Attila the Hun-is he Asian or Indo-European?

The history of the Hun's origins had been mystery since the first discription of Scythians by Herodotus. In a book by John Man called 'Attila-The Barbarian King Who Challenged Rome', copyright 2005; the author is keen to cite various historians. The Gothic Jordanes mentions the mating of witches with evil spirits. Much later in the 18'th century, Joseph de Guignes being an interpreter for oriental languages at the Royal Library in Paris and later a member of the Royal Society of London, wrote five volumes of 'Histoire generale des Huns, des Turcs et des Mogols'. He tried to prove taht all eastern peoples - Chinese, Turks, Mongols and Huns were descendants of Noah. Another aspect of his works took a stronger hold on academia though, that Attila's Huns were descendants of the Hsiung-Nu (Xiongnu). It was the first time that western historians located the Huns from the ancient Khun (Huns). Gibbon borrowed this explaination and beleieved the same people who threatened Rome were the also responsible for threatening China. Rene Grousset took it matter of factly that the Xiongnu were the Huns. However, this only raised more inquisitive questions. The research on any connection became hotly debated by scholars.

Eventually researchers noticed that the Kurgans (burials grounds) of the Xiongnu were sophisticated and rich compared to the impoverished ones of the Huns of Europe. Still nothing conclusive has been established. Some of the ancients did mention tribes that may have fit the picture of the Huns. Ptolemy mentions the 'Khoinoi' which sounds like Kuni or Hun. Keep in mind that other historians from the Roman period also wrote descriptions. However, they did not know where they came from or possible relations wtih the Xiongnu.

If we are to look at the languages of the Huns during Atilla's time and similarities in existence today, then we came see a connection in some important names. His uncle Octar is similar to the Turkish Oktor, meaning powerful. Attila's father Mundzuk means 'Pearl'. Uncle Aybars translates into moon panther. A wife Erekan is known as 'beautiful wife'. Whether these similarities are strong enough to prove a proto-Turk connection is open to debate.

Eventually the Huns of europe had very little if any conncetion to China, in contrast to the Xiongnu. But they could have been a remnant of migrating tribes of Xiongnu that eventually found their way into the Roman world. Now lets discuss the Hunnnic appearance by the historical accounts of Greeks and Romans. Greeks came up with the word barbarian. They described the tribes of the steppe as speaking an incomprehensible language that sounds like 'bar bar'. Back then you were either a civilized Greek or Roman or an outsider with 'no civilization'.

Later the Roman Ammianus Marcellinus, who never saw a Hun, says the Huns had thick necks, and so ugly that they might be two legged animals. The Goth Jordanes, years later mentions that Huns were foul puny tribesmen, offspring of withces and unclean spirits. Not hard to note the bias by such writers. The Huns traversed much ground to reach Europe. In that time they kept some old rituals. Like self inflicted ritual face wounds and cranial deformation. The later being a rare form of special social status shared by other peoples of the ancient world. Religion wise they most likely shared in the belief of the uber diety Tangri.


    
    

Edited by Seko - 27-Aug-2006 at 23:02

You are welcome.   Let me know if I forget to add to this topic later. 

Hi, if the Xiongnu were indeed Huns, then can anyone explain why they attack China in the far east and Rome in the west but not the civilizations in between, like Persia, Tibet and other Turkic tribes? Or did they?

Originally posted by Scytho-Sarmatian It is well documented that the Huns repeatedly trounced Sassanid Persia and even took over a chunk of northwestern India.  Sources?  Just about any book on the time period.  The Huns pretty much overran most of Eurasia in the early centuries A.D.  Historians don't give them too much credit for it because unlike the Mongols, Hun "conquests" were generally little more than bandit raids.  The Huns lacked organization and were not good at establishing lasting states.

Attila's accounts continued.

Priscus was a scholar and writer who wrote volumns on the Byzantine History. He also met Attila in person.

He described Attila as being an ambitious, moody, ruthless yet guile leader. Who was generous in friendship and terrifying in opposition.

He narrated a famous story about the events of an attempted assasination on Attila by the byzantine court.   

Later the book (mentioned in my previous post) goes into detail on the battle at the Catalaunian Plains. Attila's return to the land of modern day Hungary and an attempt to storm Rome. That seige failed due to good bargaining power of Pope Leo I. Attila died in his sleep after his wedding night. A hemmorage known as 'oesophageal varices' can occur from years of drinking alcohol. The author of the book hints that Attila's swollen veins burst without warning and produced a rush of blood into his lungs while asleep.


    
    

Edited by Seko - 31-Aug-2006 at 14:30

Raygun, If i remeber correctly Attila and Bleda infact did launch a campaign against Persia/Parthia but were defeated and so turned back

I've only read a bit about his interview with Onegesius and this is what made me intersted:

Seko, it was also wellknown that he may have been poisoned. Just a side note. But i do believe that the drinking killed him.

Hi!

Originally posted by Raider Attila, the Hun plastic action figure You can order via internet