Are Huns and Mongols Related?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Owen Glyndwr, Attila like Caligula and many Roman others, sounds Roman, definitely not quite a Hun or that Gothic, sarcasm Obelix, and Asterix.
Moderator Action: Image removed. Post restored. Please watch the language.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Caligula is an actual Latin name: caliga (a leather boot)+ -ula (diminutive suffix; related to English -le like wimple and dimple; German -le like in Kätle and Hündle)

As much as it might sound Latin-ish, it is not, in fact, a Latin-rooted name. Now if you have a different, more specific reasoning behind your assertion that is based on morphemic or phonologic (or even phonotactic) analysis of the name, I'd love to hear it, but right now the accepted root is:

Atta (father; compare Ætla in Old English and Atli in Old Norse) + ila (naming suffix; compare to the Gothic author Wulfila)

The Obelix and Asterix comment I simply cannot parse. Those two (fictional) characters aren't even Germanic. The names are pseudo-Celtic, but ultimately French via Greek in origin: aster (star) + isque (diminutive suffix); obelos (needle) + isque (diminutive suffix) ; Whether French or Greek, those are totally different language familes, bub.
 
If you Owen Glyndwr can get around the concept of why it isn't a completely Latin name. Why he was outlawed by Christainity, with most records of him destroyed, why his burial place was never found. Any answer is easily answered by him intermingling to support an equally prior myth.

Perhaps you might make a historian yet, instead of a number generating robot, as it also seems humour is quite innately lost on you.

That was a direct troll, flammatory, insulting and stupid. *Putting up pictures which aren't historic. That picture has served to flame at a lack of appropriate response, is absolutely against the rules, showing your intelligence level amounting to that robot, all because you fail to understand thought.
Moderator Action: Calling someone a troll is to be a troll yourself and only makes the troll fest worse. In future, please report the post and allow staff to handle it.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

I would have thought the name of a Roman Emperor meant so much more than a leather boot? Possibly a deity or a demi-god, oh well christainity has a habit of writing things
 
If you Owen Glyndwr can get around the concept of why it isn't completely Latin. Why outlawed by Christainity, most records destroyed, why his burial place was never found.

Perhaps you might make a historian yet, instead of a number generating robot, as it also seems humour is quite lost on you.

That is a direct troll, flamatory insulting stupid. Putting up pictures against the rules, they show your intelligence level amounting to a robot all because you fail to understand simple thought.

Look dude. In (good) history you can't just make random assertions with no supporting evidence. You are saying Attila is a Roman (or Romanish, whatever that's supposed to mean) name. I've disputed that and provided some morphemic evidence that strongly suggests that the name is of East Germanic (whether that be Gothic or Gepidic) origin. If you have evidence that contradicts that, please provide it. Otherwise you just sound like a crank.
 
Originally posted by Alejandro
Later they ruled from Turkey falling to the Turks, before returning back to Rome, when their own capitol Rome was finally sacked, because of prior revolt and inept leadership.
This sounds like a very garbled retelling of the founding of Constantinople and the 410 sack of Rome (or maybe 476), with some additional confusion from 1453. I don't know why we are disputing the origins of names, when the poster seems to misinterpret (or had someone misinterpret for him) basic chronology. Not to mention, though, that Caligula was not the emperor's official name, anyway.
 
Lone Wolf not really, Islam was started as religion when?

Let us back up when Constantinople and Byzantium were fighting over, which ruled the new holy Roman Empire from?

Rome was sacked when, leading their new capitols to Turkey?

The Turks came about after the Mongols according to your date, although certain Sultan's were pressing the Holy wars before then.

Owen, please be civil, as you have proved you cannot be earlier, I will reiterate your thinking is flawed. Please move past that and perhaps we can lead an amicable conversation? A leather boot doesn't make an Emperor, or every Roman is pissing on them.
Moderator Action: Please do not make this thread personal. Again, if you have an issue with a post, report it and explain what the issue is and let staff handle it.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

I am just the math guy adding up the facts, not the manipulated numbers, reading between the lines to summarize. What we think we know has been set into predetermined AD dates, these have been proven over a time to be quite a myth. Although yes they have undoubtedly constructed much of history. I will reiterate that I am indeed netural here.
 
I would have thought the name of a Roman Emperor meant so much more than a leather boot? Possibly a deity or a demi-god, oh well christainity has a habit of writing things

Just to explain this: Caligula's name was actually Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus. Caligula was just his nickname (which we still use because it clears up which Julius Caesar we're talking about).
 
Let us back up when Constantinople and Byzantium were fighting over, which ruled the new holy Roman Empire from?

Constantinople and Byzantium are different names for the same city. They could never have fought each other.

Rome was sacked when, leading their new capitols to Turkey?

Rome ceased to be the capital of the western Roman empire in 286 CE, when Diocletian moved it to Milan. He declared the capital of the eastern Roman empire to be Nicomedia.

In 324 CE, Constantine refounded Byzantium as the new city of Constantinople (official name Nova Roma) and made it the new capital of the whole empire in 330 CE.

In 402 CE the Visigoths attacked Milan, and the western capital moved to Ravenna.

In 410 CE the Huns sacked Rome.

So the capital was moved a number of times, and none of them had anything to do with the Huns.

It's also very anachronistic to refer to "Turkey" in this context. This is like saying that the Iroquois were living in the United States at the time of Columbus.

What we think we know has been set into predetermined AD dates, these have been proven over a time to be quite a myth.

No, they haven't - unless you can give us some of this "proof".
 
well , a full historical debate in the way , which proves Alejanrdo will stay .

my name is always r16 , due reasons that would probably bore people to death and ı don't answer e-mails and the like due to the same kind of reasons . Domen , ı haven't opened your message but as a quite active member of this subforum it's of course entirely your right to bring up any specific discussions in this thread , even if as said am not much of an historian anyhow .

so , thinking this would remain at page 4 , ı spent a few hours of my time yesterday on a typical r16 piece , on the assumption that this was possibly something else ...

as ı once learnt as the very first thing , discourse without context is meaningless . Lacking a preparation of what's what we revert to our own ; we use our "standarts" to delegate meaining to what's been said or written or projected on the screen . Now that ı am writing this at home on Tuesday , am not aware of any additions , will go on as if there is nothing and am at my usual spammy way .

an unhealty number of Americans consider themselves Templars , some sort of bonding , a way of social networking , a template for unity of interests . Rears its ugly head time after time . Just as an example when the US can no longer bear the cost of the Crusade in Iraq , with private contractors carrying so little of the burden with so much of the coin . That's why Blackwater sees shadows in the shadows and executes Iraqi civilians , as Condileeza writes memo after memo on how the crusading , with its attendant "mini states" or currently companies , hurts the overall effort . And of course , time after time such serendipity hits a wall in the middle of the road . There has to be an explanation , just like every good story needs a villain . Now that Templiers got burned , Templars must hate the Papists and whenever something untoward happens , they turn to , well ...

venice , as it seems . Now , CFC sure as hell doesn't know the Venetian Intelligence Service is still alive . No , but what's the point of attempting to tell it to the "believers" ... The issue lies with the gods of war , the Kurds , who have proven to be sissies in their top echelons . America invaded Afghanistan and Iraq with a design to defeat Islam in a stand up fight ; Islam being the variety that didn't "co-operate" and not of the Saudi variant . The wholesale plunder would also deny material advantages to a varacious China and resurgent-in-a-way Russia under Putin. All to result in a hundred years extension to the American Dream . Inevitably , our turn would also come , if only through the geographic accident that the first 3 Crusades had to suffer the horsebandit attention on the way . Hence the heroic Kurd was to be saved from the evil tyranny of the Turks and the honourable villagers would repay their debt to Uncle Sam by gloriously dying , burning us to ashes on the way .

sooo , what happens ? America makes the Sunnis betray the Shia and surrender Musul so that the Kurds can save Kerkük at the nick of time . Then instead of giving a bloody nose to a some bunch of ISIL maniacs , the shiny uniforms , America's blue eyed boys simply run . Only because Kurds are kinda far more intelligent than America ever credits them with . America will kiss their feet for "their" oil , what's the point of dying in Sinjar if there is the option of watching American airpower pulverizing morons ? Why return home in a coffin instead of living the good life ? Of course any Templar will tell you this is a lie and it was their plan all along ; to burnish the star of the seperatists in their Stalingrad where it took 4 months or so for them to snap their fingers and wreck the ISIL opposition . And of course , it's the evil work of Popery . Wrecking all the good work of years , strenous effort of Americans with copious amounts of sweat and blood .

and they were not alone in it either ! When organizational diagrams are drawn and people tasked at a similar level of acting as jerks , the average Briton will be generally twice-read compared to the American making him a triple danger in "strategic" risk . There's a reason why there is this thing called Albion Perfide , right ? Currently reading the book of Emma Sky , a no-doubt well meaning person who ended up governing Kerkük by a lucky combination of stars , years spent in the Middle East trying to be of help , with a no-doubt full reputation with the Palestinians , all 120 or so pounds of her with a perfect set of rabbit teeth . The book suggests she would take a swinging rifle butt in the face for the 173rd . That American parachute brigade which was supposed to give the equivalent of Nuts of Bastogne to the undesirables .

years pass , things happen and it's all our fault , especially when we have no idea of what's going on anyhow . America has been so busy giving us an empire with teaching us Kemalism and hence the Republic was a Zionist plot , hence we should embrace our Kurdish and Arab brothers . Doesn't work , 'cause the Papists jam the signals ? Why , let Venice take over Greece as they had it once and now that they are supposedly rich as hell , pay a bit or two to pay the debts ? This will surely lead to a cry or two from the idiots who serve as the Papists' footmen ? Sure , Alexander was a relative as he descended from Scythians and something . Christianity is a sham anyhow , hiding "our" greatness due to jealousy . And burned the Great Library or something that records of greatness were lost to the history . And mind you , them Romans were lazy masters , too . Using us as proxies to their bidding , we fighting and bleeding and they vomiting their dinner so that they could immediately take another . Kara Murat is a legendary series of comics of even before my youth ; he is a fedayeen of Mehmet the Conqueror , he goes everywhere , fights everyone , he ... erm , in full spirit of the 1960s no virgin princess remains in the territories he roams and in the movies he is portrayed by Cüneyt Arkın , whom you would better remember as the guy who saves the world ; or the Turkish Star Wars thingie . That movie actually gives me cramps for some reason ... Until 2014 or so ; when the New Turkey gets a grip on the franchise and releases a remake . Which is so bad the critics have a field day and the producer tweets that they , meaning the whole New Turkey , knows them , the critics . And will get even . Assume broken bones here . ı see the ads , have watched Spartacus on TV , will not pay money for a rip-off ...

if you think this is some priceless trolling within CFC to get yours truly to rant pointlessly , the expert who shames all the experts / advisor to the PM is on TV every week , woving to fight the Romans to the bitter end . Just like that you might have already seen it everywhere that Greeks should return to the fold of the Ottoman Empire ... Oh no , the whole world is not trying to give Kyriakos a heart attack !

and mind you this all comes after a solid decade of how claims that the Pyramids were built by the Migrants from Central Asia (hence Turks) were rubbished everywhere ...

as said context is everything . Lacking one this is what ı come up with . Wouldn't have surprised . So we have this
What is the answer outside of fanfiction from a number generator that has been proven to be salt.
which proves to be problematical . Fanfiction doesn't hurt , number generator ı can live with if it means something like a lowly accountant - considering ı can not actually be a space travelling turbolazer expert or something . But proven to be "salt" ? Is this an idiom ? A phrase translated into English (say) from Spanish ? Let's have this placeholder for the duration .

da , Evelyn Salt would kick the hell out of me !
 
Constantinople and Byzantium are different names for the same city. They could never have fought each other.

They fought over which was called what, otherwise they would have been called one, or the other, not both, and they are called something else today.

Rome ceased to be the capital of the western Roman empire in 286 CE, when Diocletian moved it to Milan. He declared the capital of the eastern Roman empire to be Nicomedia.

We can summarize this was due to internal revolt the direct casuality of Christainity

In 324 CE, Constantine refounded Byzantium as the new city of Constantinople (official name Nova Roma) and made it the new capital of the whole empire in 330 CE.

Constantine that devout self ordained turkey hails the second coming attacks Byzantium making it his Capitol

In 402 CE the Visigoths attacked Milan, and the western capital moved to Ravenna.

In 410 CE the Huns sacked Rome.

So the capital was moved a number of times, and none of them had anything to do with the Huns.

The capitol was moved due to poor structure escaping from various revolts stemmed by self appionted messiahs and threat of other uprising. Nobody knew who was their king, emperor anymore. Having cost them their empire, internal revolting directly caused by christanity and the threat of war. The lack of any real army because the legions aren't structured properly by their old gods of war, who have been replaced and removed, by thou shalt not kill or whatever other christain thought. Rome becomes a turkey, creating an orgy of riotious living as peseant becomes lord. Most records, general keeping is removed, refounded, and replaced. Although please let's blame all those barbarians that is the proper christain thing to do.

It's also very anachronistic to refer to "Turkey" in this context. This is like saying that the Iroquois were living in the United States at the time of Columbus.

Turkey later formed the Turks having sacked christainity removing previous holy capitols from their own empire, lasting until the Ottomans. They had a much easier strategy to dealing with heretics from the start having adapted. Funnily though originally Egyptian Sultan's offered alliegance to christainity to halt the threat of Islam

No, they haven't - unless you can give us some of this "proof"
Proof is right there infront of your eyes. We can agree eventually order formed a New Holy Roman government after the centuries of dark ages revolt, the brink of revelation, it became much easier to condemn the heretic's uniting against satan known as anybody anti-christ
 
it's a CFC tradition to declare that the Turks who are living today are much the descendants of those who were here when the Turks from the Central Asia conquered the area . As the resident forum idiot and the Turkish Nationalist or something not even ı can deny that ı have blue eyes and ı wouldn't have "passed" as a Turk or something back in the day . So ı would say this is a waste of time .
 
The devil is in the details the dates have only formed creation to revelation. History re-worded inbetween but mostly myths upon construction and endings often proven to be otherwise.

Drifting largely off topic now.

This topic was did any tribal horselords share a common structure into founding their desputed kingdoms and reign? I think most can agree there is factual evidence to suggest proof that any routes have remained there for centuries despite anything else stating a different timeline of cycled repetition.
 
They fought over which was called what, otherwise they would have been called one, or the other, not both, and they are called something else today.

They didn't "fight". They were the same place at different times.

This is like saying that New Amsterdam "fought" New York over which one was to be called what.

We can summarize this was due to internal revolt the direct casuality of Christainity

No, it wasn't. Diocletian split the empire and moved the capitals because he realised that the empire was too big for one person to govern. There had indeed been "internal revolts" - for example, the splitting away of the "Gallic Empire" and later of Britannia - but these had nothing to do with Christianity. They were more to do with the economic crisis and the collapse of the denarius.

Diocletian did persecute the Christians, but this came later, and it was not in response to any "revolt" on the Christians' part.

Constantine that devout self ordained turkey hails the second coming attacks Byzantium making it his Capitol

You're actually half-right about this, because Constantine acquired Byzantium (and the rest of the eastern empire) after fighting his former co-emperor, Licinius, for control of the east. He won this civil war at the battle of Chrysopolis in 324, near Chalcedon, not far from Byzantium. So he didn't exactly attack Byzantium but he did fight nearby.

However, this had nothing to do with any claims about a "second coming". The justification for the war was that Licinius had been persecuting Christians, although it is unknown whether this was true.

The capitol was moved due to poor structure escaping from various revolts stemmed by self appionted messiahs and threat of other uprising. Nobody knew who was their king, emperor anymore. Having cost them their empire, internal revolting directly caused by christanity and the threat of war.

No, this isn't correct. There were certainly civil wars throughout this period and they were what ultimately led to the decline of the Roman empire. But they had nothing to do with Christianity and certainly nothing to do with "self-appointed messiahs". The only person I can think of who meets that description is Simon bar Kokhba, the Jewish rebel leader in the second century (i.e. some two hundred years before the time we're talking about). He was crushed by the imperial armies and never posed any serious threat to the empire.

The lack of any real army because the legions aren't structured properly by their old gods of war, who have been replaced and removed, by thou shalt not kill or whatever other christain thought.

This isn't correct either. The Roman legions weren't "structured" according to "gods of war". There was only one Roman god of war, namely Mars. There was no religious dimension to the structure of the army at all.

When the leaders of the empire became Christian, they didn't have any difficulty at all with killing people. Constantine himself not only fought a series of bloody wars to secure his own power but had his own wife and son murdered. One of his other sons, Constantius II, ordered the deaths of almost all of his relatives and any other potential threats to his power. The notion that Christianity somehow robbed the Roman emperors of their brutality is quite mistaken.

Rome becomes a turkey, creating an orgy of riotious living as peseant becomes lord. Most records, general keeping is removed, refounded, and replaced. Although please let's blame all those barbarians that is the proper christain thing to do.

The first sentence of this means nothing to me. The second sentence isn't true.

Proof is right there infront of your eyes. We can agree eventually order formed a New Holy Roman government after the centuries of dark ages revolt, the brink of revelation, it became much easier to condemn the heretic's uniting against satan known as anybody anti-christ

No, I can't agree with that, because I can't make any sense out of it. Give us evidence for your claims or stop spamming the forum with conspiracy theories.
 
They didn't "fight". They were the same place at different times.

This is like saying that New Amsterdam "fought" New York over which one was to be called what.

They obviously fought like everywhere else had obviously fought. The uprising caused by a new religion, wiping out old records, replacing old gods and ways, the of burning cities, new kings becoming established, the deconstruction of their entire empire. It wasn't a belief an opinion that people willingly converted to. It was an uprising that spammed revolt forcing people to bow or be fed to the lions. There you have just admitted it below, bravo.


No, it wasn't. Diocletian split the empire and moved the capitals because he realised that the empire was too big for one person to govern. There had indeed been "internal revolts" - for example, the splitting away of the "Gallic Empire" and later of Britannia - but these had nothing to do with Christianity. They were more to do with the economic crisis and the collapse of the denarius.

Diocletian did persecute the Christians, but this came later, and it was not in response to any "revolt" on the Christians' part.

I have no idea what that means or what dioctolite is, an exorcist, or maybe an inquisitor? The Gauls and Brittania were outside those modern borders, ruling their own states away from that chaos, until later converting and falling to New Roman rule, but later breaking away again. Brittania has a much better record of it's own dark ages.

You're actually half-right about this, because Constantine acquired Byzantium (and the rest of the eastern empire) after fighting his former co-emperor, Licinius, for control of the east. He won this civil war at the battle of Chrysopolis in 324, near Chalcedon, not far from Byzantium. So he didn't exactly attack Byzantium but he did fight nearby.

However, this had nothing to do with any claims about a "second coming". The justification for the war was that Licinius had been persecuting Christians, although it is unknown whether this was true.

Second coming, he obviously renamed a Holy city to accept into his own Christindom, meanwhile Rome later falls in that wake. Persecuting christains is like calling everybody else an anti-christ, or a heretic.

No, this isn't correct. There were certainly civil wars throughout this period and they were what ultimately led to the decline of the Roman empire. But they had nothing to do with Christianity and certainly nothing to do with "self-appointed messiahs". The only person I can think of who meets that description is Simon bar Kokhba, the Jewish rebel leader in the second century (i.e. some two hundred years before the time we're talking about). He was crushed by the imperial armies and never posed any serious threat to the empire.

St.Constantine was obviously a false messiah, if he was doing this so was everybody else upon further threat of war, and so that capitol changed like socks on a boot.

This isn't correct either. The Roman legions weren't "structured" according to "gods of war". There was only one Roman god of war, namely Mars. There was no religious dimension to the structure of the army at all.
When the leaders of the empire became Christian, they didn't have any difficulty at all with killing people. Constantine himself not only fought a series of bloody wars to secure his own power but had his own wife and son murdered. One of his other sons, Constantius II, ordered the deaths of almost all of his relatives and any other potential threats to his power. The notion that Christianity somehow robbed the Roman emperors of their brutality is quite mistaken.

The Roman gods like most of the other Ancient gods granted a boon, reflecting a caste like structuring. Take that away turning everyman into themselves against every other man who is an anti-christ. So what happens to the entire structure? Christainity like most religion is bloody, violent, and absurd, but was worse in it's early founding. Christainity wrote history that is the problem. We are all tied into AD dates that there is little actual record of. There isn't even a record inside of the New Testament. Some guy was called this, and another guy was called that, but there is no background of them at all, and all records of that region were destroyed. These from within some regional state serving under this Roman governor, and that Jewish king, who were basically wiped out, and some plaque is the only record of that Roman governor, but that King had a specific background. Although religion caused the fall of the Roman empire and created Dark Ages of chaos, further spawning other religious threat.

The regional states were structured similar to the former Greek Empire, but contained more direct Roman rule, laws, and tax etc.

The first sentence of this means nothing to me. The second sentence isn't true.

No, I can't agree with that, because I can't make any sense out of it. Give us evidence for your claims or stop spamming the forum with conspiracy theories.

You don't agree, because you won't agree with simple facts. The tribal Horselord clans that were there, from records of the Greeks, even Alexander was from tribal Horselord descent before he like Attila, like Genghis sacked civilization creating empires, but eventually also became swallowed by civilization. Horseback crossed continents, using their own routes, herds, tribes, migrating seasonally, etc, maintaining their own ways of life. Heck the Mongols have proven this to date, also a handful within some former Soviet countries. So did the American Indians within their own tribes that never quite united into one. Question how long did it take in 2014 for somebody to walk across Africa from South to North? They probably didn't stay in a single place, like any other Gauls got conquerored.

Conspiracy theory what are you talking about, I am talking about history. Have you accepted christainity? Okay then, you haven't, so stop trying to prove it.
 
Did Constantine actually name the city Constantinople or did he name it Nova Roma? I've seen conflicting things.
 
Did Constantine actually name the city Constantinople or did he name it Nova Roma? I've seen conflicting things.

Can easily summarize proposing another theory. Another repeat of any pervious history. Frequent in that region when Empires, Emperors fall, dating back to Alexanders 4 generals warring on to a later New Empire. Mark Anthony vs Octavian. Only this time any "brothers" were fighting over that same rule. Although no there wasn't a Juilet, just some other book.

The christain St won while the ungodly lion feeder lost, records, earsed, refounded by a new name. Although by this time so had most of the rest of any crumbling empire. The capitol moving later gets sacked, and well you cannot have yin without yang, so begins the cycle.

Go on set all the dates correct
 

Can you stop posting your nonsense? It's pretty obvious to everyone that

a) your knowledge of actual history is abominable;

b) you make a lot of claims that make literally no sense at all and have no foundation in historical fact whatsoever.
 
Can you stop posting your nonsense? It's pretty obvious to everyone that

a) your knowledge of actual history is abominal;

b) you make a lot of claims that make literally no sense at all and have no foundation in historical fact whatsoever.

A lack of common understanding afforded to any other free thinker, an ability to process thought.

Wiping out his lineage and other state founding, if he wasn't that self ordianed turkey, heck even Constatine's other mum was like the holy virgin or something else Saintly.

My previous anecdote was just that an anecdote, metaphors are seemingly lost in translation

Foundation is the issue, historical fact open to debate/description hence this forum.

The topic has drifted. Since we are discussing horselords, who have a proven history within known regions. Any summary was did they share a common structure, and the evidence is infront of us from their early records. Please reiterate your reply about any generated numbers to show what the lack of perceived depth is?
 
historical fact open to debate

Historical facts are not open to debate; interpretations of historical facts are. In order to interpret historical facts, however, a basic knowledge of such facts is necessary foremost. Something you seem blatantly lacking - as Plotinus has extensively pointed out.

The History forum is not a podium for conspiracy theories. You can post those in the Off Topic forum, where anyone can rant at will.
 
Can easily summarize proposing another theory. Another repeat of any pervious history. Frequent in that region when Empires, Emperors fall, dating back to Alexanders 4 generals warring on to a later New Empire. Mark Anthony vs Octavian. Only this time any "brothers" were fighting over that same rule. Although no there wasn't a Juilet, just some other book.

The christain St won while the ungodly lion feeder lost, records, earsed, refounded by a new name. Although by this time so had most of the rest of any crumbling empire. The capitol moving later gets sacked, and well you cannot have yin without yang, so begins the cycle.

Go on set all the dates correct

That's 100% non-responsive and 95% incomprehensible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom