Are Huns and Mongols Related?

[r16]

always r16 and trust me am not the guy to support that Christianity should be taken down . Have been called many things already but am positive that ı can live without being termed the Antechrist .

 

[Alejanrdo]

always r16 and trust me am not the guy to support that Christianity should be taken down . Have been called many things already but am positive that ı can live without being termed the Antechrist .

Oh but R16 was as good a name as any other metaphor for a heretic or something not christain.

We need something better today, better than the segregation caused by religion. I can agree sometimes it might make certain people happy, like any other drug or endorphine creating fever oops fervour, maybe, giving them peace, or helping with certain grief. From the cycle of life, the fate of being alive. In reality is the simplest psychology for lacking their own responsibility, passing the blame onto somebody, something else, making them blameless. Although it just creates chaos instead, from a false pretense that through their faiths they are somehow better than the rest of humanity. They might as well have had horns and a pitchfork to go along with that sense of superiority. A sense of control that any equal freewill is not from themsleves, but caused by some higher divinty, by having a consciousness separating them from another beast. Where religion has been proved scientifically, psychologically and philosphically otherwise. I have just named the psychology and the philosophy now, and the science in my other replies. Lets move on already.

Hey wait a minute what about rebirth, what about it? The ability to leave something in your wake, when whatever left has been merited, from your own lack of responsibility for you, or your kin.

If god makes them all equal, because there is like some other reward afterwards, wrong, think again, become responsible. It was only ever really simple reverse psychology anyway. We are all limited by our own natures, and I don't agree some steps are being met within civilization to date.

We can only strive to reach other stars today, which means disarming this archiac cause

 

[sophie]

If the timeline doesn't exist, maybe it should have worked into any evolutionary timeline? Heck is the 20 hundreds the 21 century for? It is all wrong. No we shouldn't have to add in anymore atomic seconds, but maybe just maybe we shouldn't be using AD fairies and BC Santa Claus. Was all I was saying, but I don't know? It ain't broken because nobody has thought to fix it just yet. This system has been working for a couple millenia before any evolution even existed. Other timelines were infact used before western influences and the UN.

Hey Conan the Hun was as good a barbarian as any other, he wasn't buried neither.

Except I'm not asking for a time line or specific dates - AD and BC are just a shorthand we've developed to help gauge dates, but the reference we chose needn't be 2015 years ago. 0-date could be set to 2768 years ago or 5775 years ago (as it is in the Jewish calendar) or as it was in many many historical documents we have, the reference point could be something far more tangible and easy to understand for an audience like years since current head of state ascended, so you could just as sensibly say that we're in the 7th year of the 44th president.

Whatever the rate my question was specifically designed to sidestep any quibbling you may have about specific timelines, and instead operate on the basis of years ago, which theoretically wouldn't rely on any specific dates, timelines, or reference points except the here and now, and would rather be something which you could fairly easily reverse-engineer. To give an example - I'm 24 years old. We know the order of US presidents and we know that US presidents serve 4 year terms. Therefore it's a fairly trivial matter to work backwards - Obama's second term started 2 years ago, so his first was 6 years ago, Bush's 2nd was 10 years ago, his 1st was 14 years ago, Clinton's 2nd was 18 years ago, Clinton's first was 22 years ago, and H.W. Bush's was 26 years ago. Therefore I was born during the 3rd year of H.W.'s presidential term. The Gulf War started in August of H.W.'s 2nd year in office, so that would have been 25 years ago next month. Which was a year before I was born, and military actions ended in February of the year I was born, which was 24 years and 4 months ago.

This is what I mean. You don't necessarily need specific dates or hard reference points as you can figure things out in a fairly rudimentary by working backwards and creating ad hoc reference points as you go. The divide between BC(E) (Before Christ/Common (Era)) or AD (Anno Domini) is a tool of convenience, nothing more. So set it aside and work backwards. How many years ago did Alexander die? How many years ago did Attila fight at Châlons?

 

[Alejanrdo]

Owen, like the find of millenia to some people last night, has supposedly been found collecting a century dust in some common university. Begging the question of how something priceless, not to me a neutral, was obtained? Because nobody devout would have gifted it, and any other archealogist would have recorded it. Any other warring expedition in the centuries past might have known its manuscript to be infidel, and a stately gift would have made it into a more prestigous warehouse, but why bringmyham?

Nothing else has really been stamped into this dated timeline, just like that manuscript. Although anybody writing must have had somekind of calendar to use and date from. Like the Chinese and every culture including the Mayans have done. When attaching markings as a record, there ought to have been some indication on them, before this timeline was ever created. So where are they, what do they mean?

If carbon dating is growing this, often by matching from outside of this assumed timeline. Matching anywhere around the century given, but using a logical marker from within that century generated, to get there assumptions read from. What is going on? Although like with the shroud that is total fiction, because it was clearly a millenia off.

Bush plus Bush doesn't make Jeb, no he is not part of that club, because his psychology is to get elected?

I am a neutral barbarian, but a lot more cultured, taking a stance when it comes to sacking this timeline. A timeline that doesn't really exist today in it's early AD, BC forms. I agree that this timeline has set our modern calendars, so there is a real benfit to using it now, outside of any previous fanfiction. Although there has been a lot of programmed fanfiction, fitting into the previously structured construction of this timeline. Evolution for a start has taught us differently now, and so has most stately education that often teaches national and current history, outside of another course of subject. I agree there are quite a few records structuring a lot of early civilization, before Ceaser, which weren't a product of Rome. AD afterwards, in the early AD timeline has floundered, it hasn't been as accurate as we would have liked it to be established from. Many other civilizations have used other timelines to read by, before this timeline had ever become established. Do you agree with this reference?

 

[Plotinus]

Can you give a single example of an event which on our normal dating system happened X years ago, but which you think really happened Y years ago? If not, aren't you just saying that our dating system is arbitrary - something no-one disagrees with?

 

[Alejanrdo]

Can you give a single example of an event which on our normal dating system happened X years ago, but which you think really happened Y years ago? If not, aren't you just saying that our dating system is arbitrary - something no-one disagrees with?

I had provided an example in the above. The marker being used is around that period, so this dating is all like scratching it's head. Then it says, hey I think this is when it is was from, because it should have been from around that period. Effectively all it doing was growing a date and feeding any myth.

As for this dating system using the AD and BC, timelines which don't exist now do they? So all the fanfiction in the early starting BC, and beginning AD dates is just that fanfiction. Always backed up by, yea there was this ruler then, but even that has been influenced to support this timelines existance. While any other carbon dating goes, yea it must be old, so let's just put it than then, because it was just supposed to be then. Unless any other form of dating is really so much older, or so much newer.

I am annoyed by the false religious influence. I agree our modern calendar is now set and established as a current timeline throughout our modern world. Although in order to move on, how will we defeat this reasoning, without putting it right now? It is false because humans were older, as we are taught today, within the last 50 years after this timeline was created, and so just WTH is AD, it wasn't the collapse of Rome, but led to the collapse of Rome, just some randomly structured date. Other civilizations were using other timelines.

Meaning what century are we actually on, from the first humans, first records? This should logically read as today's date, not hmm, 2 millenia AD after some random was timeline formed. It means less zero's and fewer thousands today, which one day they could read, so why not today? Wait I get it, we reset the clocks in 4 thousand years time to RE-AD, because our calendars cannot handle the digits?

Before you shout hey RadioCarbonDating is a science, wait a minute. RCD is often out by a century, it is not to the year, decade, or even 50 years, try a century sometimes so much more. It can accurately gauge the 500-1000 years mark. Although often backed up with records and markings, but how accurate were they on different timelines, often confused into this one. Go on keep on whistling up the Fairies and giving more Claus, because we are just so established from this timeline now.... Although science has taught us different evolution to date, and any dating to be that much out.

 

[Sonereal]

lurker's comment:

 

[thomas.berubeg]

Well, that was a hell of a read. I have to say, some of you definitely have the patience of saints.

On the original topic, I thought that the word "Hun" was not really an ethnonym, but instead a word used for various ethnically diverse steppe tribal confederations (See the Hepthalites (white huns), Hunas, etc.) In the Material Record, however, I was under the impression that there was some relation between the record left behind by Attila's Huns, the Xiongnu, and the Mongols nearly a millennium later. In fact, if I remember correctly, the structure of steppe society was rather fluid, allowing the formation and dissolution of nomadic confederations. This allowed for a (Relatively) homogenous archaeological record, allowing for the flow of goods and styles back and forth across these rather long distances.

To be honest, I can't remember the sources where I read either of those things, but I THINK they are half remembered from an archaeology class in University.

 

[Alejanrdo]

Well, that was a hell of a read. I have to say, some of you definitely have the patience of saints.

On the original topic, I thought that the word "Hun" was not really an ethnonym, but instead a word used for various ethnically diverse steppe tribal confederations (See the Hepthalites (white huns), Hunas, etc.) In the Material Record, however, I was under the impression that there was some relation between the record left behind by Attila's Huns, the Xiongnu, and the Mongols nearly a millennium later. In fact, if I remember correctly, the structure of steppe society was rather fluid, allowing the formation and dissolution of nomadic confederations. This allowed for a (Relatively) homogenous archaeological record, allowing for the flow of goods and styles back and forth across these rather long distances.

To be honest, I can't remember the sources where I read either of those things, but I THINK they are half remembered from an archaeology class in University.

Thank you, I have been saying it all along but not quite that elegantly. Hephalite is a word of greek origin. Now look at how the same tribes have recently advanced, looking closely at why similar tribes didn't advanced in America, but only mustering when civilization threatened their existance, although they were routed by gunpowder and superior tactics other than walls.

The trade routes all across that region are still scattered there to date, from records of Alexander, although logically much older, later the Huns and then the Mongols.

Watch out, the pope will come stomping with some christendom slaying all the records, because they are supposedly millenia's apart, but those nomads didn't care about their way of life.

 

[thomas.berubeg]

Thank you, I have been saying it all along but not quite that elegantly. Hephalite is a word of greek origin. Now look at how the same tribes have recently advanced, looking closely at why similar tribes didn't advanced in America, but only mustering when civilization threatened their existance, although they were routed by gunpowder, and superior tactics other then simple walls.

The trade routes all across that region are still scattered there to date from records of Alexander, although logically much older, later the Huns and than the Mongols.

Watch out, the pope will come stomping with some christendom slaying all the records, because they are supposedly millenia's apart, but those nomads didn't care about their way of life.

Umm... they are millennia apart.

 

[Alejanrdo]

Umm... they are millennia apart.

Umm from Alexander to the Mongols sure? A millenia would probably be correct

Look at the Northern America's countries without previous civilization, but how did those native Americans advance? Why are there still remnants of this nomadic culture in the below regions to date?

Do you agree there are remnants of Alexander in Afghanistan, Uzbeckistan, Kurdistan, and possibly Kazakhstan? Although just how close are we to Mongolia now? These tribes originally rallied, than were swallowed into civilizations, but they only came back that same way with the HUNS and than later the Mongols.

I don't quite agree with this timeline inaccuracies, laregly due to many regions records constantly getting sacked and later refounded by religion. A millenia is like a grain of dust to a nomad, who has a different culture.

 

[thomas.berubeg]

I'll agree that there is some residual hellenization in Persia and some of Central Asia, still, when Attila's Huns are knocking around, but not really with the Mongols... But, no, it'd be VERY hard to argue that any of the Steppe People are directly remnants of Alexander's empire.

Also, I don't understand what you mean by:

I don't quite agree with the timeline inaccuracies, laregly due to much of that region records getting constantly sacked and refounded into religion. A millenia is a grain of dust to a nomad who has a different culture.

What do you mean by "refounded into religion?" Are you saying that the various Steppe people had no religion until it was imposed upon them?

Also, A millennia is a long time to anyone. People are people, years are years, and things change just as much for nomad as for a peasant as for a king or a khagan.

I don't understand how you expect tostudy history if you immediately discount every bit of the written AND material/archaeological record as fabrications by an overarching religious conspiracy...?

 

[Alejanrdo]

I'll agree that there is some residual hellenization in Persia and some of Central Asia, still, when Attila's Huns are knocking around, but not really with the Mongols... But, no, it'd be VERY hard to argue that any of the Steppe People are directly remnants of Alexander's empire.

Also, I don't understand what you mean by:



What do you mean by "refunded into religion?" Are you saying that the various Steppe people had no religion until it was imposed upon them?

Also, A millennia is a long time to anyone. People are people, years are years, and things change just as much for nomad as for a peasant as for a king or a khagan.

I don't understand how you expect tostudy history if you immediately discount every bit of the written AND material/archaeological record as fabrications by an overarching religious conspiracy...?

The Mongols came knocking on European doorsteps fact, the same way Alexander had done in some of the regions named before. The same as the HUNS were in some of those regions. Although the Persians may have colonised some parts first.

Nomads often had a religion of the old gods of nature, earth, metal, horse, whatever boon mantained their ancient ways. Modern religion refounded most records, changed their ways and consumed them. It killed Alexander all he wanted to do was conqueror the world of his horse, although it was probably posion.

A millennia was nothing to the American Indians, some Eskimos, even some nomadic cultures in those regions listed to date.

I haven't discounted history, I don't discount history. Although when I look at history I see a cycle of repetition happening again and again, and than I ask why? Religious conspiracy is obviously and undoubtedly there, unless you have accepted christendom as your messiah, why are we reading his timeline? I am practical and an atheist, believing I shouldn't hear about religion institutionally. I tolerate and accept everybody as an equal, but I ask why religion has had their rights to date when nothing much has changed since their begginings? They are still segregating as the most faithful to their faiths, sometimes a lot more extreme, but they are always false to the rest of humanity that they consider to be above.

 

[thomas.berubeg]

The Mongols came knocking on European doorsteps fact, the same way Alexander had done in some of the regions named before. The same as the HUNS were in some of those regions. Although the Persians may have colonised some parts first.

There's a THOUSAND year time gap between the Mongols and the Huns, and seven hundred years between Alexander and Attila... That's a LONG time, are you arguing that two thousand years and vast geographical distances don't matter and that the Genghis descends from Alexander's Army? I really don't understand what you are trying to argue.

Sure, Linguistically, there's a bit of a connection between the Huns and the greeks, but that's nomenclature. As far as I know, the Huns didn't call themselves the Huns...? (Owen, Plot, someone correct me on this if I'm wrong.)

Nomads often had a religion of the old gods of nature, earth, metal, horse, whatever boon mantained their ancient ways. Modern religion refounded most records, changed their ways and consummed them. It killed Alexander all he wanted to do was conqueror the world of his horse, although it was probably posion.

First, you seem to be fixated on the idea that "Modern Religion" (by which I take it you mean Christianity) destroyed the steppe people as a culture. I'd point out to you that all manners of religions co-existed for millennia amongst the various steppe people. Kublai himself was said to have invited priests and wisemen of many different religions to his court, from nestorians to zoroastrians to muslims to catholics to confucians to buddhists, and with them were followers of the ancestral Mongol/Turko-Ugric faith of the Great Blue Sky, Tengri. They lived together under a strict peace, and ANY WHO BROKE THAT PEACE WOULD BE EXPELLED, OR WORSE. Some of the Mongol Khans adopted Nestorianism, but just as many adopted other faiths, or followed the beliefs of their Ancestors, and a Son was quite likely to have a different faith than their father, without any problem. Even when Islam came to dominate the steppes in the (15th? 16th) century, tolerance remained pretty prevalent. I'm not sure where you get the idea that Mongol Records were eradicated/burned/"refunded?" If a priest of one faith was doing that, one of the other priests would have written about it, unless you are arguing that ALL religions are in on this Conspiracy together?

Secondly, what does Alexander's Death have to do with this argument? Are you saying that Christians, 300 years before Christianity, assassinated him with poison on his noble goal to "conqueror" the earth on Horseback?"

OHHHH, I think I see what you are getting at. You are arguing that because of what he accomplished on Horseback, Alexander served as an icon or ideal around which nomadic steppe culture formed....? No, actually, I don't see what you are getting at....

A millennia was nothing to the American Indians, some Eskimos, even some nomadic cultures in those regions listed to date.

Incorrect. There is much evidence that Native Americans, including the Inuit, used calendars. You are are really clinging to the "Noble Savage" Fallacy.

I haven't dicounted history, I don't discount history. Although when I look at history I see a cycle of repetition happening again and again, and than I ask why? Religious conspiracy is obviously and undoubtedly there, unless you have accepted christendom as your messiah, why are we reading his timeline? I am practical and atheist believing I shouldn't hear about it institutionally, yea I tolerate everybody as an equal, but I ask why they have their right to date and nothing much has changed since their begginings?

I suppose you believe that Graph, too? My personal religious beliefs don't get in the way of my studying of history, but if you MUST know, I'm an Atheist. I do argue against the existence of any kind of global massive conspiracy, much less a religiously based one. Dates are conventions, and we (Being the western world) use a system that is an arbitrary one based on the Birth of Jesus, yes, but other parts of the world use other systems, JUST AS ARBITRARILY. The Dates don't necessarily matter. What matters is the relation of one date to the other. If we were to, right now, adopt my birth as the basis of a new calendar system, well, then we'd be in year 24 AT, and the Mongols would be somewhere around 800ish BT, the Huns 1800ish BT and Alexander 2300ish BT. This doesn't change anything about the records, except that they use a different system.

 

[Luckymoose]

The timeline doesn't exist. There are way to many inadequacies and fanfiction that have been added into the early periods of it's starting and ending dates. Accept that and all we have been doing is feeding the fables.

Fomenko? Is that you? My hero!

 

[Alejanrdo]

The native americans and almost all cultures had a formulation of time I agree they must have known how long to breed a horse for. The Mayans had their own timelines the same as the Incas who also had calander and were very advanced. However you are discounting that their merit of time, meant something else to what it does to us now.

There is 700 years, between Alexander and the Huns, who came from the same region Aleaxendar had colonised in the previous regions named, which was right on the doorsteps of Mongolia. There is a 700 year gap between the Huns and the Mongols. Pease do that math to generate a date there, instead of I know, 10,000 BC there were the first markings of man and horse in France.

American Indians didn't adavnce in how many thousands years, just like any other barbarians hadn't. We are talking about tribal horselords who migrate seasonally, they don't get snowed in like the Vikings and Goths did. They ride about warring and trading amongst themsleves rallying when civilization threatens them. Like hey guys lets make a new capital in Byzantium and a new christain empire, quick come and conqueror all the poor barbaric horse people and give them christ, because that must mean like more taxes for Rome. Alexander was from that nomadic descent and Persia had colonised some of those regions, but he rallied far better then any Romans hadn't in those regions.

I don't know about what else you are trying to say Thomas, but I don't like your impolite tone so I will just say unhun oops ah ha, or whatever other dialect you are speaking?

 

[thomas.berubeg]

A millennia was nothing to the American Indians, some Eskimos, even some nomadic cultures in those regions listed to date.

I'd also like to add... Inuit (or Eskimo, as you call them) didn't exist as we would recognize them a millennia ago. The Arctic was predominantly inhabited by Dorset people up until about 800 years ago, and the Medieval Warming Period allowed the Inuit (Thule, as pre-european contact inuit are called) to expand and supplant the dorset throughout the Arctic, a replacement that took more than a few centuries.

1000 years ago, the Inuit lived only in Alaska, and in a pretty small part, and would be pretty unrecognizable to later inuit, much less modern inuit.

 

[thomas.berubeg]

American Indians derp durp don't, didn't adavnce in how many thousands years, just like any other barbarians hadn't. We are talking about tribal horselords who migrate seasonally, they don't get snowed in like the Vikings and Goths did. They ride about warring and trading amongst themsleves rallying when civilization threatens them. Like hey guys lets make a new capital in Byzantium and a new christain empire, quick come and conqueror all the poor barbaric horse people and give them christ, because that must mean like more taxes for Rome.

First of all, your posts reek of Eurocentracism, which... yeah. Bad.

But, modern accepted scholarship on pre-columbian civilizations states that MUCH of the Americas was covered in civilizations comparable to contemporary meso-american civilizations.

There's records from various early conquistadors who sailed both up the Mississippi and the Amazon, which are very far apart, of thousands of cities within bowshot of each other, with thronging crowds. However, these records are far and few between because the conquistadors didn't bother conquering those cities. However, when, a century later, Europeans started colonizing, they found nothing but small, scattered bands of native americans.

This is because, scholars now agree, the plagues brought by europeans wiped out over 95% of the population. 95%. That's almost EVERYONE. It's literally IMPOSSIBLE to maintain any semblance of civilization when that number of people are dead. The Natives were just barely starting to get back on their feet, societally, when the next europeans, colonists, this time, came to settle.

So, your argument that the Noble Native American Savage lived in a static, pure society is blatantly false.

 

[Alejanrdo]

Can we not start arguing about the city under Antartica, if we are talking about climate change, Atlantis and the Japanese pyramids. If you are gonna start selling me bubonic plague, to all those poor barbaric horse peoples who had children and familes to feed.

Maybe those conquistadors didn't know how to read a map their galleons were always sinking with Inca gold. Although the Mayans had evaporated before then. American Archealogy hasn't really found anything under their mangroves except a T-rex. If we are talking about lost people maybe you were thinking about colony 51 the first one which had totally vanished from massachusetts or somewhere off the eastern seaboard without a trace?

 

[thomas.berubeg]

...