Are Huns and Mongols Related?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Scythians => Huns => Mongols => Russians

The problem with this assertion is that Scythians and Russians are of Caucasoid race, while Huns and Mongols of Mongoloid race.

So your claim is like all these Black Egypt, Black Carthage, Black Moors, White Xiongnu just because one of them was White, etc. claims.

Not to mention that Scythian and Russian languages are Indo-European, while Mongolian is a Mongolic and possibly Altaic language:

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages

Mongolic languages:

 
Wouldn't a fair assumption have been they are both the direct result of Alexander the Great. Those nomadic horselord tribes from above Macedonia, the Balkans. Unconquerored but structured, no longer brought under heel, once Rome crumbled by it's own citizens the result of Christainity, fire @ Nero reign. No longer Rome held those caste system gods defining their society founding their empire, mustering their legions under their old gods of war, etc. Rome became lazy, revolt branches throughout it's former empire, destroying power bases, wiping out the records.

The HUNS, remnants of Alexander the Great, later resulting in Mongols, after they to became converted by christainity, caused the fall of Rome, with their allies the christain Visgoths.

The problem with so much of history is that it is always stepping around christainity records. Any records are not half as accurate as we would have liked them to be established from.

Have they even found Attila's grave, or was it yet another plunder of christainity?
 
None of that makes any sense. The Huns were 700 years after Alexander.
 
I couldn't even follow the train of thought by the time I reached that point, so I completely missed that.
 
The funniest thing is Attila is a Roman name? The nomadic horselords were there when Alexander the Great was there. The structure is the same, Alexander's Greek Empire went as far as China. Going by the name with a sense of structure dating back to the Greeks. We can only assume how the HUNS actually made a later name. We can also assume their remnants were infact the early horde because any early Greek empire conquerored to that region.

Let us do simple math to gain the answer, I am just the 1 + 1 guy here, your job is to discredit. AD is quite screwed because christanity is screwed. The records of christainity are incomplete due to the Great Library being destroyed, Rome's fire from christainity revolt which only brought on its much later sacking, the Jewish Temple destroyed. A lot of history concerning AD and early Dark Ages is fanfiction, to the extent of working around an event that was entirely questionable.
 
The funniest thing is Attila is a Roman name? The nomadic horselords were there when Alexander the Great was there. The structure is the same, Alexander's Greek Empire went as far as China. Going by the name with a sense of structure dating back to the Greeks. We can only assume how the HUNS actually made a later name. We can also assume their remnants were infact the early horde because any early Greek empire conquerored to that region.

Let us do simple math to gain the answer, I am just the 1 + 1 guy here, your job is to discredit. AD is quite screwed because christanity is screwed. The records of christainity are incomplete due to the Great Library being destroyed, Rome's fire from christainity revolt which only brought on its much later sacking, the Jewish Temple destroyed. A lot of history concerning AD and early Dark Ages is fanfiction, to the extent of working around an event that was entirely questionable.

Ok, let's do some simple math:

1) Alexander did not "conquerored" that region
2) There's like 700 years separating Alexander and Attila
3) Attila is not, in fact, a Latin name. It's a Gothic word: Atta (father) + ila (a particle used to form personal names). See also: Wulfila.
4) Your random assertions about dating being wrong make very little sense. The distinction between "AD" and "BC" as a dating system didn't really become a Thing until the 9th century AD. Roman documents we have discussing Attila (largely Jordanes and Priscus) would have been dated either in terms of the reign of the current Emperor (in which case we can in fact draw a consistent line of succession through the republic, principate, and imperial periods and "do the math" to conclude 700 years of separation), or years removed from the mythical founding of Rome in 753 in which case the math would be fairly simple arithmetic.
5) The destruction(s) of the library of Alexandria weren't nearly as harmful to the historical record as you seem to think they were. They're more tragic due to the large loss of philosophical, poetic, and literary works, attestations of which are mentioned elsewhere, but whose original texts we sadly do not have.
 
Please stop and think for a minute, just one single minute before you spew out more nonsense, because you haven't really added except to make up further replies.

1) Alexander did conqueror that region, fact. Kazakhstan part of the stretching Hun civilization has remnants of his Empire, along with pretty much everywhere else.
2) Everything is tied into an AD starting date, that quite frankly there is no actual record of outside of christianity, having earsed most of the records to lend credance to it's mythology. Unlike BC where there are more actual records prior to christainity revolt. Carbon dating simply rounds to the nearest record of christainity. Now do you begin to comprehend what I am driving at? You saying 700 years is like a grain of sand to the way those nomadic people advanced through the numerous warring parties throughout those regions. There is actual proof Alexander came from a Nomadic horselord background.
4) My random what? We have actual proof that some records were earsed, even Attila has been earsed to extents, as in his own burial site has never been found due to christainity wiping out certain records. The Great Library of the entire region, not the philosophical bleh babble, the very records, manuscripts, library of centuries worth of civilizations, combined with mass revolt in Rome, the destruction of the Judea Temple and the Palace of Harod. If these facts are being destroyed to support a myth, what was happening everywhere else? However any facts continued to be collected until the renaissance and afterwards. If it wasn't them it was their later other half. Only recently within the last few decades upto a century are people starting to really question AD and continue, as we have advanced through science.
5) The 700 years you are so adament to prove otherwise, hasn't advanced the Mongols for the next 700. Please tell me how that history was structured with the fall of an empire? By counting out the facts not random numbers.
6) We can further summarised, that some of that way of life hasn't even left some of those regions to date. History is often repeated in cycles, and so begins the fun of histories structuring.
 
apart from bringing some energy to the WH , which can not be bad , let's say that Alexander took a look at the road where China waited at the end and took the route to India , now that conquered Persians suggested it would be a lot easier ...
 
I agree, however if the Horselord culture was about in Alexander's era, but he must have had a hand in their structuring. Then later on the Mongols only came back that way to European doorsteps. Their nomadic culture was probably there previously.

I also find it curious Attila is almost a Romanish name

What is the answer outside of fanfiction from a number generator that has been proven to be salt.

I will leave certain people to chew and archeaology to prove wrong. One day myths won't travel as far as horseback
 
ı presume your last sentence is kinda aimed at me . OK , let's see how you will improve apart from the stoopid ancestors of the stoopid Turks could do nothing good , because they were stoopid to begin with and only through a flicker of evil luck to be trained by the Alexander , surely the greatest ?

edit : A sentence added to the post above . Myths currently travel at the speed of light through TV shows and stuff .
 
BTW, I can nitpick individual points (which seem almost universally wrong), but I can't make heads or tails of the thrust of the argument or conclusions. Can anyone translate his posts?
 
that's what you get when you mess with Lockmart , you tell them their plane is like cr_p . People can not believe what they hear , it snowballs into moderate trolling which will end up with how the modern Turkey must remain stuck on the path of like becoming a new empire because secular Turkey depends so much on the stoopid notions of Turks can and we learn even the days when Turks , the horsebandit variety , could was only because Alexander taught them so .

if not , well , my apologies to Alejandro as a matter of course . But obviously he can make a point by point presentation of his ideas and am not much of an historian anyhow .
 
R16 it was not at you, but at Mario and the other english phrasebook. Who have sought to troll and the numbers haven't added up since AD.

You are ignorning the Aegan where any crossing may not have been used. This by any nomadic horselords moving about in their tribes to gain horses maintain their herds, avoid conflict before uniting their clans into kingdoms, migrating in the weather, etc. Turkey spawned much later hordes after the fall of constantine and byzantium, the result of Islam a hybrid of previous revolts. The Mongols dated when, cough? Both Rome and the Greeks had already conquerored Persia into their states.

Myths often found religion, horses tend to have their feet on the ground, sometimes spanning continental regions. Genghis the last great Horselord? Surviving remnants, tribes and clansfolk still mantain those older ways in parts of Asian and former Soviet countries, all but a handful have been swallowed into modern civilization.
 
Since I still lack the ability to respond to the overall point (due to lack of comprehension), I'll reply to another point. Rome never conquered Persia. Turkey (in the sense of the Turks) existed well before the fall of Constantinople.

I agree that horse-based armies wouldn't benefit from crossing the Aegean, so I guess that's something we agree on.
 
As long as the topic may-or-may-not be on the Mongols (I can't tell); why did the Mongols head west from China to invade the Middle East and Europe? It isn't like there was much of anything in the steppe. Even to reach Khwarazem and Transoxania requires traveling through some pretty inhospitable desert.
 
Mario, Rome used Greek structuring, the city states in those regions allowed moderated rule backed by their legions. I agree Rome didn't go as far into Asia, but Rome went deeper colonising further into Europe. 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.

Owen Glyndwr, Attila like Caligula and many Roman others, sounds Roman, definitely not quite a Hun or that Gothic, sarcasm Obelix, and Asterix. Let us now create our own mythology; How a lost legion outlawed by christainity holds onto the old gods of war, Conan the Hun, adapting Alexander's history uniting the tribal clans into the Huns, and sacks Rome. Only later becoming earsed by christanity once settling upon their victory there. Although the same horde of tribal horse clans retreat away from conflict, holding onto their own older ways, later form the Mongols.

We can summarised with Rome changing capitol due to it's final sacking, when the previous christain revolt changed leadership and unstructured their empire, and the burial place of Attila not being found. That any reasoning here is as good a myth as any other concerning those darker ages, combined with the inability to keep all valid records, outside of everything christian.
 
The distinction between "AD" and "BC" as a dating system didn't really become a Thing until the 9th century AD.

Seventeenth century, in fact. AD was common from the ninth century onwards, but BC wasn't invented until modern times.

2) Everything is tied into an AD starting date, that quite frankly there is no actual record of outside of christianity, having earsed most of the records to lend credance to it's mythology.

What does "everything is tied into an AD starting date" mean? Are you saying that our timelines are wrong, and that the various events spoken of here - Alexander's conquests, the invasions of the Huns, etc. - actually took place at different times than we think? If not, what are you saying?

What records do you think the Christians "erased", and how did they do it? How did doing this "lend credence to its mythology"? What evidence do you have? And why is it relevant to the topic of this thread?

Unlike BC where there are more actual records prior to christainity revolt.

There wasn't a "Christian revolt". Nero used the tiny Christian community in Rome as a scapegoat. It was centuries before Christians held any significant power in the Roman empire, and when they got it, it wasn't as a result of revolution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom