The Huns
- Thread starter Tronicoz
- Start date
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
sabo
My Ancestors were Vikings
All I know is they were from eastern Europe Western Russia area, I believe the country Hungary was named after them
BEHIND_THE_MASK
A Liar... A Cheat...
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2006
- Messages
- 1,840
Wasn't the Hun Epire original based near the Don River, from here they would usually attack the Eastern Empire I beleive.
North King
blech
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,165
The most accepted current theory is that they were originally the Hsing-nu or Xiong-nu in the Mongolian region to the northwest of China; they were defeated by the Han, and fled westward. They drove the Epthalites into Persia and India (also known as the White Huns), shattering the Persians and devastating the Guptas in India. Meanwhile, the Huns continued on a westward path, ending up around the Ukraine area through Hungary. United by Attila, they established a steppe empire that was a loose coalition of barbarian tribes fighting under their banner. The cracks became evident once Rome beat Attila in Gaul, and their invasion of Italy greatly diminished their army due to disease (in the Italian invasion, they drove the people of Aquelia away, leading to the founding of Venice). Attila died of a nosebleed in his sleep, and the empire fell into ruins.
BEHIND_THE_MASK
A Liar... A Cheat...
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2006
- Messages
- 1,840
Death by nosebleed... tis an honorable death.
sydhe
King of Kongs
On his wedding night (or one of his wedding nights anyway).
It should be noted too that it was the advance of the Huns that was part of the reasons that drove tribes like the Visigoths to the Roman frontier on the Danube to find refuge in the Roman Empire. They destroyed the Ostrogothic Empire centering on the Dnieper. Tribe in the area have two choices: became Hunnic vassals or flee south to the Roman Empire. When their request to seek refuge in Roman land were denied they start invading, hastening the fall of the Roman Empire.
The Huns were united only in AD432 under Roas (Attila's father) who based himself in Hungary (hence the name). It was only during this time that they have the strength to start attacking the Roman Empire. The Romans paid tribute to Roas. When it's not paid the Huns attack the Romans, but largely to extort tribute rather than conquer. True the Hunnic Empire was large but it was very loosely-held.
After Roas died Attila became co-ruler with brother Bleda. Attila killed Bleda, led his troops to invade the Western Roman Empire (this time the objective was to collect dowry for his lover Honoria who happens to be Emperor Valentinian's sister. In Attila's view he owed him the Roman Empire and he was going to take it by force.) and was promptly defeated in Gaul (the Romans shouldn't claim all the credits though. Most of the fighting were done by Visigoths). On the way back he sacked Italy but was convinced to turn back from Rome by Pope Leo I. He returned to Hungary (the Huns didn't settle the areas they had conquered), and died (it was nosebleed but he had a lot of drink that night so it could've been alcoholic poisoning).
Like Genghis Khan the people who buried Attila were killed to keep his tomb a secret. Like Genghis Khan's Attila's sons fought among themselves and so the empire disintegrated. Ostrogoths claimed their independence and defeat the Huns at Nedao (454) ending Hunnic dominance. Those Huns who were left lend their service to the highest bidder and soon they were absorbed into surrounding cultures. Appearantly some of their descendents became the Bulgars, terrorising Europe well into the Middle Ages.
The Hunnic military strategy is somewhat similar to those of the Mongols eg swift movements, feigned retreat then encircle the enemy. They relied almost totally on cavalry (mostly horse archers, but also some carrying swords and lances). Like the Mongols they lived off the land or their horses, and like the Mongols they used terrorism to scare the enemy into submission.
The Huns were united only in AD432 under Roas (Attila's father) who based himself in Hungary (hence the name). It was only during this time that they have the strength to start attacking the Roman Empire. The Romans paid tribute to Roas. When it's not paid the Huns attack the Romans, but largely to extort tribute rather than conquer. True the Hunnic Empire was large but it was very loosely-held.
After Roas died Attila became co-ruler with brother Bleda. Attila killed Bleda, led his troops to invade the Western Roman Empire (this time the objective was to collect dowry for his lover Honoria who happens to be Emperor Valentinian's sister. In Attila's view he owed him the Roman Empire and he was going to take it by force.) and was promptly defeated in Gaul (the Romans shouldn't claim all the credits though. Most of the fighting were done by Visigoths). On the way back he sacked Italy but was convinced to turn back from Rome by Pope Leo I. He returned to Hungary (the Huns didn't settle the areas they had conquered), and died (it was nosebleed but he had a lot of drink that night so it could've been alcoholic poisoning).
Like Genghis Khan the people who buried Attila were killed to keep his tomb a secret. Like Genghis Khan's Attila's sons fought among themselves and so the empire disintegrated. Ostrogoths claimed their independence and defeat the Huns at Nedao (454) ending Hunnic dominance. Those Huns who were left lend their service to the highest bidder and soon they were absorbed into surrounding cultures. Appearantly some of their descendents became the Bulgars, terrorising Europe well into the Middle Ages.
The Hunnic military strategy is somewhat similar to those of the Mongols eg swift movements, feigned retreat then encircle the enemy. They relied almost totally on cavalry (mostly horse archers, but also some carrying swords and lances). Like the Mongols they lived off the land or their horses, and like the Mongols they used terrorism to scare the enemy into submission.
Hungary was founded by the Magyars, though.
Commy
Prince
They have capital on Volga. In that times this river was named "Itil". Name "Atilla" means "man from Itil region"
ArmorPierce
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2005
- Messages
- 102
Some interesting facts
Hun means king
Genghis khan is actually pronounced Jenghis Hun in the native tongue, hun too meaning king.
Both of them are central asian nomadic steppes people.
Hun means king
Genghis khan is actually pronounced Jenghis Hun in the native tongue, hun too meaning king.
Both of them are central asian nomadic steppes people.
Israelite9191
You should be reading
It was Genghis Khans grandsons, not sons, that destroyed the empire. And the Bulgars were not Hun descendents, that is just one of the many false myths surrounding the Huns.
Yes, but the name in English is a remnant of the Huns, who did in fact "settle" (I use the term very lightly here) in the Carpathian basin of what would become Hungary.
dannyshenanigan
Emperor
Actually Hungary is a misnomer in English. The Kingdom of Hungary was founded by Magyar invaders. The Magyars were nomads of Turkic origin like the Huns so their invasion in the late 9th and 10th centuries was seen as another hunnic invasion 450 years later; therefore, the Magyars were called Huns. Today Hungarians call themselves Magyars, not Huns. Perhaps they may have some Hunnic blood, but the name Hungary comes from the mislabeling of the Magyars.
Mirc
Not mIRC!!!
Actually, there is another hypothesis that says the name Hungary might be derived from the Turkish term Onogur meaning 'Ten Arrows', signifying united military strength in nomadic symbolism, and in fact this is the general accepted theory. 
Verbose
Deity
Except the Magyars spoke and speak an Ugrian language, like the Finns, Estonians and a bunch of smaller nations inside modern Russia. Nothing Turkic about that.
dannyshenanigan
Emperor
Actually it is believed that Ugric and Turkic are distantly related; although, this is highly controversial. Not being a linguist; I am nonetheless inclined to believe that they are not related.
I mispoke about them being Turkic; however, my point being that they were perceived as being Turkic (Hunnic) due to their similar nomadic lifestyle.
I mispoke about them being Turkic; however, my point being that they were perceived as being Turkic (Hunnic) due to their similar nomadic lifestyle.
Mirc
Not mIRC!!!
Actually, I'd say they are related. I've been in both Hungary (quite a lot of times) and Turkey, and first of all I noticed some weird similarities, the languages sound vaguely resemblant. Then I was talking with a Turk guy, about pretty much everything. And he mentioned when we were talking about Hungarian that "yeah, it's a related language". This intrigued me, so I searched a little deeper. I found out a lot of words are common, like for example the word for "light". if we think better, we realize Turks migrated about in the same time as the modern day Hungarians' ancestors, from central Asia, so it wouldn't be at all surprising to see some similarities.
A lot of Turks seem to think their language is related to Hungarian and Finnish, but this actually is not the case. Some words may resemble each other or be common to two languages, but that is because of the people living side by side for years and borrowing words from each other, not because of the languages are from the same origin. Turkish is a member in the Altai language family, whereas Hungarian is in the Finno-ugric family.
We finno-ugric speakers are not related to anyone else in Europe - linguistically speaking, that is.
Mirc
Not mIRC!!!
Turkey is not in Europe, so what you said does not contradict what I said, at all.
That's clearly a case of pride. The categorization of the language families, into Altaic, Finnic, Slavic, Romance, Bantu and whatever you want is done by linguists, based on existing similarities. It's stupid to say any resemblance may never be observed between two languages just because they are placed in different families. "We finno-ugric speakers are not related to anyone else in Europe" resembles the way demagogic politicians speak on TV.
You see, it is very hard to prove two languages are not related. I have several examples to back up my opinion, and as I said these are just examples, there are a lot more out there. Do you have anything to support this great magnificent uniqueness that you are talking about?
Its interesting, I was interested why in English is used nonsense Hungary. In the Czech is Hungary "Maďarsko" and inhabitant is "Maďar" and language is "maďarština". But Czech also using another word for Hungary in history and now maybe because minorities. Middle ages Hungary is called "Uhry" (same word in Czech means acne
), Austria-Hungary is called "Rakousko-Uhersko). "Uherák" is famous Hungarian salam. When Czechs realy want insult Slovaks, they call them Hungarians 
Similar threads
