That is the traditional view that there is next ot no real evidence for that your wikipedia quote discusses.
How technologically advanced were the german "barbarians"?
- Thread starter caketastydelish
- Start date
That is the traditional view that there is next ot no real evidence for that your wikipedia quote discusses.
MajKira
King
The Huns were not the Xiongnu. Jesus. Why would the Xiongnu disappear for 300 years, then show up in Europe vastly reduced in numbers, with no evidence of their passage? This is obvious. The old view was popularised by the same sort of morons who popularised the pseudo-scientific racial theories of the 19th century - Aryan superiority, that linguistic closeness correlated to genetic closeness, Social Darwinism, etc. - and has been roundly discredited since. By simple logic. It doesn't even need to be discussed, the Huns are so blatantly obviously NOT the Xiongnu, in the same way the Australian Aborigines are NOT the Lost Tribe of Israel.
Veles said:
We think those are 'actual' Hunnic words; but they might just be Slavic accretions i.e. Slavic words that were adopted wholesale into the Hunnic language. Which wouldn't be impossible considering that they refer to specific kinds of things; consider the beverages, how many languages have just adopted the word "Coke" for Coca-cola? Most, if not all, I should think; certainly all the countries I've ordered it in. If the words cited were in common usage e.g. cat, dog, horse, man, women, child etc. then we might suppose it strange that such a basic word would change in response to external stimuli. But they're anything but common words and really shouldn't be used to drawn conclusions about the Hunnic language as whole. As to names, those aren't all that useful either for the simple fact that they do change and moreover about half of the known Hunnic names could be attributed to a Turkic language.
That's a big call; we know that the broader confederation was a mish-mash of groups. Gothic was the linga franca of the Hunnic Empire. But as the Huns themsleves we have no idea, which isn't to say that the Huns weren't a composite people, buuuut that's no evidence of them being proto-Slavic speakers.Veles said:
Actually, it's most often referred to as "Cola" in all continental European languages I'm aware of at least (German, French, Spanish, Italian), although "Coke" is still universally understood.
Not that this in any way contradicts your point
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
While I don't think it establishes anything one way or the other, their passage would have been in an area without significant historical records. If any existed, they could easily have been lost to the ravages of time. This might be one of those unknowable things. The theory that they're related is at least tempting because of the similarities of their names.
Were there any Roman descriptions of Attila that might indicate anything?
This discussion is also vastly more interesting and productive than any facile debates about how ossim Rome was and how evil "the Germans" were.
The names sound the same if we ignore half of Xiongnu and assume that kind of forced similarity is significant in of itself, which is a huge overreach. The case against the claim is far stronger for the simple fact that we know what happened to the Xiongnu; namely, that they moved into Northern China after the Han fell. They didn't disappear in any real sense of the word, just ceased to be a distinct group worth recording. Kind of an ignominious end, but whatever. Moreover, even had the Xiongnu moved West it strains belief that they would have taken 300 (!) years to make the trip and frankly would be astonishing had they survived as a distinct group for that long. It also makes no sense for them to trade Northern China and its fat patronage opportunities for an uncertain trip across the ass end of Eurasia. It would be like trading a European welfare system for the Zimbabwean one in the hopes one could make it onto the Australian one 300 years in the future.
It would be kinda cool if it was called "that drink which tastes like gold would it if were canned" in German.Leoreth said:
Louis XXIV said:
The names sound the same if we ignore half of Xiongnu and assume that kind of forced similarity is significant in of itself, which is a huge overreach. The case against the claim is far stronger for the simple fact that we know what happened to the Xiongnu; namely, that they moved into Northern China after the Han fell. They didn't disappear in any real sense of the word, just ceased to be a distinct group worth recording. Kind of an ignominious end, but whatever. Moreover, even had the Xiongnu moved West it strains belief that they would have taken 300 (!) years to make the trip and frankly would be astonishing had they survived as a distinct group for that long. It also makes no sense for them to trade Northern China and its fat patronage opportunities for an uncertain trip across the ass end of Eurasia. It would be like trading a European welfare system for the Zimbabwean one in the hopes one could make it onto the Australian one 300 years in the future.
MajKira
King
lol why can it be not? comparing it like an Aryan superiority theory being rather ?
Persians and Parthhians could have done the same so that all their roots could be there. Every tribe coming from somewhere so why is it not scientific? lol talk to me , I don believe you all!!!!
is the wikia not scientific? so It could be one possiblity huns are xiongnu, why is that crap????
ref:These Xiongnu, or Huns , gradually crossed Russia. Like the Persians and the Parthians before them
when theres no evidence, it wasnt written down or mentioned becuz noone spoke about that or heard it doing, like secretly done or there were evidence but it was elimated for what reason ever
Indicate what, exactly?
IIRC the best "evidence" of the Hun-Xiongnu link was that there were books in both the East and West about some group being conquered around the same time by the Xiongnu and Huns. However it relies on equating two Eastern groups of people (that can be shown to not be the same) with a Western group. And the Chinese source is of dubious authenticity to begin with as its claims are not present anythwere else (including the sources it used).
MajKira
King
then there were sources, somewhere,, so makes reasonable why it was written so in wikia. and how far that should be dubious you can debate
maybe, huns in fact were a mixed kind group, confederating western, eastern and mid of both tribes
while travelling across Eurasia, like Persians, Parthians did before
and that only chines had records could be becuz westerners found it not necessary to record or they just dont delved it
Didn't those refer to the Uar/Hephthalitai/White Huns, not the Huns of Attila or the Xiongnu?
I don't know, it was a long time ago. But that could be where the mistaken linkage comes from.
The linkage is garbage because it equates two groups known to be different. The source itself has issues, but even if those are ignored it does not provide any of the claimed evidence.
Yes, there are: Attila spent plenty of time as a hostage at court and with the Roman military to know exactly what he was up against.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Indicate what, exactly?
Racial or ethnic origin.
I meant physical description if that wasn't clear.
Neither one of those would be a very good guide to whether his ancestors were Xiongnu, much less to whether the entire group of Huns were Xiongnu.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Well, for example, if he were described as having blonde hair, we could tell he's not from East Asia. Obviously, it wouldn't narrow it down completely, but it will a bit better of an idea.
MajKira
King
North King
blech
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,165
Yes, the former is clearly the mummified remains of Atilla and the latter is clearly a contemporary engraving. 
Similar threads
