Print Page | Close Window

Huns

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Steppe Nomads and Central Asia
Forum Description: Nomads such as the Scythians, Huns, Turks & Mongols, and kingdoms of Central Asia
Moderators: Temujin, Byzantine Emperor, Sarmat12
URL: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=16489
Printed Date: 14-Aug-2020 at 23:11
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Huns
Posted By: Rasoolpuri
Subject: Huns
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2006 at 03:55
   What was original homeland of Huns .In which century they migrated from their homeland
    



Replies:
Posted By: Chagataikhanate
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2006 at 23:39

they came from this place....



Posted By: Chagataikhanate
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2006 at 00:04
my father has some hunnic blood in him but he doesn't look turkish at all...


Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2006 at 01:44
Originally posted by Chagataikhanate Chagataikhanate wrote:

my father has some hunnic blood in him but he doesn't look turkish at all...


Confused


-------------
I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage


Posted By: Huncuk
Date Posted: 17-Dec-2006 at 11:28
Originally posted by Chagataikhanate Chagataikhanate wrote:

my father has some hunnic blood in him but he doesn't look turkish at all...
West Turks(Turkish) looks european,Turkics(Central Asian Turks) look like Huns.


Posted By: Feramez
Date Posted: 19-Dec-2006 at 00:02
Originally posted by Huncuk Huncuk wrote:

Originally posted by Chagataikhanate Chagataikhanate wrote:

my father has some hunnic blood in him but he doesn't look turkish at all...
West Turks(Turkish) looks european,Turkics(Central Asian Turks) look like Huns.
Not all, in Turkey more Turks look Middle Eastern than European and some do look Asian.  In Central Asia a lot of Turks look Middle Eastern and some even European, but of course most look Asian.


-------------
For Turks, the homeland isn't Turkey, nor yet Turkistan. Their country is a vast, eternal land: Turan!
-Ziya Gokalp-
http://groups.myspace.com/TurkWorld - TRK DNYASI Forum, join today.


Posted By: Segestan
Date Posted: 26-Jan-2007 at 09:32
The Huns are Not the peoples of Eastern stock. This is a myth told to hid the supernatural coming of the Huns. ... from the Gothic account of the Huns.   " We have ascertained that the nation of the Huns , who surpassed all others in atrocity, came thus into being. When Filimer , fifth King of Sweden, was entering Scythia, with his people, as we have before described, he found among them certain sorcerer women, whom they call in their native tongue Aliorumnas, or Al-runas, whom he suspected and drove forth from the midst of his army into the wilderness. The unclean spirits that wander up and down in desert places , seeing these women, made concubines of them, and from this unionsprang that most fierce people of the Huns who were at first little , foul ,emanciated creatures, dwelling among the swamps ,possessing only the shadow of hunman speech by way of language...... Nations whom they would never have vanquished in fair fight fled horrified from these frightful --- faces I can hardly call them , but rather ---shapeless black collops of flesh , with little points instead of eyes. No hair on thier cheeks or chins gives grace to adolescence or dignity to age, but deep furrowed scars instead down the sides of their faces, show the impress of the iron which with characteristic ferocity they apply to every male  that is born among them .... They are little in stature, but lithe and active in their motions, and especially skilful in riding , broadshouldered, good at the use of a bow and arrows, with sinewy necks, and always holding their heads high in their pride"
 
What happened to them after the death of Attilia? They returned home. What became of them?
 
 
Maybe the world needs to ask these questions?
 
 
regards,


-------------
Fate is Our Fortune


Posted By: Kerimoglu
Date Posted: 27-Jan-2007 at 16:10
Some stayed and lived under the dominance of Franks, some joined Byzantine and Roman military as Goth's, Some stayed inn and Today u can see several villages in Germany and France have kept hunnic traditions, and some migrated to Crimea and Central Asia. The majority have migrated to Crimea.

-------------
History is a farm. Nations are farmers. What they planted before will show what is going to grow tomorrow!


Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 27-Jan-2007 at 18:16
Originally posted by Kerimoglu Kerimoglu wrote:

u can see several villages in Germany and France have kept hunnic traditions

I highly doubt that.


Posted By: Top Gun
Date Posted: 28-Jan-2007 at 04:49
they say that the huns where banned from their country and that they travelled west when they stayed there there begun an famine thus they travelled more west and came in russia where they began pillage the other tribes that lived there the uncle of attilla I think began campaigns against the germanic and slavic tribes when his Uncle fell of his horse and died Attila got the power

-------------
http://imageshack.us"> <a href="http://imageshack.us">[IMG]http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/8017/yinyang17625xw7.jpg"


Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 28-Jan-2007 at 08:14
Originally posted by Top Gun Top Gun wrote:

they say that the huns where banned from their country and that they travelled west when they stayed there there begun an famine thus they travelled more west and came in russia where they began pillage the other tribes that lived there the uncle of attilla I think began campaigns against the germanic and slavic tribes when his Uncle fell of his horse and died Attila got the power


Yes this is True

being descendant of teh Xiongnu there original homeland was Mongolia


-------------
I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage


Posted By: Kerimoglu
Date Posted: 28-Jan-2007 at 15:35
I have heard some Bavarian villages in Germany have something left from Huns, and also in France I have heard. By the way, the greatest one, HUNgary.

-------------
History is a farm. Nations are farmers. What they planted before will show what is going to grow tomorrow!


Posted By: Top Gun
Date Posted: 29-Jan-2007 at 09:13
Originally posted by Kerimoglu Kerimoglu wrote:

I have heard some Bavarian villages in Germany have something left from Huns, and also in France I have heard. By the way, the greatest one, HUNgary.
 
that can never be the Huns where 1 not an empire that wanted that their conquerd territory took their habits
 
2 the Huns where vastly gone nobody has ever heard of them again
 
3 everybody is killed on the path of their conquests


-------------
http://imageshack.us"> <a href="http://imageshack.us">[IMG]http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/8017/yinyang17625xw7.jpg"


Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 29-Jan-2007 at 09:39
I think he may be talking about "faymonville" village in Belgium where the local's are called "Turc" and have a Turkish flag as their emblem.
 
http://www.faymonville-si.be/ - http://www.faymonville-si.be/
 
http://www.anadolu.be/faymonville/faymonville.html - http://www.anadolu.be/faymonville/faymonville.html
 
I heard a story that when the Spanish fleet came to the region, the locals put up the Ottoman flag and the Spanish retreated. Also because they wern't giving the Pope money they were called "Turks". Also another story, the Nazi's came to the area but the villagers chased them away.  And another one is that they are descendants of some ancient Turkic tribe like Huns or something.
 
Anyway its pretty interesting stuff.


-------------
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine



Posted By: barbar
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2007 at 11:46
Originally posted by Kerimoglu Kerimoglu wrote:

I have heard some Bavarian villages in Germany have something left from Huns, and also in France I have heard. By the way, the greatest one, HUNgary.
 
HUNgary is not derived from HUN. Actually it was derived from On-oghur and then Ongur. Hungarians were called such by other Europeans.  They, however, called themselves Majars (which was also a Turkic tribe).  I heard there is a small group in Hungary who claimed to be HUNs, and requested the title. After the collaps of HUN confederacy, we could also see Huns as tribal constitution among Turkic groups. One of the outer Uyghur nine tribes in the 8th century was called Hun in southern Siberia.   


-------------
Either make a history or become a history.


Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 04-Feb-2007 at 12:02
The Xiongnu Tribes or the Xiongnu People (old: Hsiung-nu) are often identified with the Huns that invaded Europe in the 4th century and with the White Huns (Hephthalites) that invaded northeastern India. Although there might be similarities in the name of these two people, it must be considered that the name of a mighty nomad tribe (Mongols, Tartars) was often used for very different ethnic people. Pulleyblank has shown that the language of the Xiongnu - of which we possess some words and terms preserved in Chinese literature - was related to the Siberian ethnics (Samoyeds) in the River Yennisej area, and not to the Mongols or Turks, while the Hun hords of Attila that tried to conquer Europe were surely Proto-Turks. The own name of the Xiongnu might have been Hungnor or Hunoch, a word that Chinese people could neither pronounce nor write and hence created the Chinese word Hungnu (modern pronunciation [jvŋnu], Wade-Giles: Hsiung-nu). The syllable "hu" like in Hu 胡 is often used for barbarian, i.e. non-Chinese people.

-------------
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.


Posted By: barbar
Date Posted: 06-Feb-2007 at 15:14
 
First of all, we all agree that the forbares of Turkic people roamed in the east Euroasia steppe, so it doesn't make sense to say a group living far from this land as the "proto-Turks".
 
There are always different types of theories in linguistics as for a historical group whose language wasn't recorded such as Xiongnu. Still it would be interesting if you can provide the link. However, it won't suprise me if any Siberian group still keeping the archaic form of Hunnic language.
 
We have Chinese historical documents from Shiji, Hanshu, Weishu, Suishu, Tangshu, Hou Tangshu etc as for the relation between Xiongnu and Turkic tribes.  Tujue is Turuk, Tiele is Tura.  All these documents confirm that Tura tribes are the decendants of Xiongnu. (No Chinese historian ever claimed otherwise, evenif they really want politically Uyghurs not to be a rival group for Chinese.) 
 
Chinese people surely can pronounce and write Hun (hun also can be Chinese word), they used Xiongnu (fierce slaves) just to express their hate for this group who had been harassing them for centuries.  However, we can notice among nine outer Uyghur tribes in Chinese record exactly as HUN later. 
 
 
 


-------------
Either make a history or become a history.


Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 06-Feb-2007 at 15:37
Oghuz Khan, was the founder of the Hunnic empire. In fact, he is the "Motu(n) Khan" (Mete Khan). His story talks about how he united most of nomads. Attila is just a later leader (of the same group; Hun). They were Proto-Turks, because their language was, kind of, a development of Old Altaic, towards modern Turkic.

1- Northern Frontier: The Policies and Strategy of the Later Han Empire by Rafe de Crespigny

2- Three Generals of Later Han by Gregory Young
Review author[s]: William G. Boltz

Chinese documents, if they believe Turks are descendants of Xiongnu, are also proofs on the fact that all Altaic and Siberian people are originally connected to each other. The above-mentioned books explain about the  language they used. 

Turkmens are descendants of Oghuz Khan, the founder of Hunnic empire. That might be why Chinese documents called 9 Oghuz, as Huns.
 
I've talked about the fact that Turkmen has lots of similarities in word structure with Siberian languages. In fact, it's the only Turkic language wich has specific similarites with languages like Samoyed, Mari, etc. I can bring examples if you need to know about Samoyed and it relationship with Turkmen.
 
I appreciate this if you could explain more about the Turkic language Magyar used.


-------------
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.


Posted By: Nick
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 17:23
Originally posted by Rasoolpuri Rasoolpuri wrote:

   What was original homeland of Huns .In which century they migrated from their homeland
    
 
there is no evidance of any home. The words seems to come from European source.
 
Huns had no homeland.
 
The Abadhlalites were counted as "Huns" but modern evidance show that they were far from Altics and that they were Aryanic/Afghan/Eastern Iranian tribe. There is no evidance of Altic among Abadhlalites. However the word is misunderstood. There is no evidance of Huns coming to Iran or Afghanistan in fact they went north from Eastern Iran.
 
The Iranian group were older then the other "Hunic Altic" empires
 
 
 
 
And the Indian Huns were from Iran/Eastern Iran, recorded late same time as the Europeans were attacked by some unknown nomanic group, and then later the Iranian group. So there is something fishy here.
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
Althought this has been tought for a very long time, but this map has no base prove, until this day it has not been proven. Yes indeed a strong Altic empire did existed at that part of the world, but not sure about the "Hunic" part.


-------------
Aryan code: You keep what you kill.


Posted By: barbar
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2007 at 13:40
Originally posted by Nick Nick wrote:

 
Huns had no homeland.
 
 
You really need to explain this words of yours.
 
 


-------------
Either make a history or become a history.


Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2007 at 14:03
Originally posted by barbar barbar wrote:

Originally posted by Nick Nick wrote:

 
Huns had no homeland.
 
 
You really need to explain this words of yours.
 
 


I think he means that because they were nomads.

But nomads are not gypsies my friend they had there own pastures winter and summer pastures


-------------
I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage


Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2007 at 18:07
He's right to some extent. Huns never settled in a single place for long. That's why the Huns never had a capital or other cities. And it makes sense. Huns had huge number of horses, and if they stayed in a location for too long, they would contaminate and kill the soil. Plus, the overwhelming amount of wastes from the horses may spread diseases and sickness... Huns have to move constantly. But they believed in no national boundaries. Whereever their gods led them was their home. 

-------------
http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">      
   
Join us.


Posted By: MING-LOYALIST
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2007 at 19:33
If the Huns are the descendents of Xiongnu then their homeland is inner mongolia and mongolia.
 
They originally mainly settled in the ordos region of inner mongolia before being kick out by the Qin army and later had a royal court set up in inner mongolia, where the Chanyu(Leader) and Yanzhi(his wife) lived with hostages of subject tribes.


Posted By: Nick
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2007 at 23:31
Originally posted by barbar barbar wrote:

Originally posted by Nick Nick wrote:

 
Huns had no homeland.
 
 
You really need to explain this words of yours.
 
 
 
Dear i didn't liked that map and the way how one goes into Iran/india etc etc.
 
I wise i could of explan to you why i said "Huns had no homeland" because i do not believe in the word "HUN" as an ONE group or tribe, althought it has been studied for many years but still no good luck in many questions that are asked.
 
Like for Example
 
Were the Huns a single tribe?
if they were why WAS there war among these tribes/empires.
 
Who are the Huns? Chinese (pure Altics/ Orientals ) Turks(Iranic mixed) Mongolians (Mixed Altics) etc etc.
 
Did the Huns called themselve "Huns"
 
Who were the European Huns?
 
and the lest goes on and on. As much as we like to talk about it the more we get confussed it can be very easy for Turkics to claim the northern Huns of central Asia, but what about south? Central Asia is a big region and never from a single race/ethnics.
 
 
Like for example the "Hephthalites" so called the "Indo-European" or Iranian looking, were they huns? or those the name was just flown to them.
 
We can say even the word HUN and their background race is uncertain. So why do we have people mixing things up. Offcourse no-Offense to my dear fellow Turks or pro-Hunnics. If there is any new information that proves certains questions then please share it with me.
 
 
My first question how does that map above with i disagree with supports that real huns were from Mongolia and if they were. What prove do we have that they reached Iran.


-------------
Aryan code: You keep what you kill.


Posted By: Nick
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2007 at 23:32
Originally posted by pekau pekau wrote:

He's right to some extent. Huns never settled in a single place for long. That's why the Huns never had a capital or other cities. And it makes sense. Huns had huge number of horses, and if they stayed in a location for too long, they would contaminate and kill the soil. Plus, the overwhelming amount of wastes from the horses may spread diseases and sickness... Huns have to move constantly. But they believed in no national boundaries. Whereever their gods led them was their home. 
 
dear Pekau every empire must have horses.


-------------
Aryan code: You keep what you kill.


Posted By: Xiongnu Hun
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2007 at 01:25

Ok Iranian41.All Turkologists lie,dna tests lie,lingual tests lie,antropological researches lie and you are telling us the truth!Sure that we will believe you.

There were Iranic nomads like Alans in Hun control,but Huns are Turkic.


Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2007 at 01:32
Originally posted by Xiongnu Hun Xiongnu Hun wrote:

Ok Iranian41.All Turkologists lie,dna tests lie,lingual tests lie,antropological researches lie and you are telling us the truth!Sure that we will believe you.

There were Iranic nomads like Alans in Hun control,but Huns are Turkic.

c'mon dude why make a nother account for it they cab track Ip you idiot who ever you areSleepy


-------------
I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage


Posted By: Xiongnu Hun
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2007 at 05:30
I forgot my username and passwordOuch.I remembered username afer a new membership but still don't know the password =).
Everybody here!I am Huncuk =)Thumbs%20Up.An ı changed my nicname to Xiongnu Kn,huncuk was meaning hunling =).I am better with a greater nickname!


Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2007 at 09:21
Xiongnu Hun.
 
SInce you are double dippping, I would like you to pm or email one of the staff to look into you username and password. We will correct the problem and suspend one of your unused accounts.


-------------
Copyright 2004 Seko


Posted By: barbar
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 13:31
Originally posted by Nick Nick wrote:

 
Dear i didn't liked that map and the way how one goes into Iran/india etc etc.
 
 
If you don't like the map, then discuss the map. Saying a group of people didn't have homeland is just pure ignorance. We know Indoeuropean people (Including Iranic) were nomadic too. Can we say they didn't have home land? 
 
Quote  
I wise i could of explan to you why i said "Huns had no homeland" because i do not believe in the word "HUN" as an ONE group or tribe, althought it has been studied for many years but still no good luck in many questions that are asked.
 
 
History is based on facts, not your personal beliefs. If you don't know anything about a topic, then the wisest way is to put forward questions, not blind dinial. You should know denying something also needs some knowledge.   
 
Quote
Like for Example
 
Were the Huns a single tribe?
if they were why WAS there war among these tribes/empires.
 
 
I don't know which HUNs you meant here. Anyway I can give you definate answer, there was a single tribe called "HUN" among Turkic people.
 
Wars among same tribes were so common all through the history. I think you also need to expand your historical knowledge in that field.
 
Quote  
 
Who are the Huns? Chinese (pure Altics/ Orientals ) Turks(Iranic mixed) Mongolians (Mixed Altics) etc etc.
 
 
Racial definition for a nomadic group doesn't make a sense.
 
Quote
 
Did the Huns called themselve "Huns"
 
 
If they hadn't called themselves "HUN", I wonder where was this name came from.  Hun, Qun, Kun all have common root, relating to the SUN god they worship.  
 
Quote
Who were the European Huns?
 
 
They were a tribal confederacy comprising of many different groups. Leading group was OGHUR tribes (Tura tribes, decendants of Huns). 
 
Quote
 
and the lest goes on and on. As much as we like to talk about it the more we get confussed it can be very easy for Turkics to claim the northern Huns of central Asia, but what about south? Central Asia is a big region and never from a single race/ethnics.
 
 
Confusion is made by people themselves, not the facts. Nomadic groups were classified according to their culture (language, custom, religion etc), not according to their race.
 
Quote  
Like for example the "Hephthalites" so called the "Indo-European" or Iranian looking, were they huns? or those the name was just flown to them.
 
They were called White Huns by Indians, Yetai by Chinese, and classified as one of the Tura tribes, in turn the decendants of the Huns. 
 
Quote  
We can say even the word HUN and their background race is uncertain. So why do we have people mixing things up. Offcourse no-Offense to my dear fellow Turks or pro-Hunnics. If there is any new information that proves certains questions then please share it with me.
 
 
Back ground race? What is this term? Nomadic people might have started mixing before any of the historical records, seperation of language groups, development of distinct cultures. 
 
What we know according to the writen records is: mordern Turkic people are decendants of Tura tribes in turn decendants of Huns.  
 
Quote
My first question how does that map above with i disagree with supports that real huns were from Mongolia and if they were. What prove do we have that they reached Iran.

I think I have answered this question already. White Huns (Yetai) was one of the Tura tribes. Tura were the decendants of the Huns. I'm pretty sure White Huns reached Iran.

 



-------------
Either make a history or become a history.


Posted By: Jonny Starcraft
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 16:02
Originally posted by Xiongnu Hun Xiongnu Hun wrote:

I forgot my username and passwordOuch.I remembered username afer a new membership but still don't know the password =).
Everybody here!I am Huncuk =)Thumbs%20Up.An ı changed my nicname to Xiongnu Kn,huncuk was meaning hunling =).I am better with a greater nickname!


LOLSo we are all HUNs, even John Puaul II - His real Surname (Wojtyła) it's spelled originaly Voy(tila). At(tila). The Attila's camp was in Hungary and  Hungarians have most of that kinds of surnames. Mayby if we compare first parts of that surnames to Turkish words, we find a main meaning.


-------------
Kaczyński is the biggest LOSER. HiS handicapped clone too!


Posted By: TheMysticNomad
Date Posted: 17-Feb-2007 at 05:31
Jonny Starcraft (cool nameCool)-
 
Wasn't John Paul II a Goral (Polish Mountaineer)?  In some other thread a local legend was mentioned about Gorals originally being a subgroup of the Huns.


Posted By: Tar Szernd
Date Posted: 17-Feb-2007 at 10:26
hi!
 
There is a valley in the swiss Alps, and the people there have "hunnish" legends (2there are the descendants of Attila's huns from the war in 451 ,hungarian style wooden works f.e. wooden crucifix etc. Oh, and a lot of them has a "hun mark", a brown area on their skin:-)
 
TSZ


Posted By: Leonardo
Date Posted: 18-Feb-2007 at 03:27
Tar Szernd, you can find wooden crucifix all over the Alps ...
 
 
 


Posted By: Onogur
Date Posted: 18-Feb-2007 at 14:33
Hey,
 
I have just registered to this forum and have spent hours browsing through the topics... interesting....Smile
 
About the Huns... as some of you say, there are almost no records about where exactly they came from and why so suddenly. By the way... I have heart that Chiniese have some ancient documents that can explain a lot about the Huns but they have not been translated yet. Any ideas why?!
 
What I know about the Huns for sure is that they did not came from "nowhere" and after that disappeared. What I know is that the "Hun" is the short name given to the Hunnic Military Alliance, which consisted of hundreds, yes, hundreds of different tribes with different origin (Altic, Turkic and Iranian).
 
Btw: I know more about the origin of Bulgars, who were a huge part of the alliance. The traces go back to the surroundings of mountain Pamir or Pamyr (not sure how to spell it in English), Central Asia, 2000 BC. And as an example... Bulgars were not called Bulgars until 5th-6th century: they were several peoples of similar origin - Kutrigurs, Onogondurs, Utrigurs, etc. The word "Bulgar" means "Mixed", a mix between these tribes.
 
I can not tell when and why exactly the nomadic peoples in middle Asia started their migration to the west, but I suppose that it was not organised but chaotic. A nation after nation, and a tribe after tribe either joined the wave or were wiped out. The great achievment of Atila (or Avitokhol) was that he united and organised the wave.
 
According to the different origin of the people in the Hunnic Military Alliance, I suppose, that they looked different from each other. The largest part consisted of Turkic and Iranian people, so most of the Huns looked pretty much european. I have met several times the term "White" or "Silver" Huns, regarding Bulgars, Sarmantians and Hazars or Khazars.
 
The Huns did not disappear without a trace too. I am pretty sure that almost every person in Europe and the western part of Asia has hunnic gens. Also, there are several countries founed by the descendents of the Huns. Some of them are still on the map. Wink


Posted By: barbar
Date Posted: 19-Feb-2007 at 16:54
Originally posted by Onogur Onogur wrote:

Hey,
 
I have just registered to this forum and have spent hours browsing through the topics... interesting....Smile
 
Welcome to the forum, Onogur. Glad you have found here interesting.
 
Quote
About the Huns... as some of you say, there are almost no records about where exactly they came from and why so suddenly. By the way... I have heart that Chiniese have some ancient documents that can explain a lot about the Huns but they have not been translated yet. Any ideas why?!
 
 
Yes, there are many records about Huns in Chinese hisory. Ass Han Dynasty and Hun empire had a very long conflict. However, the Han historical records started from Si Maqian During Han period (~100 AD), so before that period, they mainly based on the legends. Anyway, according to the Hanshu, Xiongnu Zhuan:
 
" 匈奴,其先夏后氏之苗裔,曰淳维。"
 
"Xiongnu (Hun) is the decendant of Xia (first Chinese kingdom), also called Chunwei (Kunyi). "
 
Meaning their original land was the north of present day China and further north. Their history can be traced back to ~1700 BC or more. Since very early time, They had many major wars with later Chinese kindoms (Yin, Zhou, Qin etc), some times they won and sometimes they were defeated.  However as stated below:

"自淳维以至头曼千有余岁,时大时小,别散分离,尚矣,其世传不可得而次。然至冒顿,而匈奴最强大,尽服从北夷,而南与诸夏为敌国,其世姓官号可得而记云。 "
 
"Since Chunwei to Toman (first Emperor of Hun Empire, ~220 BC) there was more than 1000 years, sometimes big, sometimes small, dispersed, their history can't be known. But When it was the time of Maodun (Batur, the son of Toman, ~209 BC), Huns were the most strongest, all the nothern lands were conquered, and they made the other Xia kingdoms in the south as enemies. Their names, titles are well known."
 
Since then we have quite full record about the History of Huns. Their emperors' beautiful letters writen to the kings of Han, etc.

 
Quote  
What I know about the Huns for sure is that they did not came from "nowhere" and after that disappeared. What I know is that the "Hun" is the short name given to the Hunnic Military Alliance, which consisted of hundreds, yes, hundreds of different tribes with different origin (Altic, Turkic and Iranian).
 
 
Indeed, when Huns made the first empire duirng Batur Tenriqut (Maodun tengli hutu Chan yu) they conquered a vast land from Korea in the east to the Caspian sea in the west in the greatest extent. And the empire lasted more than four hundred years. They have definately included many ethnicities.  Do you mean Tungustic by Altaic? As Turkic is part of Altaic. Or IMO, Altaic is only Turkic.  
 
 
Quote
Btw: I know more about the origin of Bulgars, who were a huge part of the alliance. The traces go back to the surroundings of mountain Pamir or Pamyr (not sure how to spell it in English), Central Asia, 2000 BC. And as an example... Bulgars were not called Bulgars until 5th-6th century: they were several peoples of similar origin - Kutrigurs, Onogondurs, Utrigurs, etc. The word "Bulgar" means "Mixed", a mix between these tribes.
 
 
 
As we know from the history that oghur tribes were the decendants of the Huns, and Huns history can be traced back to at least 1700BC,  that makes sense, but i think it shouldn't be Pamir, Tenri mountains and Altai mountains. Any way, Pamir is the western strech of Tengri mountains.
 
 
Quote
I can not tell when and why exactly the nomadic peoples in middle Asia started their migration to the west, but I suppose that it was not organised but chaotic. A nation after nation, and a tribe after tribe either joined the wave or were wiped out. The great achievment of Atila (or Avitokhol) was that he united and organised the wave.
 
 
 
I think it had started very very early, and it's not only from east to the west direction. Main reason should be conflict and defeat. Attila was a great leader,as he managed to unite many groups of different background.
 
 
Quote
According to the different origin of the people in the Hunnic Military Alliance, I suppose, that they looked different from each other. The largest part consisted of Turkic and Iranian people, so most of the Huns looked pretty much european. I have met several times the term "White" or "Silver" Huns, regarding Bulgars, Sarmantians and Hazars or Khazars.
 
 
 
It is interesting, as we only know the Ephtalites in Afghanistan was known as white Huns. However, I did read somewhere the Hazars had two groups one is white Hazars and the other is black Hazar.
 
 
Quote
The Huns did not disappear without a trace too. I am pretty sure that almost every person in Europe and the western part of Asia has hunnic gens. Also, there are several countries founed by the descendents of the Huns. Some of them are still on the map. Wink
 
In Europe, at least the onoghur tribes appeared after the collapse of Attilla's empire.  And in the east, we have following Chinese record (Xin Tang shu, Huihu Zhuan) :
 
"回纥,其先匈奴也,俗多乘高轮车,元魏时亦号高车部,或曰敕勒,讹为铁勒。其部落曰袁纥、薛延陀、契苾羽、都播、骨利干、多览葛、仆骨、拔野古、同罗、浑、思结、斛薛、奚结、阿跌、白,凡十有五种,皆散处碛北。"
 
"Huihe (Uyghur), their ancestors were Xiongnu (Hun), they used high carts, so during yuanwei, also called Gaoche, or Chile, Tiele (Tura). Their tribes are : Yuan he (Oghuz), Xueyantuo (Sirtardush), Qiebiyu (Chibni), Dubo (Tuba?), Guligan (Gulghan), Dolange (Tilenggut), Bugu (Bulghor?), Bayegu (Bayeghur), Tongluo (Tonro), Hun (Hun), Sijie (izgil),  Huxue (Qoghursur), Xijie (Qomuq?), Adie (Adiz), Baisa (Baisar), fifteen tribes, they all scattered in the north."   
 
This is the early tribal composition of eastern Tura tribes, there were later tribal formation, from which at least we can see Hun decendants continued their legacy continuosly in the history. 
 
They built Uyghur empire after kok-Turk (Tujue) empire (which was also the part of Huns). Uyghur empire militarily and culturally strongly influenced one of the greatest Chinese empire - Tang.
 
BTW, Uyghur means Uy-oghur, the alliances of Oghurs. (and among later formation, there were Onuyghur tribes).
 
 
 
 


-------------
Either make a history or become a history.


Posted By: Onogur
Date Posted: 21-Feb-2007 at 08:53
Thank you very much for the information.... very nice of you, barbar!
 
I have one more question.... were avars, khazars and bulgars same people? I mean same people in three different khaganats/empires?
I ask that, because it is confusing.... all these wars between them and in the same time, they had the same language, the same montheistic religion (worshiping Tangra), all claimed to be descendents of Attila, and mainly - they had the same ruling dynasties. For example.... the Bulgars khans were from Dulo clan from the very beginning until mid 8th century, and the Avars had the same ruling clan in different periods until the collapse of their khaganat. To the east, the ruling clan or family of the Khazars was Ashina... both Ashina and Dulo are considered to be related, but looks like that they hated each other and fought almost all the time.
 
Btw, barbar, what part of Italy are you from? Have you heart of Alcek?


Posted By: Xiongnu Hun
Date Posted: 23-Feb-2007 at 11:12
They were same people.But Avars were more a confederation than other Turkic peoples ı think.


Posted By: Onogur
Date Posted: 24-Feb-2007 at 21:15
Too bad they were not united under one flag! Tongue


Posted By: barbar
Date Posted: 25-Feb-2007 at 06:44
Originally posted by Onogur Onogur wrote:

Thank you very much for the information.... very nice of you, barbar!
 
I have one more question.... were avars, khazars and bulgars same people? I mean same people in three different khaganats/empires?
I ask that, because it is confusing.... all these wars between them and in the same time, they had the same language, the same montheistic religion (worshiping Tangra), all claimed to be descendents of Attila, and mainly - they had the same ruling dynasties. For example.... the Bulgars khans were from Dulo clan from the very beginning until mid 8th century, and the Avars had the same ruling clan in different periods until the collapse of their khaganat. To the east, the ruling clan or family of the Khazars was Ashina... both Ashina and Dulo are considered to be related, but looks like that they hated each other and fought almost all the time.
 
Btw, barbar, what part of Italy are you from? Have you heart of Alcek?
 
Sorry for this late reply onogur.
 
First of all, the wars between same nomadic groups were very common in the history. Whenever they got a strong leader then they could get united, otherwise they usually form smaller tribal unity, and due to the same life style, they had more direct conflict with each other as for the land and power.  The spirit of freedom is deeply rooted in nomadic people's culture. So fighting and rebelling agaist conquest could last for centuries.
 
Bulghar as we have noted composed mainly of many Oghur tribes (Qutoghur, Utoghur, Onoghur, Saroghur etc), They were the one of the earliest Turkic groups who migrated to the west after the collaps of Xiongnu (Hun) Empire. 
 
Then we had Shianpei (Tungustic) who absorbed large number of remnant Huns and built Shianpei empire in eastern steppe during Tanshikuy. However this empire didn't last long. One of the later Shianpei (Touba) moved south, unified and built a Chinese dynasty (Wei or nothern Wei).
 
Then came the Rouran empire period in the eastern steppe. Rouruans according to Wei history were Hunnic in nature,  but the ruling class were the same as Shianpei.
 
Gok-turk (another type of Huns) overthrew Rouran and forced them to move to the west.This group were known as Uar or Avar, which historians make the link.   Gok-turk ruled over both eastern and western steppe. So they had to move further west to become a threat to the Bulghars there.  So came this conflict. However, Avars had absorped large number of Oghur tribes and Slavic tribes.
 
After the collaps of western Gok-turk empire, some royal (Ashina) group moved west due to internal power conflict, and they were known to be Hazars. At that time, Avar had already vanished from the political world after the defeat by eastern Roman empire.  
 
So these three groups moved to the west one after another, it is quite natural they fought with each other for land and power to survive.
 
BTW, I'm not Italian, it is only my current location. I'm Uyghur. I'll be interested if you can tell me something about 'Alcek'.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


-------------
Either make a history or become a history.


Posted By: Onogur
Date Posted: 26-Feb-2007 at 00:36

Thank you, barbar!

Please, take a look at this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcek - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcek
http://www.kroraina.com/armen/armen_6.html - http://www.kroraina.com/armen/armen_6.html
 
About the name "Ashina". I have read that its roots come from the name of a certain ruling family/clan. Is that right? And also... aren't ancient Uyghurs related to Bulgars in some way?!


Posted By: barbar
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2007 at 05:24
Thanks for the link, Onogur, that's interesting.
 
Yes, Ashina was the Royal clan of Kok-Turks (Tujue). Tujue originally was composed of ten tribes, and Ashina was one of them, which built the Kok-Turk empire.  Tujue is another type of Huns (Xiongnu).
 
As for the relationship between Uyghurs and Bulghars, common belief is that Uyghurs were Uy-Oghurs, the alliances of Oghur tribes, who were the decendants of Huns (Xiongnu) remained in the original land. While the ancients Bulghar tribes were the Oghur tribes who moved to the west after the collaps of Hun (Xiongnu) empire. 
 


-------------
Either make a history or become a history.


Posted By: Onogur
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2007 at 20:32
Nice... Smile
 
Very "contactual" people were Oghurs!Wink
 
About the Uyghurs... is their population mainly in China now? Do they still keep their own ancient traditions and habits or they are generally assimilated already?!
 
 


Posted By: Onogur
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2007 at 20:48

And something else to help me complete the picture:

What is common between Oghurs or Hunu and Mongols? Where is the truth?


Posted By: barbar
Date Posted: 11-Mar-2007 at 06:35
Originally posted by Onogur Onogur wrote:

Nice... Smile
 
Very "contactual" people were Oghurs!Wink
 
About the Uyghurs... is their population mainly in China now? Do they still keep their own ancient traditions and habits or they are generally assimilated already?!
 
 
 
They we are mainly in China, there are some big groups in Qazaqistan and Qirghizistan. The Uyghurs in Uzbekistan became Uzbeks, as these two groups are almost identical.
 
The Chinese hasn't managed to assimiliate Uyghurs yet. Religiously Uyghurs were Moslims. So It's quite common for them to intermarry with Qazaqs and other Moslim groups, but not with Chinese. Historically and culturally, Uyghurs are very proud of their achievments, so they never looked up Chinese culture.  Chinese reached their cultural hight in Tang Dynasty, and it was this time when Tang adopted Uyghur culture in many aspects. Uyghur music, drawing, fashion etc became popular even in Tang capital according to Chinese poets.     
 
 
 


-------------
Either make a history or become a history.


Posted By: barbar
Date Posted: 11-Mar-2007 at 06:45
Originally posted by Onogur Onogur wrote:

And something else to help me complete the picture:

What is common between Oghurs or Hunu and Mongols? Where is the truth?
 
According to the Chinese chronicles, Oghur (Oghuz) tribes (Tiele tribes)were the decendants of the Huns.
 
Ancient Mongols were the decendants of Shiwei, in turn of Xianbei, in turn of Donghu.
 
Huns drove Donghu to the east, and they intermingled with local people (Tungustic) there, and formed two groups: Xianbei and Wuhuan.
 


-------------
Either make a history or become a history.


Posted By: JuMong
Date Posted: 17-Mar-2007 at 23:47
I don't know how accurate this is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns


Posted By: TheMysticNomad
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2007 at 06:38
JuMong-
 
I went to your link and read the article.  It did not seem to be very well-written.  The Wiki article on the Xiongnu is much better.  It presents some compelling recent evidence that seems to bolster the theory that the western Xiongnu became the European Huns.  In particular, it mentions the fact that in a newly discovered Bactrian source, which itself is a translation of a Chinese source, the name Xiongnu was translated as Huna.  It also mentions a Byzantine document listing early Bulgarian rulers as being descended from Mao Tun (of the Xiongnu) and Erlakh (Attila's son).  The fact that Hun and Xiongnu cauldrons are almost indentical is also mentioned.
 
Interesting stuff on Wikipedia, that's for sure.


Posted By: Mordoth
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2007 at 14:31
That is a great spectacular article .
 
We are the descent of Huns , no problem with that .

But i say that ; Hunnic immigration left 2 Empires seperated into two pieces .
 
A dynasty was the Roman Empire , the second one was heirs of Huns ; Sien-Pi dynasty . 
And i could proclaim that ; Gokturks ( Koktoruks  , Goktureiks whatever you wish to call ) were Hunnic like Mongolians .

I do not know what is your perception about my fortunate ideas . I 've always evaluated & remembered Finnic and Magyaric ( Hungarian )  people as my Brothers . They truely have a bondage with the Turks . ( I did not mean their linguistic sections , their genes )
 
And I call them Turanic people as well .


-------------
If Electricity Comes from Electrons ; does Morality come from Morons :|


Posted By: Xiongnu Hun
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2007 at 14:40
Mongolians are not Hunnic,
We can say: Xiongnu-Turks,Xianbei-Mongols


Posted By: Mordoth
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2007 at 14:42
Mongolians are Turanic , and they are also Hunnic people who shared their culture with us.
 
And i indeed assumed that Mongolian was a modified form of one of 13 Turkish dialectS ;)


-------------
If Electricity Comes from Electrons ; does Morality come from Morons :|


Posted By: huns
Date Posted: 10-Apr-2007 at 18:51
Hello ppl Big%20smile
 
You like a fantasy ? Clap


Posted By: huns
Date Posted: 10-Apr-2007 at 19:17
Originally posted by barbar barbar wrote:

Then we had Shianpei (Tungustic) who absorbed large number of remnant Huns and built Shianpei empire in eastern steppe during Tanshikuy. However this empire didn't last long. One of the later Shianpei (Touba) moved south, unified and built a Chinese dynasty (Wei or nothern Wei).
 
Gok-turk (another type of Huns) overthrew Rouran and forced them to move to the west.This group were known as Uar or Avar, which historians make the link.   Gok-turk ruled over both eastern and western steppe. So they had to move further west to become a threat to the Bulghars there.  So came this conflict. However, Avars had absorped large number of Oghur tribes and Slavic tribes.
 
After the collaps of western Gok-turk empire, some royal (Ashina) group moved west due to internal power conflict, and they were known to be Hazars. At that time, Avar had already vanished from the political world after the defeat by eastern Roman empire.  
 
I have 4 question:
 
1) Translate me please Huns words "touba" and "wei" from Uygur !
 
2)Gok-turk (another type of Huns) --This your opinion?
 
3)inf., for u....... avars live in Dagestan ! How you can be avars if If you Uygur ????????
 
4)Translate a word "Hazar" from turc language ! plzzzz


Posted By: barbar
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2007 at 10:51
Originally posted by huns huns wrote:

 
I have 4 question:
 
1) Translate me please Huns words "touba" and "wei" from Uygur !
 
 
Why do you think these two words are Hunnic? AFAIK, "Wei" is Chinese word for the "Tuoba Xianbei" kingdom in China. Tuoba in Turkish form is "Tawghach", in Orhun Monuments, you can see the term used for the Tang dynasty as for them Tang rulers are the decendants of Touba. The meaning in Uyghur is "affiliated". Tawghach Bughrahan was used during Qarahanid period.
 
Quote
2)Gok-turk (another type of Huns) --This your opinion?
 
No, check the following record from Beishi, J99:
 
"突厥者,其先居西海之右,独为部落,盖匈奴之别种也。姓阿史那氏。"
 
Translation:
 
Tujue, ancestors lived in the right side of western sea, itself is a tribe, all are the another type of Xiongnu (Huns), family name is Ashina.
 
Quote
3)inf., for u....... avars live in Dagestan ! How you can be avars if If you Uygur ????????
 
I didn't understand your question well. Anyway, Avars were linked with Rouruan. Rouruan were Hunnic in nature (according to weishu). Uyghurs were also the decendants of Huns (according to many historical records).
Is this what you want to know?
 
Quote
4)Translate a word "Hazar" from turc language ! plzzzz
 
There was a tribe with the name Hazar among Toqquz Oghuz-On Uyghur confederacy. They were considered to be the the eastern remnant tribes of the Hazars of the west. In Turkic, Hazar means  Ghuzer. Ghuz=Oghuz=Oghur=Ghur, Er means "man". You can also find this type of tribal nomination among European Huns, such as Angisciri, in the form of "ir".
 
 
 
  


-------------
Either make a history or become a history.


Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2007 at 13:49
Hi Barbar, hi Huns. 'Hazar' does not mean 'Ghuz Er'. You can't break the stable Turkic sound system easily. If it's 'u' without umlaut, so for sure, the last part would be 'ar' (and not er) which shows a future tense verb which will be done by the subject, in this case, or 'aq' which is similar to 'ar' in use and meaning. Or if it's (umlaut), so the first consonant wouldn't be 'q', it would be 'k'. We know 'q' could be changed into 'h', but not 'k'.

The word 'Oghuz' in Turkmen (as an Oghuz language) is "oq(tribe)+z(makes plural)=tribes". 9 Oghuz never called themselves "Ghuz". In our vocabulary, "ghuz" is a verb, unlike "Oghuz" which is a noun. It's just an abbreviatin form Moslem historians (mostly Arabs) used, but not Turkmens themselves.

-------------
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.


Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2007 at 13:58
I've got a question Barbar. Do Uighurs use the Altaic suffix 'ghur/ghyr,gr/gyr'?

I've noted you point out the word "Uighur" is "Ui+Oghuz". You might be right when talking about 'Ui" which means to "join". But "ghur" is not the shortened form of "Oghuz".

It's just like Turkic words 'alghyr' (al+ghyr), 'sylgyr' (syl+gyr), zgr(z+gr) and now, this is 'uighur' (ui+ghur).

Could you please tell me if you know of the suffix 'ghur' and its equivalents? Maybe in the old Uighur texts?

-------------
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.


Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2007 at 15:13
Hazar means wanderer in Turkic modernday Turkish is Gezer

-------------
I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage


Posted By: barbar
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2007 at 10:21
Originally posted by gok_toruk gok_toruk wrote:

Hi Barbar, hi Huns. 'Hazar' does not mean 'Ghuz Er'. You can't break the stable Turkic sound system easily. If it's 'u' without umlaut, so for sure, the last part would be 'ar' (and not er) which shows a future tense verb which will be done by the subject, in this case, or 'aq' which is similar to 'ar' in use and meaning. Or if it's (umlaut), so the first consonant wouldn't be 'q', it would be 'k'. We know 'q' could be changed into 'h', but not 'k'.
 
Turkic gloatal "gh" can be naturally pronounced as "h" or "g" by others. Almost all "q" changed into "k" in anatolian Turkish.  BTW, what does "Hazar" mean in your opinion?
Quote
The word 'Oghuz' in Turkmen (as an Oghuz language) is "oq(tribe)+z(makes plural)=tribes". 9 Oghuz never called themselves "Ghuz". In our vocabulary, "ghuz" is a verb, unlike "Oghuz" which is a noun. It's just an abbreviatin form Moslem historians (mostly Arabs) used, but not Turkmens themselves.
 
I don't support the Oq+z theory.   Oghuz is widely accepted "z" Turkic variant of early "r" Turkic.  So the earlier Turkic form was "Oghur". the sound "o" in Oghuz or Oghur is not that stable when comes with prefix, and tends to be swallowed, hence came the respective terms "Ghuz" or "Ghur". 
 
What's the meaning of "ghuz" as a verb in Turkman? As in Uyghur, we don't have this verb. However, we have suffix to add after the verb.
 
 
 
 


-------------
Either make a history or become a history.


Posted By: barbar
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2007 at 10:48
Originally posted by gok_toruk gok_toruk wrote:

I've got a question Barbar. Do Uighurs use the Altaic suffix 'ghur/ghyr,gr/gyr'?

I've noted you point out the word "Uighur" is "Ui+Oghuz". You might be right when talking about 'Ui" which means to "join". But "ghur" is not the shortened form of "Oghuz".

It's just like Turkic words 'alghyr' (al+ghyr), 'sylgyr' (syl+gyr), zgr(z+gr) and now, this is 'uighur' (ui+ghur).

Could you please tell me if you know of the suffix 'ghur' and its equivalents? Maybe in the old Uighur texts?
 
Yes, we use all of the above suffix. we also use the suffix "Ghuz".  "Ghu(r)"  is something that does a specific job.
 
Musical instrument: Chalghu(r)
Washing machine: Kir alghu(r)
 
but it has other forms such as Qu(r) etc. eg: Chatqu
 
Ghuz is imperitive form of  a verb in passive term:
 
Kiyimini salghuz (make some one take off the cloth)
 
it also has other forms such as Quz etc. eg: Atquz
 
 
 
As I have pointed out earlier, Uyghur is Uy-Oghur. As y is semi vowel, O is very easy to disappear. Not only this fact, many of the Uyghur tribes had the same Oghur composition in their names: Qutoghur,  bayoghur etc.
 


-------------
Either make a history or become a history.


Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2007 at 14:20
 


-------------
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.


Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2007 at 14:29
"Q" could be easily changed to 'h', right, but it's not that much frequent with 'u'. What more, if that' 'u', for sure the last part wouldn't be 'er'; that would be 'ar' or 'aq'. Anatolian Turkish lacks 'q' and 'gh'. It's not a shift among consonants; they simply CAN'T pronounce 'q'.
 
9 Oghuz, as the name itself says means 'confederation of 9 tribes'. You're right when saying Turkic 'z' was almost always 'r' in old Turkic, but that's for nouns. The 'z' in the word "Oghuz" makes plural; it's not a word; it's not even part of a word.
 
This is really strange for me. In Central Asian dialects, for sure, you can't change the word "oghuz" to 'ghuz' as they do it in Farsi or Arabic. What do you mean by prefix? 9? or something else? By the way, we Turkmens and also all Central Asian dialects (if they would talk about it) still say '9 Oghuz', but not '9 Ghuz'.


-------------
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.


Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2007 at 14:39
"Quz" in Turkmen, which is always used bythe suffix'za', means 'to bear'; the job is related to animals.

While 'qu/ky' acts exactly like English 'to' as in 'to go' (Turkic alqu = to take'), 'ghur'is just like English 'ing'. "Alghyr" means 'taking', 'Sylgyr' means 'erasing', "zgr" means 'being sorry' and 'Uighur' means 'joining'. Everywhere in the history, they are described as 'Oghuz' and not 'Oghur'. Even if we consider modern Turkic 'z' is the later change of old Turkic 'r', we should keep in mind that this change is only for words while the 'z' in the word "Oghuz" is not a word, is not part of a word. It only makes plural (one of the ways to make plural in Turkic is to add 'z' or 's').

'Oghuz Qaan' means 'the Khan of the tribes'. Even in the Uighur text about Oghuz Khan's history, that's 'OghuZ Qaghan'.

If you ask any Central Asian what 'Uighur' (or in some dialects ygr; some use y, so the whole word would be ygr), they would tell you it means 'joining'. 'Uighur', as you know, refers to people who joined 'Oghuz Qaqa' in the battle he had with his father.

-------------
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.


Posted By: Balain d Ibelin
Date Posted: 07-May-2007 at 22:22
Huns were actually Mongols and Nomaden Turkish (Turcoman), they began to Migrate to Central Asia at 50 B.C., then, in 300 AD they migrated to The Russian Steppes, and, in 440s, led by Attila, they attacked Europe. But after Attila successor (Ellak) died, the Hunnic Empire in the west collapsed and the Huns must retreat back to the steppes.
 
While the Hunnic Yeta Tribes, not like their families, they expanded to India (And a bit part of Persia), their first opponents were not the Hindu Indians, but their first enemies were the Yuezhi tribes which exiled to India after the Huns (NOT the Yeta Huns - The Huns which migrate to the Russian Steppes) attacked them and nearly vanished the Yeuzhi tribes from the Earth.


-------------
"Good quality will be known among your enemies, before you ever met them my friend"Trobadourre de Crusadier Crux


Posted By: uighur
Date Posted: 18-May-2007 at 21:25
Originally posted by Rasoolpuri Rasoolpuri wrote:

   What was original homeland of Huns .In which century they migrated from their homeland
    
from what is now eastern turkistan, kazahigistan, kirgistan, turkemistan, and so forth. All the turk countries including Easetern Turksian, the uighurs who stayed the closest to their homeland.


Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 19-May-2007 at 00:52
One thing that can not be detested, is that the Hun Empire, constitituted an entire Epic, in the history of Rome's complete existence. Probably one of the most important epics, until the reign of Justinian The Great, Emperor of the East.


Posted By: huns
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2007 at 13:30
Originally posted by uighur uighur wrote:

Originally posted by Rasoolpuri Rasoolpuri wrote:

   What was original homeland of Huns .In which century they migrated from their homeland
    
from what is now eastern turkistan, kazahigistan, kirgistan, turkemistan, and so forth. All the turk countries including Easetern Turksian, the uighurs who stayed the closest to their homeland.
 
The native land of Huns is today's China. I very much respect the Turk, but you are not Huns.


Posted By: BAWIR$AQ
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2007 at 23:51
Originally posted by huns huns wrote:

The native land ofHuns is today's China. I very much respect the Turk, but you are not Huns.

Central Asian Huns (Xiongnu) originated from modern Mongolia and northern China, the ancestral lands of the Turkic peoples.

-------------

"Malım janımnı sadağası, Janım arımnı sadağası"

"Sacrifice your riches for your life, Sacrifice your life for your honor"


Posted By: Afghanan
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2007 at 00:05
Originally posted by Balian d'Ibelin Balian d'Ibelin wrote:

Huns were actually Mongols and Nomaden Turkish (Turcoman), they began to Migrate to Central Asia at 50 B.C., then, in 300 AD they migrated to The Russian Steppes, and, in 440s, led by Attila, they attacked Europe. But after Attila successor (Ellak) died, the Hunnic Empire in the west collapsed and the Huns must retreat back to the steppes.
 
While the Hunnic Yeta Tribes, not like their families, they expanded to India (And a bit part of Persia), their first opponents were not the Hindu Indians, but their first enemies were the Yuezhi tribes which exiled to India after the Huns (NOT the Yeta Huns - The Huns which migrate to the Russian Steppes) attacked them and nearly vanished the Yeuzhi tribes from the Earth.
 
The Yue Chi (Kushans) didn't vanish, they were simply absorbed.  Same with the Yeta (which I assume you mean Ephtalite) Huns, or Iranian Huns.  These Huns are said to be actually related to the Yue Chih themselves and were probably a branch that were isolated for a period until finally bursting from the Pamir mountains and invading Eastern Iran, Afghanistan, Transoxiana, and Northwestern India.   
 


-------------
The perceptive man is he who knows about himself, for in self-knowledge and insight lays knowledge of the holiest.
~ Khushal Khan Khattak


Posted By: Kerimoglu
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2007 at 03:33
I very much respect the Turk, but you are not Huns. -Turks are Turks, why we shuld be HUns. It is just when there were not turks, we were Huns

-------------
History is a farm. Nations are farmers. What they planted before will show what is going to grow tomorrow!


Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2007 at 06:31
Originally posted by huns huns wrote:

Originally posted by uighur uighur wrote:

Originally posted by Rasoolpuri Rasoolpuri wrote:

   What was original homeland of Huns .In which century they migrated from their homeland
    
from what is now eastern turkistan, kazahigistan, kirgistan, turkemistan, and so forth. All the turk countries including Easetern Turksian, the uighurs who stayed the closest to their homeland.
 
The native land of Huns is today's China. I very much respect the Turk, but you are not Huns.


Look a chinese dude LOL


-------------
I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage


Posted By: huns
Date Posted: 25-Jun-2007 at 07:58
 
Originally posted by huns huns wrote:

  
 
The native land of Huns is today's China. I very much respect the Turk, but you are not Huns.

 
Believe me, the Chinese history begins there where the history of huns comes to an end.
 
 


Posted By: minchickie
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2007 at 23:50
Quote They, however, called themselves Majars (which was also a Turkic tribe)


I am Hungarians and Magyars are NOT a Turkic tribe. lol. We are a URALIC peoples with our own language. We do not come from turks. Turks liek to claim alot but Magyars are not them. There is no proof even that Huns are Turkic or even North chinese. I believe Huns are also a Uralic people again NOT TURKIC. Hungarians and Turks and Finns are all from Asia but doesnt mean we are all from one Turkic tribe. Before Turks were Mongols and if thats the case them we are all Mongolian!LOL


-------------


Posted By: minchickie
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2007 at 23:51
fact is HUNS were HUNS. 

-------------


Posted By: Xiongnu Hun
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 05:03
Originally posted by minchickie minchickie wrote:

Quote They, however, called themselves Majars (which was also a Turkic tribe)


I am Hungarians and Magyars are NOT a Turkic tribe. lol. We are a URALIC peoples with our own language. We do not come from turks. Turks liek to claim alot but Magyars are not them. There is no proof even that Huns are Turkic or even North chinese. I believe Huns are also a Uralic people again NOT TURKIC. Hungarians and Turks and Finns are all from Asia but doesnt mean we are all from one Turkic tribe. Before Turks were Mongols and if thats the case them we are all Mongolian!LOL
 
There are many proofs about Hun's Turkicness,read some Turkology books.They come from Xiongnu.
But Magyars are not Turkic,they are Uralic.And their relation with Huns is a little.
And Mongolians are not newer than TurksConfused


-------------
www.tallarmeniantale.com


Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 12:08
The Hsiung-nu's wide lands eventually centered from the Tat'ung to the Ordos regions, especially during Motun's reign. Eventually the Northern and Southern branches held different emipires and the south became vassals of the Han. When the Northern Hsiung-nu lost power subordinates such as the Hsien-pi defected south. Some of the Hsiung-nu moved west into the Syr Darya during the second century. Most likely it is these Western Hsiung-nu, who mixed with various locals, that became the Huns. In 160 was the first notice of the Huns around the Aral sea and the Ural region. This process Turkified Inner Eurasia. By the time of the GokTurk empire Turkish language had dominated the central and western steppes.
 
After the demise of the Northern Hsiung-nu, the Chinese described most of her border neighbors as Hsien-pi. They were once part of the Hsiung-nu empire but were originally from Manchuria. They were part of a Tung-hu confederations that was defeated by Motun the Hsiung-nu. The language of the Hsien-pi was closely related to later Mongolian and Kitan.
 
The ethnic name 'Mongol' was actually a much later creation during the pre-reign of Cengiz Khan. However, earlier forms of Mongolian were spoken along with earlier forms of Turkish at the time of the Hsiung-nu.
 
The designation "Hu" refers to 'Horse riding barbarians' in Chinese. Having already mentioned the Hsiung-nu, we can now look at the others. The Tung-hu were 'eastern barbarians' around modern day eastern Mongolia. The Yeuh-chih dominated the Kansu region. Eventually most tribal affiliations were dilluted under the banner of one governing clan yet with multi ethnic peoples. Further to the west were the Ting-ling (Dingling) and later the T-ieh-le, who are linked to the Turkic Oghurs.
 
The course of all of these peoples had an influence over the next millenium. As the Turko (Hsiung-nu) and part of her Mongols (Hsien-pi) moved west into Iran they gathered more peoples and were later known as the Chionites. This name is the precurser to what europeans know as Huns.
 
Later during Khazar power there had been Ugric speaking groups which had bordered her lands. These groups had picked up Turk culture, the most famous being the Magyars. With pressure from the Pechenegs, the Magyars moved further west into lands of the previous land owners,Hun's and then Avars. In the late 10'th century the Magyars established a durable state of Hungary and converted to Christianity in 1000ad under Stephan (Istvan).
 
It would be an act of folly to politicize these events for the sake of nationalist gain. Historical resources should be debated for the sake of validity and reliability. The names of various tribes are recorded by those who kept them (Chinese, Greek and Persians). I hope I cleared the air regarding some of the original locations of the tribes in question. I'm sure many of our members have access to resources and can produce a more detailed description than I.
 
 


-------------
Copyright 2004 Seko


Posted By: Ariston
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2007 at 03:42
We cannot consider Russia as one big nation. There are are hundreds of small different people groups. Slavic, Finno-Ugrian, Turkic, Mongolic etc...

http://www.eki.ee/books/redbook/introduction.shtml

But if we think the heart of Russian area around Moscow to St.Petersburg (European Russia):

The Kyivan "Rus Chronicles" which contain the famous "Povist Vremenykh Lit" by Nestor tells very clearly that the Russian nation is descended primarily from Finno-Ugric tribes and not Slavic tribes. These Finno-Ugric tribes are identified as the Chud, Ves, Meria, Muroma, Cheremysy, Mordva, Perm, Pechera, Yam, Zymyhola, Kors, Narova, and Lib. These Finno-Ugric tribes were the indigenous tribes which lived in the area which is now European Russia into which the Slavic tribes of Slovenes and Kryvychi slowly pressed in and eventually became absorbed. It was only because of Kyiv's suzerainty over this small area of today's Russia that the Finno-Ugrians were Slavicized and Christianized and eventually became the heart of what is today Russia, but what was then called at first Suzdalia-Vladimir and later Muscovia. The subsequent rule of the Mongols over this area had according to some Russian historians as much or greater impact on the Russian culture and psyche than did the period of Kyivan rule. These Slavicized Finno-Ugrians at first were called Muscovites during the Mongol rule and later during the reign of Peter I changed their name to Russians. The southern Slavic people (Ukranians) still call northern Russian people as Finno-Ugors or/and Muscovites.

This is what geneticists from the Magadan Institute of Biological Problems of the North tell us; they have learnt that the succession of Russians from the Novgorod Oblast is most distinctive. This is brought about by the close vicinity of the Finnish-Ugorsk peoples, who, from time immemorial when the ancient population was formed, have had a noticeable influence.

Scientists conducted their research in Novgorod Veliki and the Volot settlement, on the border between the Novgorod and Pskov oblasts. They took blood samples from 80 volunteers from each populated location, Russians from the mother's side in a minimum of two generations. From the collected blood samples they isolated mitochondrial DNA and looked for genes in this DNA, which is spread among the populations of various regions of Eurasia. It transpires that individual groups of genes found in the residents of Novgorod, are a characteristic feature not of Russians, but for the Northern Finno-Ugorsk people of Eastern Europe - the Finns, Udmurts, Maris, and Komi-Zyryan. This means that these and other peoples like them played a part at some time in the creation of the population on Novgorod soil. However the genetic influence of Novgorod people on Russians from other regions is not that similar. The research has shown that residents of Volot are clearly distinguished from the Stavropol and Kursk populations, while the population of Novgorod Veliki is clearly distinguished from that of the Krasnodar and Stavropol districts and of the Kursk and Kostroma oblasts.





Posted By: Ariston
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2007 at 04:36
Sorry, previous post got to wrong topic!
Should be -> Russians are Finns?


Posted By: huns
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2007 at 15:41
Originally posted by Ariston Ariston wrote:

Russians are Finns?
Russian are slaves(or slav)


Posted By: Kerimoglu
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2007 at 17:41
U know, once one armenian Historian told that Gruzin comes from Gruz which means load in Russian, and that means Georgians were Porters of Russians and Armenians. This is how Mr. Hun is critisizing. After all of those facts, he simply refuses accepting that we, Turks, are the very descendants of Huns. I know buddy, this hurts a lot, but if u read at least Rene Grousset, Gumilyov, Babcock, the book "Turkish World", the book by Oxford - "the Fall of The Roman Empire" you will get information from foreign authors that huns actually our ancestors.

-------------
History is a farm. Nations are farmers. What they planted before will show what is going to grow tomorrow!


Posted By: plus-the-best
Date Posted: 26-Aug-2007 at 15:05
Hi all, I'm chechen. I wish to tell, you will see all who such Huns, Alans, Khazars and  who posessed empire Chzhou and Qin(huns or chine) when Russia will be destroyed as Rome.


Posted By: Kerimoglu
Date Posted: 27-Aug-2007 at 15:04
Wassalam Aleykum brat! Do zdrastvuyet Joxar Dudayev! Slava Yemu!
 
Pust vraq na vek pomnit 4to mi tolko naklonimsya pered Allaxom kokda moluyem!


-------------
History is a farm. Nations are farmers. What they planted before will show what is going to grow tomorrow!


Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 27-Aug-2007 at 15:17
No need to respond to the previous post. That member won't be with us any longer. What the heck did you write anyway?

-------------
Copyright 2004 Seko


Posted By: Kerimoglu
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2007 at 03:22

Oh, sorry I forgot translating.

 

Well, I realised he is a very passionate Chechen and they often compare Russia to Rome and Chechnya to Carthage :))))

 

Therefore I wrote in Russian - Salam, Greetings to Johar Dudayev,

also, Son of Shamil Bassayev is my friends, studies in Azerbaijan, he always used to tell:

 

Let the enemy know for the centuries that we will stand on our knees only before Allah when we pray to him/her. 

 

something like that is the translation of the seconf sentence, below.



-------------
History is a farm. Nations are farmers. What they planted before will show what is going to grow tomorrow!


Posted By: Hungo
Date Posted: 28-Mar-2009 at 02:15
Originally posted by pekau pekau wrote:

That's why the Huns never had a capital or other cities.



Tongwancheng

Xiongnu - asian hun capital city. The uncovered city occupies one square km in Jingbian County in northwest China's Shaanxi Province, adjacent to the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region. It was built by more than 100,000 Xiongnu people in the year 419. Named "Tongwancheng", which means "unify all countries", the city is composed of three parts, the palace walls, the inner city and the outer city. Watchtowers stand at the four corners of the complex. The 16-30 meter thick city walls are made with sand and white-powdered earth mixed with glutinous rice water. This mixture made the earthen walls as hard as the stone walls.

From a distance, the white city looks like a giant ship. The southwestern turret, the highest of the four, is 31 meters high and looks like a ship's mast. The ruined city is now fenced with brush-wood, trees and grass.

"It is the most substantial, magnificent and well-preserved city to be built by any ethnic group in the history of China," said Zhu Shiguang, president of the China Ancient City Society.


During the Qin (221-206 B.C.) and the Han (206-220 B.C.) dynasties, the Huns subdued regimes ruled by other northern ethnic groups in the Western Regions which included present-day Xinjiang and parts of Central Asia, and became a big threat to the domain of feudal empires in the Central Plains.

During the first century B.C., the Huns were defeated by imperial troops led by Emperor Hanwu, the most famous in the Western Han Dynasty, and then split into two parts, the Northern Huns and the Southern Huns.

From the year 89 to 91 A.D., the main force of the Northern Huns, defeated by the Southern Huns and the imperial troops of the Eastern Han Dynasty (25-220) successively, moved to the Ili River valley, Central Asia, regions east to the Don River and the Volga River valley.

"The Huns played an important role in the world history, especially in the shaping of the European nationalities and the development of European history," said Lin Gan, a professor specializing in the study of Huns at the Inner Mongolian University.




-------------
Attila király katonája


Posted By: Basmachi
Date Posted: 26-May-2009 at 02:05
Xiong Nus was ancestor of many Turanid nation like Turks (and Turkics of course), Mongols, Magyars etc. bu mostly Turks. Because Modu Shanyu/Mao-Dun/Oghuz Khan was a Oghuz Turk.


-------------
"Yesterday is but today's memory, tomorrow is today's dream." (Khalil Gibran)


Posted By: Justurk
Date Posted: 31-May-2009 at 14:20
Originally posted by gok_toruk gok_toruk wrote:

"Q" could be easily changed to 'h', right, but it's not that much frequent with 'u'. What more, if that' 'u', for sure the last part wouldn't be 'er'; that would be 'ar' or 'aq'. Anatolian Turkish lacks 'q' and 'gh'. It's not a shift among consonants; they simply CAN'T pronounce 'q'. 
 
My dear friend, I do not think that you say Anatolian Turkish lacks Q and Gh ( G'/Ğ) is entirely true. That lacks the sounds Q and Gh is not Anatolian Turkish but Istanbulite Standard Dialect which imposed as Standard Literary Language on the whole Anatolia.


-------------
Whether you call Turkish or Turkic, We are all Turks.


Posted By: Inah
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2009 at 08:16
Originally posted by Segestan Segestan wrote:

The Huns are Not the peoples of Eastern stock. This is a myth told to hid the supernatural coming of the Huns. ... from the Gothic account of the Huns.   " We have ascertained that the nation of the Huns , who surpassed all others in atrocity, came thus into being. When Filimer , fifth King of Sweden, was entering Scythia, with his people, as we have before described, he found among them certain sorcerer women, whom they call in their native tongue Aliorumnas, or Al-runas, whom he suspected and drove forth from the midst of his army into the wilderness. The unclean spirits that wander up and down in desert places , seeing these women, made concubines of them, and from this unionsprang that most fierce people of the Huns who were at first little , foul ,emanciated creatures, dwelling among the swamps ,possessing only the shadow of hunman speech by way of language...... Nations whom they would never have vanquished in fair fight fled horrified from these frightful --- faces I can hardly call them , but rather ---shapeless black collops of flesh , with little points instead of eyes. No hair on thier cheeks or chins gives grace to adolescence or dignity to age, but deep furrowed scars instead down the sides of their faces, show the impress of the iron which with characteristic ferocity they apply to every male  that is born among them .... They are little in stature, but lithe and active in their motions, and especially skilful in riding , broadshouldered, good at the use of a bow and arrows, with sinewy necks, and always holding their heads high in their pride"  
 

Now if psychologist and psychiatrists observe the minds observing the world .... Freud and Jung would have had a field day with those Gothic accounts of the Huns.




Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net