1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Are Huns and Mongols Related?

Discussion in 'World History' started by ptoss1, Jul 4, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ptoss1

    ptoss1 King

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2012
    Messages:
    653
    Huns and Mongols seem to be the two major nomadic warring societies we know of in history... so?
     
  2. Dachs

    Dachs Hero of the Soviet Union

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    32,588
    Location:
    Moscow
    "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.
     
  3. schlaufuchs

    schlaufuchs La Femme Moderne

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,831
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    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:
     
  4. MajKira

    MajKira King

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    828
    Location:
    HaruhiKiraGundamCarrierArchangel
    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.
    "Origin
    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"
     
  5. Dachs

    Dachs Hero of the Soviet Union

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    32,588
    Location:
    Moscow
    That article really ought to say "the evidence for continuity between Huns and Xiongnu does not exist".
     
  6. AbenHumeya

    AbenHumeya Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2012
    Messages:
    65
    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.
     
  7. TheLastOne36

    TheLastOne36 Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    14,045
    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.
     
  8. Dachs

    Dachs Hero of the Soviet Union

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    32,588
    Location:
    Moscow
    "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.
     
  9. TheLastOne36

    TheLastOne36 Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    14,045
    You are probably right as per usual. :p

    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.
     
  10. Dachs

    Dachs Hero of the Soviet Union

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    32,588
    Location:
    Moscow
    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.
     
  11. MajKira

    MajKira King

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    828
    Location:
    HaruhiKiraGundamCarrierArchangel
    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.
     
  12. MajKira

    MajKira King

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    828
    Location:
    HaruhiKiraGundamCarrierArchangel
    Huns and Mongols History briefly:
    Asiatic Grass stepps Nomad Tribes between Easteurope(Poland) and Easiasia (Yellow Sea)
    Huns
    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
    441-453
    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)
    Bulgars
    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.
    Awars
    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.
    Chasars
    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
    Kumans
    They had a realm in Southrussia between 1154-1222 with good relationship to the realm of Kiew. They were destroyed by the Mongols.
    Magyars
    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
    Mongols
    1196 Temudschin becomes Dschings Khan and assembles these tribes under his banner in Karakorum:
    Burjäts,Oirats,Merkits,Kirgits,Mongols,Naimans,Keräits and Tatars
    1360
    Timur Lenk establishs Second Mongol World Empire
    1405 MongolTimurids world empire disintegrates
     
  13. Louis XXIV

    Louis XXIV Le Roi Soleil

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    13,579
    Location:
    Norfolk, VA
    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?
     
  14. Lord Baal

    Lord Baal Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    7,291
    Location:
    Canaan
    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.
     
  15. MajKira

    MajKira King

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    828
    Location:
    HaruhiKiraGundamCarrierArchangel
    sure there is more than nothing about huns
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunnic_Empire
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiongnu
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_de_Guignes
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Han_Dynasty
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingua_franca
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attila_the_Hun
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Catalaunian_Plains
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_peoples
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_peoples
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomadic_empire
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Chinese_history
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historic_states_represented_in_Turkish_presidential_seal
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Turkic_peoples#History
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Turks_
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_ethnic_groups
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_states_and_empires
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_migrations
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunnic_language
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hunnish_rulers
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Steppe
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danube_River
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Land_Bridge
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires#Contiguous
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steppe
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungary
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarians
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederations_of_Germanic_Tribes
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Germanic_peoples
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germania_Slavica
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavs
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Avars
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_nomads

    They can be divided into several large groups, on linguistic grounds:
    Altaic (perhaps a Sprachbund)
    Mongols
    Tungusic
    Turkic
    Indo-European
    Proto-Indo-Europeans (Chalcolithic/Bronze Age)
    Indo-Iranians (Bronze Age/Iron Age)
    Indo-Aryans
    Iranians
    Uralic
    Ugric (Magyar)
    Finnic

    Chronological list:
    Iron Age/Classical Antiquity
    Cimmerians | Issedones / Wusun | Parthians / Parni | Saka / Issedones / Massagetae / Scythians / Sarmatians | Sigynnae | Yuezhi / Hephthalites
    Migration period
    Alans | Avars | Gepids | Goths | Huns | Rugians | Xiongnu
    Middle Ages
    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
    Modern times
    Kalmuks (Mongols) | Kazakhs | Kyrgyz | Qaraqalpaqs
     
  16. Cutlass

    Cutlass The Man Who Wasn't There.

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Messages:
    47,108
    Location:
    US of A

    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.
     
  17. schlaufuchs

    schlaufuchs La Femme Moderne

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,831
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    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!


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wales
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwynedd
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inca
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huayna_Capac
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizarro

    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?
     
  18. MajKira

    MajKira King

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    828
    Location:
    HaruhiKiraGundamCarrierArchangel
    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
     
  19. Ajidica

    Ajidica High Quality Person

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2006
    Messages:
    21,185
    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.
     
  20. TheLastOne36

    TheLastOne36 Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    14,045
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page