history i'll bring you more documents soon

Huns were a Turkic tribe.Huns had fought against Chinese(known from chinese sources) in asia and later they migrated to west.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns

http://www.ozturkler.com/data_english/0001/0001_02_01.htm

Greetings all,

And hello, Laci. I keep meaning to write, but, well... I am a lazy man. ;)

There is an old thread here in which the Hun-Hungarian debated the connection was debated a long time ago. I'm not terribly proud of the outcome but we did hash out much of the history and mythology of the "connections" -- as Laci mentioned, the Sumerians, Japanese and UFOs.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=65862

The "Hungarian" name is still debated; that it may have derived from a mistaken Western belief that the Magyars were Huns is possible, though less likely: the name exists (in somewhat different form) much further east than the west, among the early Slavs who probably hadn't experienced the Huns of A.D.400-453. The Slavic name for Magyars is generally a variation of "vengyer"
(Polish - "Węgier" [Ve'n'gyer], Russian - "Венгер" [Vyengyer]) which some believe may have derived from the old pre-Khazar Bulgar khanate ruled by Kubrat in the mid-7th century, which was known by its Turkic name, "empire of the Ten Tents", or [/i]Onogur[/i]. The Hungarians had been caught up in the Onogur empire, and it is possible that as they moved westward to the land they called Etelköz/Land Between the Rivers during/after the Khazar period in the 9th century, they may have come into contact with the Slavs, who (correctly) identified them as some group from the then-defunct Onogur empire. This may be corroborated by the Byzantines, who called the early Magyars "Turkoi", Turks -- as indeed the Onogur empire was an early Bulgar Turkic empire. In any event, it is thought by some (but not by all) that the "Onogur" name traveled westward with the Magyars as "vengyer", then "ungarisch", "hongrois", etc.

If you understand this, your Scottish :)

The Huns are well known followers of Glasgow Rangers FC.

All i know is that the huns got defeated by the chinese so the tried to bully Europe instead

Greetings all,

And hello, Laci. I keep meaning to write, but, well... I am a lazy man. ;)

There is an old thread here in which the Hun-Hungarian debated the connection was debated a long time ago. I'm not terribly proud of the outcome but we did hash out much of the history and mythology of the "connections" -- as Laci mentioned, the Sumerians, Japanese and UFOs.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=65862

The "Hungarian" name is still debated; that it may have derived from a mistaken Western belief that the Magyars were Huns is possible, though less likely: the name exists (in somewhat different form) much further east than the west, among the early Slavs who probably hadn't experienced the Huns of A.D.400-453. The Slavic name for Magyars is generally a variation of "vengyer"
(Polish - "Węgier" [Ve'n'gyer], Russian - "Венгер" [Vyengyer]) which some believe may have derived from the old pre-Khazar Bulgar khanate ruled by Kubrat in the mid-7th century, which was known by its Turkic name, "empire of the Ten Tents", or [/i]Onogur[/i]. The Hungarians had been caught up in the Onogur empire, and it is possible that as they moved westward to the land they called Etelköz/Land Between the Rivers during/after the Khazar period in the 9th century, they may have come into contact with the Slavs, who (correctly) identified them as some group from the then-defunct Onogur empire. This may be corroborated by the Byzantines, who called the early Magyars "Turkoi", Turks -- as indeed the Onogur empire was an early Bulgar Turkic empire. In any event, it is thought by some (but not by all) that the "Onogur" name traveled westward with the Magyars as "vengyer", then "ungarisch", "hongrois", etc.

Hi there! It's good to see you here again! I was hoping that you weigh in, since it is your field, I'm just a non-Hun... :)
And laziness is the virtue of kings as the Hungarian saying goes... :king:

I've been working on a project I'll write you about off-line. Hope all is well there -

Vrylakas, that other thread you linked to from here is absolutely amazing. I don't know if I've ever seen so much information in this forum condensed in this number of posts.

As I understand it, many arguments of the form "barbarian group x is a later version of barbarian group y" is a result of lazy Byzantine or Frankish chroniclers using the same two-three names for every new group that came in.

Iirc, some people have argued that the Vandals were Polish (!) on the early Poles were called "Wends", which is think is actually a third group altogether.

Iirc, some people have argued that the Vandals were Polish (!) on the early Poles were called "Wends", which is think is actually a third group altogether.

Some byzantine chroniclers used the word "Wends" for Serbs. Or maybe that word symbolized the Slavs?

Vrylakas, that other thread you linked to from here is absolutely amazing. I don't know if I've ever seen so much information in this forum condensed in this number of posts.

Yep, that was a good time. :) Most of the credit should go to Vrylakas who put together some amazing stuff about the topic.

Iirc, some people have argued that the Vandals were Polish (!) on the early Poles were called "Wends", which is think is actually a third group altogether.

Woohoo! Now we're Vandals! ;)

The term “Wends” derives from a mysterious people who lived in what is today western Poland right about the time the Slavs showed up in the late 6th century A.D., and after living among the Slavs for some period, they moved northwards into Scandinavia. They were called the Venedi, and seem to have played an important role in passing on lots of technical skills and technology to the early Lechitic (Slavic) tribes. There are a lot of place names throughout that region that are approximately associated with the area the Venedi lived, and which are very likely Indo-European in origin but not necessarily Slavic. We’re not sure what their ethnicity may have been in connection to any of the surrounding peoples — Slavs, Balts, Germanics — but the loan words they left in modern Polish seem to strongly suggest Indo-European origins.

The Germans, therefore, came to associate all Slavs with this Venedi people, and for centuries referred to all Slavs as Die Wenden. In the later 19th century and onwards, this title (Wenden or “Wends”) became specifically applied to the old Polabian Slav-remnant peoples (leftovers from the 9th century Charlemagne wars on the Elbe) living in modern Lusatia in eastern Germany, who actually call themselves Serbs—long story there—but are called by others variously “Wends”, “Sorbs”, “Lusatian Slavs” or simply “Lusatians”. They are, sadly, a dying people (culturally), as most younger Lusatian Slavs are more interested in blending into the larger German popular and business/career culture than in preserving their parents’ language and ways, so that their language is only spoken nowadays by the older Lusatians and will likely be extinct within a generation or so.