Discussion in 'World History' started by ptoss1, Jul 4, 2012.
Huns and Mongols seem to be the two major nomadic warring societies we know of in history... so?
"Huns" were a group that were first attested somewhere north of the Black Sea in the fourth century that went on to develop a brief hegemony in the Hungarian Plain during the fifth century. They ceased to exist in any meaningful sense during the early medieval period in Europe.
"Mongols" were an ethnopolitical designation for many of the tribes that fought for the Chinggisid states of Central and East Asia from the thirteenth century onward. "Mongol" later developed into a classic ethnicity and retained relevance into the eighteenth century, and was later incorporated into elements of Mongolian identity when that state was created in the aftermath of the Xinhai Revolution.
They had about the same relationship to each other as the Quechua and the Powhatan did, that is to say, pretty much none whatsoever.
Related in the sense of 2 Steppe Nomadic tribes that western history classes likes to talk about, due to their interaction with the Christian World, but they were really 2 of hundreds of other steppe nomadic tribes, so...take from that what you will
Umm...what Dachs said D:
yoo there was another thread where it went about if huns were the xiongnu mongolic tribe originally.
Wiki still states the relationship, but its undefinitive, a assumption.
Hunnic cauldron from the 5th century, found in Hungary.
Since Joseph de Guignes in the 18th century, historians have associated the Huns who appeared on the borders of Europe in the 4th century with the Xiongnu who migrated out of the Mongolia region some three hundred years before. Due to the conflict with Han China, the Northern branch of the Xiongnu had retreated north-westward; their descendants may have migrated through Eurasia and consequently they may have some degree of cultural and genetic continuity with the Huns.The evidence for continuity between Huns and Xiongnu has not been definitive. A school of modern scholarship instead uses an ethnogenetic, rather than essentialist, approach in explaining the Huns' origin.
The cause of the Hunnic move into Europe may have been expansion of the Rouran, who had created a massive empire across the Asian continent in the mid-4th century, including the Tatar lands as well, which they took over from the Xianbei. It is supposed that this westward spread of Rouran power pushed the Huns into Europe over the years"
That article really ought to say "the evidence for continuity between Huns and Xiongnu does not exist".
Are the Huns and Mongols related? Maybe. The relationship between the Xiongnu and Huns is disputed, but there is some evidence for it, and some evidence against it. If it is assumed that the Xiongnu and Huns are related, or largely the same, then yes, there would be some relation between the Huns and the Mongols, they both would be of the same larger Altaic group (if you buy the Altaic theory, which I personally do). They would however, be no more related than any of the others, the relation between the Huns and Mongols would be no greater than say, the Koreans and Tatars. But, yes, they would be relatives of some form.
The Huns probably had more Slavic peoples in their ranks than anything else.
You can attribute it to them for the Slavic people's migration to central and southeastern Europe.
"Versions of their names sound kind of similar" doesn't really count as evidence.
Nonsense. For one thing, the period of Slavic settlement antedates the Huns by about a century. And the Sklaveniai, when they finally did appear, bore no resemblance to the people documented to have fought in the Huns' armies. Now, that doesn't mean you're wrong - we just don't know enough about the Huns to say - but it means that there's not a whole helluva lot to suggest that you're right.
You are probably right as per usual.
What exactly do we know about the Slavic migrations into Europe? As far as I know they were somewhere north of the Caucasus in the 400's, flooded Europe in/by the 500's and founded whatever states people called "White Croatia" and "White Serbia" in the 600's.
Depends on your definition of "Slav". It's a pretty complicated question and pretty much every Eastern European country has their own tenuous claim on being the Ancient Slavic Homeland for obvious nationalistic dick-swinging reasons.
If you're talking about "people who were speaking some sort of language that is recognizably an ancestor of a Slavic language", then we have less than no clue, because nobody was writing down anything in that area at that time, so we don't know if Group X spoke a proto-Slavic language or not. Most of the claims that certain groups were speaking Slavic or weren't - most notably the Antes - rely on claims of geographic proximity to later Slavic-speaking groups (worse than useless) or tonal proximity of certain words to later Slavic words (not definitive at all for obvious reasons).
If you're talking about "people who were identified by foreigners as Slavs", then we have them first showing up in the mid-sixth century near the mouth of the Danube.
the truth lies in between, so there are some relations between huns and mongols. Geographically the whole Eurasia between Danube and central Asia had been under dominance of different hunnic or mongolic factions over centuries. So slavs were born there, who can be called mixed of mongolic hunnic ancestors. Why these huns ancestors would originate in XiongNu is not definitive. Also Persians or whoever had been there, have some mongolic blood in them surely too. No matter though at all. But two completely different factions were mongols and huns surely not in the origination, but differed stongly from each other later in nationalistic sense surely.
Huns and Mongols History briefly:
Asiatic Grass stepps Nomad Tribes between Easteurope(Poland) and Easiasia (Yellow Sea)
Sometime before Christ was Born
Huns were driven out of China
36/35 before Christ
Destruction of second hunnic realm in turkestan and Dschungarei thru the Chinese
Huns are going westward into the southrussians stepps
375 after Christ
Destruction of Eastgoths in Southrussia and submission of germanic/sarmatian peoples thru Huns
Attila becomes after killing his brother Bleda monocrat of Huns and begins to start attacks against Byzantium and the West. Byzanz equals Attila as partner.
451 Battle on Catalaunian Fields
Attila had to withdraw from river Po to river Theiss, centre of his empire. He lost the key battle.
He dies without able to establish a western order among his people.(officials, officers, aristocrats)
Rest of hunnic throng withdraw into southrussian stepps and found together with the Uigurs a bulgaric realm that got a hightime under Kuvrat until 679 his death. After destruction of this realm thru chasars a bulgaric part founds a danubebulgaric realm, and another part that of volgabulgaric realm, which will be destroyed by the Mongols in 13th century. The rest surrenders to the chasars.
They wander after destruction of their eastasian realm thru turktribes 552 into Theiss region and were reinforced by Huns and Bulgars. With the Anten and Sklavenoi it becomes a awaric-slavic society, which experiences a hightime under Kagan Bajan 565-602. Between 791 and 796 it was destroyed by Charlemagne of Franks.
They had been halfnomads, who founded a realm north of Caucasus. They had deep trade relationship with Byzantium. Their destruction are due to the attacks of Varangians/varyags.
965 Swjatoslaw of Kiew conquers Sarkel at mouth of Don river
969 Itil, the residence on Volga mouth, falls
Petschnegs are since 9th century in their way into the Balkan until 1091 where they got a decicive defeat in the battle of Levunion thru Alexios Komnenos
They had a realm in Southrussia between 1154-1222 with good relationship to the realm of Kiew. They were destroyed by the Mongols.
They push into West in the 9th century and not only like the huns and awars the south stepp zone (Deserta Avarorum) but the whole Carpathian Mountains. After Chasaric Realm had been detroyed they find way to find relationships to western cultres and religion
1196 Temudschin becomes Dschings Khan and assembles these tribes under his banner in Karakorum:
Burjäts,Oirats,Merkits,Kirgits,Mongols,Naimans,Keräits and Tatars
Timur Lenk establishs Second Mongol World Empire
1405 MongolTimurids world empire disintegrates
How Asiatic were the Huns? It seems, if the Xiongnu theory is debunked, we know even less about them. They were obviously Eastern from a Roman perspective, but how Eastern? Do we even know they weren't an Indo-European language group?
We don't know anything about the Hunnic language other than a few specific words, which aren't enough to determine if they were Slavic, Germanic, Turkic or space aliens. The Huns were clearly NOT the Xiongnu. So, yes, we know next-to-nothing about them.
sure there is more than nothing about huns
They can be divided into several large groups, on linguistic grounds:
Altaic (perhaps a Sprachbund)
Proto-Indo-Europeans (Chalcolithic/Bronze Age)
Indo-Iranians (Bronze Age/Iron Age)
Iron Age/Classical Antiquity
Cimmerians | Issedones / Wusun | Parthians / Parni | Saka / Issedones / Massagetae / Scythians / Sarmatians | Sigynnae | Yuezhi / Hephthalites
Alans | Avars | Gepids | Goths | Huns | Rugians | Xiongnu
Bashkirs | Burtas | Bulgars (they were nomadic only between the conquest of the hypothetical Kingdom of Balhara and the formation of Great Bulgaria)| Jurchen | Kalmuks (Mongols) | Khazars | Kimaks | Kipchaks | Magyars | Mongols | Nogais | Petchenegs | Seljuks | Slavs | Tartars
Kalmuks (Mongols) | Kazakhs | Kyrgyz | Qaraqalpaqs
Caucasians, historically, have been common in central Asia. So you cannot really say that some group 1-3000 years ago out of central Asia is specifically Caucasian or oriental. It might be either, it might be an indeterminate mixture of the 2.
What do these wikipedia links have to do with anything? Are you telling me I can throw random words and links around and connect anything to anything? Huayna Capac was Welsh I say!
Now that that nonsense is over, would you mind, you know, actually establishing an argument rather than giving us a bunch of silly wikipedia links that don't actually tell us anything, even if any of us wanted to dig through the 20 links you posted?
talk nonsense yurself, Im not intrested in yur trollhating
yu yurself have got no arguments at all
silly is who? yu not me
links are good
it shows determinate mixture of the 2 asiaticeuropean Eurasia Nomads
Huns and Mongols were at same region, both were nomads
yur WE is nonsense too
Im not you
related and not not related
im, not intrested in what yu are goin to dig at all
yur prob you can keep yurself thats why you are such a foolly foolly troll
who hates becuz such disgusting moron there is Owen
Moderator Action: Infracted for trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Is it unusual that we know this little about a rather important group? Given how involved the Huns were in Roman politics, it seems odd we know so little about them.
How much does the average American know about the Islamic world, history and culture?
I am going to guess that Romans probably considered them barbarian scum and didn't care to learn more about them. Given the timeframe the Huns were important to Roman politics, you also close the window of opportunity to would-be Roman scholars to learn about them.
Separate names with a comma.