Print Page | Close Window

What happened to the 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=6526
Printed Date: 14-Oct-2019 at 13:51
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: What happened to the Huns?
Posted By: Loknar
Subject: What happened to the Huns?
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2005 at 16:26

After Atilla's death, his empire crumbled.

 

I always wondered what exactly happened to the Huns? The actual people lived in Germany I believe at about the time of Atilla's death. Did these people pack up and leave? Did they settle and blend in with the local poulation?

These Huns are believed to be from Asia and woudl no doubt have Asian features. Are there any people living in Central Europe with such characteristics?

Thanks in advance.




Replies:
Posted By: Feramez
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2005 at 19:36
I'm sure a lot went back to Central Asia but a lot also stayed in Europe.  They mixed a lot with the locals and lost their culture over time.  Today there is a group in Hungary that claims to be the decendents of Huns and just recently tried to get offical recognition from Hungary as a minority group but have failed.


Posted By: Jazz
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2005 at 20:37
Attila is a common first name in Hungary as well.

-------------
http://www.forums.internationalhockey.net/index.php?/index.php?referrerid=8 - International Hockey Forums


Posted By: Feramez
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2005 at 21:55
It's very common in Turkish too.  Also, from what I know of other Turk cultures, it's commonly used among them too.


Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2005 at 06:58
strange i hear a family member of mine is called Arpad and other Atilla, arpad is an Hungarian king also Atilla (for any sence).

-------------
Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı
http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg -


Posted By: vulkan02
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2005 at 16:01
A lot of them mixed with other people such as the Avars and various Germanic groups. Some others went back to the steppes.

-------------
The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon
Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2005 at 16:09
Avars and Bulgars mostly, Magyars not, they came much later, the Attila name thing in modern Hungary is only since recently and has no historical basis. remember the Hungarian tanks in ww2 were called Turan.


Posted By: Mangudai
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2005 at 16:21
Originally posted by Loknar Loknar wrote:

After Atilla's death, his empire crumbled.

 

I always wondered what exactly happened to the Huns? The actual people lived in Germany I believe at about the time of Atilla's death. Did these people pack up and leave? Did they settle and blend in with the local poulation?

These Huns are believed to be from Asia and woudl no doubt have Asian features. Are there any people living in Central Europe with such characteristics?

Thanks in advance.

After Attilas death, his sons fought each other for power. At the battle of Nedao in present day Hungary in 454, an alliance of Gepids and Ostrogoths decisevly defeated the huns under their king Ellac, son of Attila. After that, the huns ceased to be a power. The huns were never a homogenous people. Their elite originated from Asia and looked like mongols, but at the time of Attila and his successors the hunnic realm incorporated many different ethnicities who often intermarried. After the collapse of the hunnic realm, many of them took up farming and assimilated with germanic peoples like the goths. Others moved east and continued with pastoral nomadism, becoming the ancestors of bulgarians and magyars



-------------
Nu guhk go mis leat meahcit, de lea mis dorvu dn eatnam alde

Ossfok i s kringest sturwekster sttliger. Summer v kulluma i riktit finer!


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2005 at 17:02
Some people are really confused with "Asian features", so please keep in mind that Huns were Turkic, not Chinese.


Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 27-Oct-2005 at 03:46
Originally posted by DayI DayI wrote:

strange i hear a family member of mine is called Arpad and other Atilla, arpad is an Hungarian king also Atilla (for any sence).
Is Arpad a common name in Turkey? I have always thought that this is an exclusively Hungarian name.


Posted By: Alkiviades
Date Posted: 27-Oct-2005 at 04:16

Huns, according to their contemporary writers like Priscus who actually described them rather accurately, can be now said to have had clearly Mongoloid characteristcs (eye shape, cheeks etc. etc.). AFAIK the case for the origins of the Hunns is definitely not a closed case, and those who advocate them being Mongolic are as many as those advocating they were Turkic.

Also, the Hun society was not based on race. Priscus, again, goes to great pains to count all the non-Huns living in the court of Attila (which he visited as member of two Byzantine delegations and stayed there for quite a long time). He mentions several "Romans" and specifically "Greeks" ("Hellenes" the name he uses) as being high-ranked officials of Attila's court and even Attila's trustees. Almost all of them had married Hunnic women and their children were raised more than Hunns than anything else.

One of them, a (as Priscus describes him) hellenized Gothic "Roman" (a Roman citizen of Gothic ancestry speaking Greek, might be the case - he calls him "Hellen" which means "Greek" in more than one ocassions, he then tells us that his ancestors were Goths and concludes that he was a Roman citizen, living in Illyria previously)  specifically stated "I am a Hunn now, don't ask me to betray my people", when Priscus and another Roman tried to persuade him to plot with them against his master. Apparently, the same person survived the death of Attila and the breakup of his empire and is mentioned in another source a few years after Priscos. Can't remember his name now, if anyone here has read Priscus he might provide us with it.

 



Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 27-Oct-2005 at 04:29

Flavius Orestes was also a courtsman of Attila and later his son became the last Western Roman emperor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orestes_%28Roman_soldier%29 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orestes_%28Roman_soldier%29



Posted By: arfunda
Date Posted: 27-Oct-2005 at 06:08

Once had watched a documentary film in a Turkish channel showing a town in Germany. Its inhabitants had some Mongoloid features and they were believed to come from Huns. But I don't remember the name of the town.

Nowdays I am interested in genetcal researces, especially in Y chromosome and mtDNA studies. A few monts ago I met somebodies Y chromosome results on the web. He was a man from USA and he was examining his roots by means of Y ch. and surname (nowadays this kind of geneology projects are very popular in USA and Europe). His family origin was from Germany and his grandfather and mother had come to USA in 1800's. Y chromosome is a marker in men that is showing paternal origin. t passes from father to son. His Y chromosome results showed that his paternal origin was from Central Asia and he said that this showed his Central Asian origin, which came to Germany during the Hunnic invasion.

 



Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 27-Oct-2005 at 07:47
Originally posted by Raider Raider wrote:

Originally posted by DayI DayI wrote:

strange i hear a family member of mine is called Arpad and other Atilla, arpad is an Hungarian king also Atilla (for any sence).
Is Arpad a common name in Turkey? I have always thought that this is an exclusively Hungarian name.
i dunno but i whas little bit shocked when ive saw that name in ours phonebook.

-------------
Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı
http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg -


Posted By: ok ge
Date Posted: 27-Oct-2005 at 08:04

Originally posted by Bar Bar wrote:

Some people are really confused with "Asian features", so please keep in mind that Huns were Turkic, not Chinese.

Why do you think Asiatic features belongs only to Chinese?



-------------
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 27-Oct-2005 at 09:49
Originally posted by ok ge ok ge wrote:

Why do you think Asiatic features belongs only to Chinese?

I don't, but some people do.


Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 27-Oct-2005 at 11:18

Raider,

In Ottoman's times (circa 450 years ago) did some Magyars move to Turkey, first moves where to Izmit/Gebze then later the second move to Antalya/Serik - macar ky - gebiz ky (ky is village).



-------------
Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı
http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg -


Posted By: the Bulgarian
Date Posted: 27-Oct-2005 at 13:40

Aren't modern Hungarians descendants of the Huns? Bulgars are only rather distant relatives of the latter, although in the "List of Bulgarian khans", which is a Russian source from the 16th century, Atila  is mentioned as khan of the Bulgars. Modern Bulgarian scholars question its reliability, but still it adds another small mystery to the big puzzle.

BTW, how did Atila die? I saw the film "Atila", according to which he was poisoned by one of his wives. Is this true?



Posted By: ok ge
Date Posted: 27-Oct-2005 at 13:46

Originally posted by Bar Bar wrote:

Originally posted by ok ge ok ge wrote:

Why do you think Asiatic features belongs only to Chinese?

I don't, but some people do.

Ok, so I guess nothing wrong with saying that the Huns had Asiatic and eastern siberian features.



-------------
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.


Posted By: Nagyfejedelem
Date Posted: 31-Oct-2005 at 05:50

What happened to the Huns?

Turkish/Nomadic nations were similar to each others so it's a hard problem. Hunnic groups mainly assimilated into Bulgars. Other Huns were employed in the Byzantine army such as soldiers. A grandson of Attila, Mundus (perhaps Munjuk) became a Byzantine general. Huns had names ending 'ik' such as Kusik, Vasik, Irnik, etc. Inheritors of the Huns also had names ending 'ik', for example Apsik, Kandik from the Avars or the conqueror Bulgar khan, Asparik. I think Huns didn't assimilate into Hungarians, only Bulgarians and Avars with Hun origin.



Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Nov-2005 at 18:51
And some of them returned to Central Asia. Don't forget that.


Posted By: Nagyfejedelem
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2005 at 16:59
There was a legend in Hungary (it was written in the 13th century) that Huns and Hungarians were the same nation and Attila was the ancestor of the rpd-dinasty. Because of this legend the conquest of the Magyars was presented that the second conquest of the Huns.


Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2005 at 02:51
Originally posted by Nagyfejedelem Nagyfejedelem wrote:

There was a legend in Hungary (it was written in the 13th century) that Huns and Hungarians were the same nation and Attila was the ancestor of the rpd-dinasty. Because of this legend the conquest of the Magyars was presented that the second conquest of the Huns.
This question is rather clouded. It is questioned whether the rpads considered themselves to the descendants of Attila. And if the answer is yes what was the base of this, the real connection.


Posted By: Nagyfejedelem
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2005 at 04:48

Originally posted by Raider Raider wrote:

Originally posted by Nagyfejedelem Nagyfejedelem wrote:

There was a legend in Hungary (it was written in the 13th century) that Huns and Hungarians were the same nation and Attila was the ancestor of the rpd-dinasty. Because of this legend the conquest of the Magyars was presented that the second conquest of the Huns.
This question is rather clouded. It is questioned whether the rpads considered themselves to the descendants of Attila. And if the answer is yes what was the base of this, the real connection.

Khans from Bolgar dinasty Dulo was also presented as the descendants of Attila, so this relation was not only the product of Hungarian chroniclers' fantasy. And some chroniclers, eg. Anonymus writed about Attila, the ancestor of rpd, but they didn't write about the connection beetwen Hungarians and Huns.



Posted By: Scytho-Sarmatian
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2005 at 05:30
How could there not have been a connection between the Hungarians and the Huns?  Just look at the size of Attila's empire and the vast numbers of peoples included within it.  The Magyars must have originated form within that milieu.  I don't see how it could have been otherwise.


Posted By: oTToMAn_TurK
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2005 at 05:44

Question: What does the name Attila mean?

im guessing something to do with horseman as 'horse' in turkish is 'at'.



-------------
Either your a slave to what MADE-MAN
Or your a slave to what MAN-MADE


Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2005 at 07:20
Originally posted by oTToMAn_TurK oTToMAn_TurK wrote:

Question: What does the name Attila mean?

im guessing something to do with horseman as 'horse' in turkish is 'at'.

Attila is not his original name, but a name used by his german subjects. (=little father ???) I think His original name is similar to Attila, but still unknown.


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2005 at 15:27

Originally posted by Scytho-Sarmatian Scytho-Sarmatian wrote:

How could there not have been a connection between the Hungarians and the Huns?  Just look at the size of Attila's empire and the vast numbers of peoples included within it.  The Magyars must have originated form within that milieu.  I don't see how it could have been otherwise.

Hungarians did not imemdiately came after the Huns, Avars were in between them, and Bulgars also have more chance of a real connection as they also cam ebefore the Magyars. and actually little is known of the Hunnish subjects further east. the extent of Attilas empire is still just speculation.



Posted By: Nagyfejedelem
Date Posted: 13-Nov-2005 at 06:55
Originally posted by Raider Raider wrote:

Originally posted by oTToMAn_TurK oTToMAn_TurK wrote:

Question: What does the name Attila mean?

im guessing something to do with horseman as 'horse' in turkish is 'at'.

Attila is not his original name, but a name used by his german subjects. (=little father ???) I think His original name is similar to Attila, but still unknown.

Attila was his Gothic nickname: Ata + illa meant 'little father', but 'ata' is a Turkish loan-word in the Goth language. On the other hand Attila meant 'river' in Turkish, eg. the Volga was called Itil by the Khazars and Hungarians, too.



Posted By: Nagyfejedelem
Date Posted: 13-Nov-2005 at 07:13
Originally posted by Temujin Temujin wrote:

Originally posted by Scytho-Sarmatian Scytho-Sarmatian wrote:

How could there not have been a connection between the Hungarians and the Huns?  Just look at the size of Attila's empire and the vast numbers of peoples included within it.  The Magyars must have originated form within that milieu.  I don't see how it could have been otherwise.

Hungarians did not imemdiately came after the Huns, Avars were in between them, and Bulgars also have more chance of a real connection as they also cam ebefore the Magyars. and actually little is known of the Hunnish subjects further east. the extent of Attilas empire is still just speculation.

Originally posted by Temujin Temujin wrote:

Originally posted by Scytho-Sarmatian Scytho-Sarmatian wrote:

How could there not have been a connection between the Hungarians and the Huns?  Just look at the size of Attila's empire and the vast numbers of peoples included within it.  The Magyars must have originated form within that milieu.  I don't see how it could have been otherwise.

Hungarians did not imemdiately came after the Huns, Avars were in between them, and Bulgars also have more chance of a real connection as they also cam ebefore the Magyars. and actually little is known of the Hunnish subjects further east. the extent of Attilas empire is still just speculation.

Avar groups really assimilated into the Magyars. Perhaps Avars had a Hun heritage and it was presented that Hungarians had Hunnic ancestors. But Hungarian chronicles had political reasons. Avars were conquered by Charlemagne and the Avar heritage meant that the Kingdom of Hungary would a vassal of the HRE. The Hunnic heritage meant that Hungarians never were the vassals of the Franks and other Germanic tribes.



Posted By: Nagyfejedelem
Date Posted: 13-Nov-2005 at 07:17

Other names of Attila:

Bolgar: Avitohol

Hungarian: Etele

German: Etzel



Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 13-Nov-2005 at 13:38
Avars in fact have been eradicated by Charlemagne, according to Frankish sources.


Posted By: Nagyfejedelem
Date Posted: 13-Nov-2005 at 16:00
Avars really suffered a lot under the Franks, but this genocid only a tipical overstatement of chronical writers. Hungarians met Avars in todays Hungary. On the other hand some Hungarian historians think that the crimes of Magyar warriors on the West during the 10th cetury were the revenge of the Avars' massacring.


Posted By: erci
Date Posted: 13-Nov-2005 at 16:35
I always thought that Attila means "one with horse"

-------------
"When one hears such music, what can one say, but .... Salieri?"


Posted By: oTToMAn_TurK
Date Posted: 13-Nov-2005 at 23:29

Originally posted by erci erci wrote:

I always thought that Attila means "one with horse"

thats what i thought too, as in "at+ile" in turkish.



-------------
Either your a slave to what MADE-MAN
Or your a slave to what MAN-MADE


Posted By: Nagyfejedelem
Date Posted: 14-Nov-2005 at 09:54
I know about a Turkish word 'ata'. (It's similar to Hungarian 'atya'.) I think this is the origin of the Attilas name.


Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 15-Nov-2005 at 03:45

Originally posted by Temujin Temujin wrote:

Avars in fact have been eradicated by Charlemagne, according to Frankish sources.
Do you think that all of the avars were killed and they just vanished? Avar power was crushed by Charlemange, but the avar people remained. Archeological evidence shows that avars lived in the Carpathina Basin when the Hungarians arrived there.

Anonymus in the Gesta Hungarorum speaks about pastores Romanorum. (sheperds of the Romans) It is highly probable that he refers to the remaining avars. (According to Romanian historians he speaks about the ancient Romanian, but I do not think so. Anonymus refers Romanians as blaci. -> blacis ac pastores Romanorum)



Posted By: Isbul
Date Posted: 15-Nov-2005 at 05:11
Charlemagne coonquer only the western part of Avar khaganate.The Easten part was annexed by bulgarian khan Krum.The avars there were not killed but become part of bulgarian army,nothing more was mention about them.Probably they had not been so much large population(only ruling class).

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


Posted By: Nagyfejedelem
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2005 at 11:14
Yes, the Bulgarians really conquered the Eastern parts. But Avars were crashed by Charlemagne. Krum invaved the Avars after the Frankish victories which made weak the Avars. But this invasion was quite important: Krum not only occupied the Eastern Avar territories, but stopped the Frankish to go East. And after that Avars fought in the Bulgarian army against the Byzantines, and this one is also important.


Posted By: Timuroglu
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2005 at 11:28
Hi, I am sure some of the huns enteed middle east.The erea I belong to is called khunj in Azerbaijani Turkish, Khun is the Azeri pronounciation of Huns.Azeri khunj is changed to persian khonj.Khoni is a family name in Iran


Posted By: Akskl
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2005 at 18:21
E.Bretschneider "Mediaeval Researches. From Eastern Asiatic Sources." v.1,  2001 edition, originally published in 1887

pp.306-307
...The Yuan ch'ao pi shi notices that two rivers which Subutai had been ordered to cross, viz., the "Djayakh" and the "Idil".
   The first of these rivers, the original Turkish name of which is "Iaik" or "Djaik"  (in Kazak language - "Jayiq" - A.), is  the Ural river of modern Russian maps. We find it first mentioned in the Byzantine writers. Zemarchus, sent in 569 by the Byzantine emperor to the khan of the Turks, on his way back came to the "Daich" river, and then to the "Attila" (Volga). Constantin Porphyrogenita (tenth century) calls the "Iaik" (Yule's "Cathay," clxvi.). As I have stated above, the ancient Russian annals write this name "Yaik". Pl.Carpini styles the same river (743) "Jaec"; Rubruck (274), "Jagac". In Haithon's itinerary the name reads "Jaic". On the Catalan map (1375 A.D.) it is called "Jayech". In the Mohammedan historians of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries the river "Iaik" is frequently mentioned. Rashid notices it in his account  of the Kipchak. This is also "the great river Yak, which has its spring in the land of Siberia, near the river Cama, and runs through the lands of "Nagay", fallen into the Mar Caspium" oin jenkinson's narrative of the journey to Bokhara in 1558.
   The other river is Volga. By the name of "Idil" or "Atil", meaning "river" in Turkish, the Turks, and after them all Mohammedan geohraphers , have designated the Volga, which latter name, used by the Slavic nations, seems to be derived from the ancient city of Bolghar, situated on the Volga. In the tenth century Istakhri states (p.2) that the Khazars live on the river "Atel", which runs through their country. Ibn Khurdadbeh (also in the tenth century) speaks also of a city "Atel".  This is believed to answer to the present Astrakhan. In the Byzantine writers the name appears much earlier; the river "Attilia" in Zemarchus itinerary (v.supra). Plano Carpini, 775: "Ethil quam Rusci vocant Volga". Ibidem, 743: "Flumen Volga super quod vadit Bati est valde magnum." Rubruck calls the Volga always "Ethilia". On the Catalan map the name is "Edil"...   


Kazakh name for Volga river is Edil.
 


Posted By: Nagyfejedelem
Date Posted: 24-Nov-2005 at 05:55

I agree with you. In my oppinion Attila also meant river in Turkish. For example:

The name of the Khazar capital was Itil and the name of the Hungarian homeland before the conquest of nowadays Hungary was Etelkz.



Posted By: sebike
Date Posted: 18-Dec-2005 at 20:56

Originally posted by Temujin Temujin wrote:

Avars and Bulgars mostly, Magyars not, they came much later,

i've read a theory suggesting it was only appr 100 years betwen the death of attila and the magyar conquest of todays hungary (honfoglals)

so if this was true, the connection between the hunns and the hungarians might have been closer than we thought..

here is a link, unfortunately only in hungarian

http://www.kitalaltkozepkor.hu/tothgyula_amagyarkronikak.php - http://www.kitalaltkozepkor.hu/tothgyula_amagyarkronikak.php

it's pretty interesting. did you ever hear of that theory?

and about the rpd name,, I also thought this was exclusive for hungary, and I never saw a reply to raiders question.. is this name really common in turkey??



Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 19-Dec-2005 at 02:45
Originally posted by sebike sebike wrote:

Originally posted by Temujin Temujin wrote:

Avars and Bulgars mostly, Magyars not, they came much later,

i've read a theory suggesting it was only appr 100 years betwen the death of attila and the magyar conquest of todays hungary (honfoglals)

so if this was true, the connection between the hunns and the hungarians might have been closer than we thought..

here is a link, unfortunately only in hungarian

http://www.kitalaltkozepkor.hu/tothgyula_amagyarkronikak.php - http://www.kitalaltkozepkor.hu/tothgyula_amagyarkronikak.php

it's pretty interesting. did you ever hear of that theory?

and about the rpd name,, I also thought this was exclusive for hungary, and I never saw a reply to raiders question.. is this name really common in turkey??

I do not think that we can accept seriously Herbert Illig's theory.


Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 19-Dec-2005 at 10:56
Originally posted by Raider Raider wrote:

 

and about the rpd name,, I also thought this was exclusive for hungary, and I never saw a reply to raiders question.. is this name really common in turkey??

Dunno but one of my far nephew is called Arpad.



-------------
Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı
http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg -


Posted By: sebike
Date Posted: 19-Dec-2005 at 13:47

Originally posted by Raider Raider wrote:

i don't think we can accept seriously Herbert Illig's theory.

not knowing much about either him or his theory (the source is all i've read about this theory) i have to ask; why not?



Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 20-Dec-2005 at 03:32
Originally posted by sebike sebike wrote:

Originally posted by Raider Raider wrote:

i don't think we can accept seriously Herbert Illig's theory.

not knowing much about either him or his theory (the source is all i've read about this theory) i have to ask; why not?

Well his books were rather popular and widely known. It was printed two or three times. The publisher even organized public discourse in this issue. Even the Rubicon (a periodical edited by historians and university professors) has a special account to confute the theory.

By the way this theory always makes me laugh. Those nationalist who propagate it try to use it to back their nationalist ideology. And they seem to forget that this theory also "solve" the problems of the daco-roman continuity.



Posted By: Richard XIII
Date Posted: 20-Dec-2005 at 10:36
The "daco-roman continuity" is like "who killed jfk?".

-------------
"I want to know God's thoughts...
...the rest are details."

Albert Einstein


Posted By: Akskl
Date Posted: 20-Dec-2005 at 17:50
Rene Grousset "The Empire of the Steppes - a History of Central Asia" transl. from the French by Naomi Walford.  Rutgers University Press, 6th paperback printing, 1999

p.80,   9th line from the bottom:

"...Lastly, as was just seen, Huns of Europe, who were no doubt of Turkic stock, held sway over Russian steppe (it was occupied by  Russia only in the end of the 18th century - A.) in the region adjoining sea of Azov and the mouth of the Don, although the rivalry of their two hordes - Kutrigurs in the west, Uturgurs in the east - undermined their power.
   Among the vassals of the Juan-Juan, say the Chinese, were the Tu-chueh, a Turkic tribe which has given its name to a whole group of nations sharing a common language. Pelliot says that the Chinese name "Tu-chueh" must represent a Mongol (Juan-Juan) plural form "Turkut", from singular "Turk". Literally, it means "strong". According to Chinese annalists, the Tu-chueh totem was the wolf. They were descendants of the old Hsiung-nu, a fact borne out by the proto-Turkic character attributed to the Huns by Pelliot..."


Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 21-Dec-2005 at 07:36

Originally posted by Richard XIII Richard XIII wrote:

The "daco-roman continuity" is like "who killed jfk?".

I have recently seen a book about Romanian history by a French author. She says it is practically impossible to decide whether the daco-roman or the immigration theory is truth. According to her it all depends the interpretation of the known facts.



Posted By: Richard XIII
Date Posted: 22-Dec-2005 at 06:37
A clear, fast and sharp solution for this "problem". 

-------------
"I want to know God's thoughts...
...the rest are details."

Albert Einstein


Posted By: Alone_Wolf
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2006 at 08:04

As first,we must know there werent only one Hunnic government.There were two.Asian Huns and European Huns.Asian Huns,come from Ashina.Ashina means "wolf woman".Chinese say these:

"We killed all the Turks without a ten-year child.A wolf took these child and married with him.10 children was born from the child and the wolf.These 10 children went to the Turkish villages and created a new Turkish government as "Ashina".Because one of the child's name was Ashina.There was a wolf on these government's flag."

Huns are coming from Ashinas.So they are Turk,not chinese or any other nation.They created Asian Hun government.Its the first Turkic goverment as we know.
Europian Huns(Attila's) fighted vs Rome.They made "Margus" anda "Anatolyus" agrements with Rome.
What happened to Europian Huns?
They came to the Balkans.While they were coming,they created HUNgaria,In Balkans,they created "Bulgaria".Than they have been Slav.



-------------
Those mountains are ours


Posted By: Turkoglu
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2006 at 13:11
In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005" title="2005 - 2005 , a group of about 2,500 Hungarians petitioned the government to be a recognized minority of direct decendants of Attila. It was a failed bid but gained the group publicity.

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



Posted By: Akskl
Date Posted: 20-Feb-2006 at 22:52
Did they have any proofs?
If archeologists could find Attila's tomb, then, using DNA analysis, it would be possible to find out - who is a direct descendant of him.


Posted By: Tanel
Date Posted: 26-Feb-2006 at 10:52
I have always wondered why estonian word "Att" or "tt" means " a very old man" or " an old clan" 


Posted By: Turkoglu
Date Posted: 26-Feb-2006 at 13:08
the name is not Attila, actually its converted in that shape after years
there are four different teories.

1- Etil, Itil ( Attila born somewhere near Idil river )
2- Attay means Famous Emperor in old Turkish
3- Ata-la means my ancestor , my father in old Turkish
4- Es-til-e=As-til-a=At-til-a


by the way i  can give you the other emperors 's names meanings.


Balamir= Bala+Mir = Child Khan
Uldız= Star
Karaton= Kara+don (black cloth) or Ka+ra+tun (Strong race)
Muncuk= Bead or Flag
Oktar= Ok+tar (Arrow carrier)
Ruga=Rugulas i donno ?
Bleda= Bil-e-da=Bil-e-de=Bil-de=Bil-ge (Clever, well-informed, Learned )
İlek(as known as aba or Csaba)= Herdsmen
Dengizik= Sea, Ocean, Sea Storm
İrnek=?



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



Posted By: erci
Date Posted: 26-Feb-2006 at 14:15
Originally posted by Tanel Tanel wrote:

I have always wondered why estonian word "Att" or "tt" means " a very old man" or " an old clan" 


At means horse in Turkish, the word ata means ancester tho.what do you call ancester in estonian?


Posted By: Seljuk
Date Posted: 26-Feb-2006 at 16:35
Originally posted by timuroglu timuroglu wrote:

Hi, I am sure some of the huns enteed middle east.The erea I belong to is called khunj in Azerbaijani Turkish, Khun is the Azeri pronounciation of Huns.Azeri khunj is changed to persian khonj.Khoni is a family name in Iran

Huns raided Armenia but im not sure if they settled or not


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



Posted By: Tanel
Date Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 04:42
I was littlebit uncorrect , the word tt also means Grandfather


Posted By: Bosniathebestcountry
Date Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 07:59
ive also heards that the avars were responsible for the movement of serbs and croats towards the south and  have also merged with the slavs. the magyars then came afterwards and settled where the avars were now in the present day hungary seperating us from the russians, the poles, the checzks, plus the germanzition of austria where there used to be a slavic country. And the westerners were so scared of the huns that whoever came from the east they thought it was them. But magyars and huns i think are two completely different tribes. the english call it hungary while we bosnians serbs croats call them Madjarska. How do you hungarians call your country?


Posted By: Turkoglu
Date Posted: 01-Mar-2006 at 10:07
The word derives from the old Slavic word ǫg(ъr- for the proto-Magyars. Through Germanic languages, the word got into other European languages ((H)ungarus, (H)ungarn, Vengry etc.). The Slavic word is thought to be derived from the Bulgaro-Turkic Onogur, possibly because the proto-Magyars were neighbours (or confederates) of the Empire of the Onogurs in the 6th century, whose leading tribal union was called the "Onogurs" (meaning "ten tribes").

The H- in many languages (Hungarians, Hongrois, Hungarus etc.) is a later addition. It was taken over from the word "Huns", which was a similar semi-nomadic tribe living some 400 years earlier in present-day Hungary and having a similar way of life (or according to the older theories the people from which the Magyars arose). In ancient times, through the middle ages, and even today, the identification of Hungarians with the Huns has often occurred in history and literature, however this identification began to be disputed around the late 19th century, and is still a source of major controversy among scholars who insist that there could be no direct connection between the two.

Hun names like Attila and Rka are still popular among Hungarians, and forms derived from Latin Hungaria are used like in the racetrack Hungaroring (mostly due to the strong English language pressure in tourism and international matters).

Magyar is today simply the Hungarian word for Hungarian. In English and many other languages, however, Magyar is used instead of Hungarian in certain (mainly historical) contexts, usually to distinguish ethnic Hungarians (i.e. the Magyars) from the other nationalities living in the Hungarian kingdom.

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



Posted By: Socrates
Date Posted: 01-Mar-2006 at 12:47

Originally posted by Bosniathebestcountry Bosniathebestcountry wrote:

ive also heards that the avars were responsible for the movement of serbs and croats towards the south and  have also merged with the slavs. the magyars then came afterwards and settled where the avars were now in the present day hungary seperating us from the russians, the poles, the checzks, plus the germanzition of austria where there used to be a slavic country. And the westerners were so scared of the huns that whoever came from the east they thought it was them. But magyars and huns i think are two completely different tribes. the english call it hungary while we bosnians serbs croats call them Madjarska. How do you hungarians call your country?

 They call themselves Magyar-just like we do, Bosanac.And u were basically right about avars, huns and magyars.The thing about south slavs is that we 're slavs the least of all ( genetically ).We're the descendants of the pre-slav populations-illyrians,thracians,dacians,romans,and pre indo-european peoples of the balcans.Yet, we feel slavic and our language is slavic.Btw, Magyars r  mostly slavic genetically,since as u said there was a lot of slavs living in todays hungary before Magyars came.Infact, they're more slavic then we are.

And Serbs and Croats are originally Sarmatians-not that it makes any difference...



Posted By: Bosniathebestcountry
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2006 at 04:04

i dont agree with you at all. yes, we do have some genes of the tribes youve named i believe, but we ARE slavic. i dont understand why we couldnt be. Our language is very much slavic. russians are pure slavs and we act alot like they do, speak almost the same as they do while magyars have a completely different language. So i dont know how your theory can be true that magyars are more slavic than we are.

I havent done genetic testing, id really like to but judging by my looks, i dont look italian, or arabic, or aryan either, i mostly look like an oriental (people have always told me this)...with much whiter skin. And i was born in northern bosnia, i believe most of my recent ancestors from my mothers and fathers side came from serbia. Although ive only had one half serbian friend, the rest were all bosnian and bosnian-croat. and ive also lived in Zagreb croatia, now im in america. I hope to live in my country again someday.



Posted By: Socrates
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2006 at 05:09
Originally posted by Bosniathebestcountry Bosniathebestcountry wrote:

i dont agree with you at all. yes, we do have some genes of the tribes youve named i believe, but we ARE slavic. i dont understand why we couldnt be. Our language is very much slavic. russians are pure slavs and we act alot like they do, speak almost the same as they do while magyars have a completely different language. So i dont know how your theory can be true that magyars are more slavic than we are.

I havent done genetic testing, id really like to but judging by my looks, i dont look italian, or arabic, or aryan either, i mostly look like an oriental (people have always told me this)...with much whiter skin. And i was born in northern bosnia, i believe most of my recent ancestors from my mothers and fathers side came from serbia. Although ive only had one half serbian friend, the rest were all bosnian and bosnian-croat. and ive also lived in Zagreb croatia, now im in america. I hope to live in my country again someday.

Bosnian, u misunderstood me ! Magyars r not Slavs, but they do have a lot of slavic ''blood'' so to speak( this is what i meant).

We are mainly the offsprings of those pre-slavic peoples.Just look at the genetic maps !Better yet, look at us! And not even the russians and poles r pure slavs ! I bet u thought that english r germanics-well check again-u'd be surprised !

 



Posted By: Bosniathebestcountry
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2006 at 05:18

Genetic maps....what are those, can you show those?

English people id say are germanic-celtic.... are they not?



Posted By: Socrates
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2006 at 05:28

I cannot find one.I've been searching for some time, but nothing.Try on this forum.

English people id say are germanic-celtic.... are they not? They r Germanics (genetically) as we r Slavs



Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2006 at 10:57
Originally posted by Bosniathebestcountry Bosniathebestcountry wrote:

Genetic maps....what are those, can you show those?

English people id say are germanic-celtic.... are they not?



What's that? What's the genetics of "Germanic-Celtic"?

Those are just linguistic groups. There's no such thing as a Germanic, Celtic or Latin genetics. Nor there's a Slavic genetics either.

Genetics is a complex matter that must be taken with care but I bet you that languages and identities move a lot faster than genes normally.


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

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: Bosniathebestcountry
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2006 at 20:24
Yeah, but there is a big connenction between the two. In some countries more than others though. Like for example, an african-american speaks english but in no way is he genetically english.


Posted By: khaan's son
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2006 at 03:41

where were the Huns from?

i'm from mongolia.

Of course Attilas Huns were part of Mongolian first empire named by Hun (hunnu).

In my oppinion  because of  encient Mongolians nomadic civilization, sometimes the mongolians stepped into Hungary .I heard that Mongolia and Hungary have almost same wheather. After the Hunnu's defeat, some of them traveled and fought till Hungary.

 



Posted By: Death
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2006 at 18:29
Huns are  an old civilization.
The question is what hapened to them.
I placed my view on this potic on a wrong bord but here it goes again:
My father and uncle(Hungarians-Magyarok) teased me when i was young that one day i would/or would be involved with a girl that has eyes as big as apples.Saying this they would take a fist and metaphore it as one eye so you get the idea on how big that eye is.
Further,i saw only two girls in my life(25y/o) that match that description.I saw one on Hungarian television singing in a folk ansamble and the other while i was studying in Belgrade(Serbia).The other one i saw in real life and i know that her name is Anita ,a comon Magyar(Hungarian) even a Slavic or other name.This girl i saw is Hun defenitly(not magyar or serb or whatever)
So this was the briefing on HOW TO SPOT A HUN,...lol
I could go on and on about , as i call it, that specific kind of beauty but
 for now lett me asure you that Huns do exsist and if you saw them you would be sure of that. These girls dont look "normal" by any standard,be it Europian or Asian.Very beautiful but degustibus non est desputandum.


Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2006 at 21:02
So "Death" you wanna say all the time that you saw a "Hun" in real life? And believe in their existents?

-------------
Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı
http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg -


Posted By: Death
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2006 at 22:30
YES man,i described how they look.
Thes two girls i saw were completly diferent,one-Anita- was dark skined(brown and yellow),the other-the TV girl-was white.Both very woman like,large female atributes(yeah,but im not jokeing).About 160-165cm(the tv girl i can just guess).
Very,very large EYES.
When you see a woman like that you stopand ask yourself,is she beautiful or ugly?Then you get it- she looks like a real woman,not that nonsens fashon skiny everyday woman you see.
So its not strange the Huns were so good wariors,when you have a woman like that you want to keep her!Oh man i cant explane..............
Once again YES i saw them.


Posted By: Hungo
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2009 at 21:38
Every hungarian chronicle writes down clearly the Arpad is the 5 th descendant of Attila's bloodline.

After the death of Attila,,yes he sons were fighting over teh control, but noone could keep it in strong hands. the unity failed, but the huns didnt dissaper. some moved back to eurasian stepeps, some stayed in Transylvania and the Carpathian basin.


-------------
Attila király katonája


Posted By: Hungo
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2009 at 21:41
Originally posted by Turkoglu Turkoglu wrote:

The word derives from the old Slavic word ǫg(ъr- for the proto-Magyars. Through Germanic languages, the word got into other European languages ((H)ungarus, (H)ungarn, Vengry etc.). The Slavic word is thought to be derived from the Bulgaro-Turkic Onogur, possibly because the proto-Magyars were neighbours (or confederates) of the Empire of the Onogurs in the 6th century, whose leading tribal union was called the "Onogurs" (meaning "ten tribes").

The H- in many languages (Hungarians, Hongrois, Hungarus etc.) is a later addition. It was taken over from the word "Huns", which was a similar semi-nomadic tribe living some 400 years earlier in present-day Hungary and having a similar way of life (or according to the older theories the people from which the Magyars arose). In ancient times, through the middle ages, and even today, the identification of Hungarians with the Huns has often occurred in history and literature, however this identification began to be disputed around the late 19th century, and is still a source of major controversy among scholars who insist that there could be no direct connection between the two.

Hun names like Attila and R�ka are still popular among Hungarians, and forms derived from Latin Hungaria are used like in the racetrack Hungaroring (mostly due to the strong English language pressure in tourism and international matters).

Magyar is today simply the Hungarian word for Hungarian. In English and many other languages, however, Magyar is used instead of Hungarian in certain (mainly historical) contexts, usually to distinguish ethnic Hungarians (i.e. the Magyars) from the other nationalities living in the Hungarian kingdom.


Magyar is not just an ethnic, but amagyar is also a language! Ther are huns who speak magyar, and there are magyars who speak magyar.


-------------
Attila király katonája


Posted By: Hungo
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2009 at 21:53
Originally posted by Socrates Socrates wrote:

Originally posted by Bosniathebestcountry Bosniathebestcountry wrote:

ive also heards that the avars were responsible for the movement of serbs and croats towards the south and  have also merged with the slavs. the magyars then came afterwards and settled where the avars were now in the present day hungary seperating us from the russians, the poles, the checzks, plus the germanzition of austria where there used to be a slavic country. And the westerners were so scared of the huns that whoever came from the east they thought it was them. But magyars and huns i think are two completely different tribes. the english call it hungary while we bosnians serbs croats call them Madjarska. How do you hungarians call your country?

Btw, Magyars r  mostly slavic genetically,since as u said there was a lot of slavs living in todays hungary before Magyars came.Infact, they're more slavic then we are.




Magyars have low % of slavic blood. Stop this stereotypes. Slavs were in little number in hungary before the magyars came backk to their homeland. Scytians, avars, huns, siculi, vandals, goths lived there. Slavs were mostly shepards and pastors on the Balcans, No offense, but slavs got writigns skills just in the late 10th century..


-------------
Attila király katonája


Posted By: Hungo
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2009 at 21:57
Originally posted by Bosniathebestcountry Bosniathebestcountry wrote:

ive also heards that the avars were responsible for the movement of serbs and croats towards the south and  have also merged with the slavs. the magyars then came afterwards and settled where the avars were now in the present day hungary seperating us from the russians, the poles, the checzks, plus the germanzition of austria where there used to be a slavic country. And the westerners were so scared of the huns that whoever came from the east they thought it was them. But magyars and huns i think are two completely different tribes. the english call it hungary while we bosnians serbs croats call them Madjarska. How do you hungarians call your country?


We call our homeland: Magyarország (ország-country)


-------------
Attila király katonája


Posted By: Vorian
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2009 at 22:08
Hungarians seem very slavic to me...no offense.


Posted By: Hungo
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2009 at 22:11
for me it looks different. Believe me i live here and i seen many magyars and slavs in my life. I can make difference. i understand its hard for foreginers. Huns and magyars were way more large group of ppl then slavs.
cheers


-------------
Attila király katonája


Posted By: Afsar Beghi
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2009 at 19:32
I think they mostly settled in the regio of Hungary.
Dont forget they were not an ethnic homogenic tribe when they were in Hungary, but putting that aside Hungarians can claim theyre descendants of the Huns.
If you feel Hunnic, you are Hunnic, nobody can change that.



-------------
Dadaloğlum bir gun kavga kurulur,
Oter tufek davlumbazlar vurulur,
Nice ko yiğitler yere serilir,
Olen lr kalan sağlar bizimdir!


Posted By: Pistolero
Date Posted: 15-May-2009 at 08:11
According to my knowledge, after the Battle of Nedao, the Huns (then more or less united even after Attila's death) split into different confederations, the Altyn Oba Horde, and later the Kutrigurs and Utigurs (who became known as the Bulgars later in history I believe).

-------------
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth, whether it's scientific truth or historical truth or personal truth!"

-Captain Jean-Luc Picard


Posted By: GökTürk
Date Posted: 18-May-2009 at 13:32

Some of Huns settled in Europe.For example;HUNgaries was Hun Nation.



Posted By: GR3Y077
Date Posted: 22-May-2009 at 07:57
They might have dispersed into their outnumbering locals after losing their own cultural identity. The actual leaders of the Hun federation, and, the original Huns from Central Asia may have been few relative to the number of locals they led.


Posted By: paise
Date Posted: 05-Jun-2009 at 22:58
I've heard a bit about the DNA project but I can't speak to its accuracy. I would be interested in having the DNA tests although my biggest curiosity lies with my mtDNA because I want more answers regarding the maternal side of my family as it is the most difficult to trace through regular genealogy channels due to the fact that I am only one generation removed from an unmixed Native American Indian ancestor if you will. My maternal grandmother was half Cherokee (Eastern band) from her father and half Arapaho Indian from her mother this making my grams half of each - again, putting me one generation removed from a full-blooded line though with mixed Indian heritage then two generations from a full-blooded line without the mixed Indian bands.

My father's family is also Cherokee; however, the line itself began with two brothers from Ireland coming to the US in the 1600s. They married Cherokee wives. Many of their descendants continued marrying within the Cherokee ethnic group yet still the last name brought over by the brothers in the 1600s still exists today. My younger brother was the last to have the name; however, he has three sons now so the name will continue. I only wish there were more Potters from my mother's family even if there is a high probability that it was a given name as the result of their trade (actually a tradition of making pottery passed from one generation to the next which is how I learned to make pottery) and then when the Native Americans not living on reservations were included in the first census records post 1860, my family ancestors show up on the records for the first time despite having lived in the area for many generations though in no public government records but they are in a few local, though non-governmental records.

I find it a shame I cannot trace my mother's family more than 4 generations back on paper, mostly death records since few birth records if any existed until my mother's generation.

If i thought DNA would give me the answers, it might be worth the cost incurred but I am not yet convinced beyond major doubts.

The tie-in to the Mongolians is information also found in medical research with regards to autoimmune diseases. Many of the women yet a great number of the men in my family on both paternal and maternal sides have some form of autoimmune disease. I was the second of my generation to be diagnosed with an autoimmune disease. I actually have two, SLE (form of lupus ) and Sjogren's disease whereas an older cousin has juvenile crippling RA, and in the last few years 2 others tested positive for autoimmune disease, and one other is still in the testing phase but should now in the next few months.

Out of some 1.5 million people with lupus, research shows the numbers to be highest among people with Native American Indian and Asian ancestry and also African ancestry though I must question if some of this could also be result of intermarrying between Native Americans and freed slaves since both were considered outcasts.

The research certainly bears out with the ethnic angle/genetic/heriditery angle as far as it relates to my family. I hoped perhaps with my father's Irish rootst that maybe I would be able to bypass the gene but it wasn't meant to be. My husband is of European descent. It's not giving me high numbers of probability but I do hope there are enough of their father's genes to stop them from having active autoimmune disease of any variety.


-------------
Make time to be alone for reflection & enjoying a bit of silence before battling world's bombardment of noise.


Posted By: Inah
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2009 at 02:59

Genetic legacy left behind by Huns in Germany, Greece, Russia, Swiss-German and Swiss peoples in general ?

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/05/supplement-on-global-distribution-of.html?showComment=1241270820000 - http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/05/supplement-on-global-distribution-of.html?showComment=1241270820000



Posted By: paise
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2009 at 03:35
Interesting research. Thanks for the heads up letting me know where to find it.

Paise


-------------
Make time to be alone for reflection & enjoying a bit of silence before battling world's bombardment of noise.



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