Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic Closedconquest of attila the hun

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
Author
Dulo View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 06-Jul-2014
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1
Direct Link To This Post Topic: conquest of attila the hun
    Posted: 06-Jul-2014 at 07:01
European Huns were not of Asian origin, they were Indo-Europeans. Actually they still "are", because they still are here - in Bulgaria :

     http://www.promacedonia.org/en/sr/index.html
       ... So there they remained, and there their descendants remain, even to this day... --- page 4
          ... the blood of the Scourge of God flows now in the valleys of the Balkans, diluted by time and the pastoral      Slavs. --- page 4-5

You should check who were Dulo and Vokil - trace them back to China (not Mongolia), where they were known as Yuezhi :
    
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuezhi

Magyars have nothing to do do with Huns/Bolgars, they arrive in Europe 500 years later and they belong to Turkish family nations, which originate north from Mongolia, while Huns/Bolgars originate south from Mongolia - Djungaria in Tarim basin, China. I can't understand why Hungarians are so eager to have Atilla as their ancestor  - actually this is shameful. Atilla was sociopathic  killer and marauder.   
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4620
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Nov-2010 at 18:28
Dear Angela1221!

Does "Attila, Isten ostora", mean "the Pest from the East?", or something similar?

Sorry my language skills are limited?

Regards,
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
angela1221 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 19-Nov-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Nov-2010 at 07:16
New book about Attila:

Attila, Isten ostora



Ez a mű hiánypótló történelmi regény, olvasása közben érzékeljük, hogy Attila mekkora egyéniség volt. Egyik hun uralkodó sem jutott olyan magasságokba, mint ő, s ennek okát többé-kevésbé fölfedi a szerző. Attila életét végigkíséri egy különös, drámai szerelem, amely a szemünk előtt lobban föl, és lángol az egekig.

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Oct-2006 at 06:06
Originally posted by Feramez

Yes a lot do, we even have a couple Magyars in this forum that do.  A few months ago a group of Magyars in Hungary attempted to gain recognition from the government as an official ethnic group.  They failed, I think because they didn't have enough people to back them up.

You don't mean Magyars in Turkey do you?
Back to Top
Vivek Sharma View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Sep-2006 at 03:52
Another option would be to call them turkic huns.
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn
Back to Top
DayI View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2408
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Sep-2006 at 13:24
Originally posted by Toluy

Originally posted by Turk Nomad

I think you guys must use Hun Turks when need to use hun =)They are Turkic like Volgo or İthil Bulghars.
 
I have simple question:Are magyars sons of Hun Turks?
While most scholars have no substantiated proofs to prove whereabouts of Huns, do you have?
maybe this can help ya out, http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=14627
Back to Top
Toluy View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 12-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 31
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Sep-2006 at 12:35
Originally posted by Turk Nomad

I think you guys must use Hun Turks when need to use hun =)They are Turkic like Volgo or İthil Bulghars.
 
I have simple question:Are magyars sons of Hun Turks?
While most scholars have no substantiated proofs to prove whereabouts of Huns, do you have?
Back to Top
Turk Nomad View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 11-Sep-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 228
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Sep-2006 at 09:09
I think you guys must use Hun Turks when need to use hun =)They are Turkic like Volgo or İthil Bulghars.
 
I have simple question:Are magyars sons of Hun Turks?
Back to Top
Mark I. View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Finland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Sep-2006 at 09:00

Hungarians an Bulgarians are somewhat later settlers, as Attila the Hun's people went up north. Today's Finns have 25% of our genes herited from the Hunns.

Hope this helps.

 

Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Oct-2005 at 20:36

Many native tribes of conquered lands would join the armies of Attila's Huns and Cengiz's Mongols. I agree with Temujin's view regarding steppe tactics in warfare. This could explain why Atilla had the reserves to continue his hold on his empire after Chalons.

The Mongols empire(s) were very efficient in governing their territories. From their mature postal system to global trade, the Mongol's strict adherance to the yassa could be one reason for their success. 



Edited by Seko
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Oct-2005 at 18:10

Originally posted by Abyssmal Fiend


As for Attila's Empire, it fell primarily because it didn't have a single strong leader to control it. He ruled the way Genghis Khan did -- extermination. If there were people there, there needed to be Huns there to control them. And the Huns, like the Mongols, didn't have the population to constantly watch their subjects.

I disagree, Chingiz' empire was a quite different Steppe empire from previous ones in that he did conquer settled lands as opposed to just raid them like most other Nomads (in europe at least).

the battle of Chalons and the following last camapign of Attila give a good picture of Steppe warfare but is mostly distorted in favour of a more pro-Roman viewpoint. anyways, it has been noted that at the battle of Chalons, on both sides mostly German allies of both Rome and Huns fought each others, the actual amount of native Roman and Hun troops at the battle is comparably low. the battle was very bloody and costly for both sides and the Huns eventually mounted a feigned retreat which was either ignored by the Romans & allies or the losses were too high to pursue the Huns. this would explain why the Huns lost at Chalons and why they still had the capability of raiding Italy afterwards unopposed.

Back to Top
vulkan02 View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Termythinator

Joined: 27-Apr-2005
Location: U$A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1835
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Oct-2005 at 16:16
Originally posted by Abyssmal Fiend

I don't see why if the Huns used auxiliary troops or not is even a discussion at this point. It would be impossible for a nomadic race to raise an army of 10,000 men, attack, be defeated, raise another, and attack again, all in a short amount of time. The majority of the troops would have been Germanic (which, one might argue, was why the Romans called the Huns Germanic), with a bunch of other people mixed in.

You would have had everything from Goths to Scythians fighting under the Huns.

As for Attila's Empire, it fell primarily because it didn't have a single strong leader to control it. He ruled the way Genghis Khan did -- extermination. If there were people there, there needed to be Huns there to control them. And the Huns, like the Mongols, didn't have the population to constantly watch their subjects.


THat is why I believe the Hun army was considerably higher than 10000. The fact that Attila quickly replenished his army and didn't lose any of his protectorate allies after Chalons confirms to me that the Hun army was probably greater than the other armies at the time. Add to that the warlike character of his people and you have a perfect mix for conquest.
The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon
Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao
Back to Top
Abyssmal Fiend View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 18-Aug-2004
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 233
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Oct-2005 at 12:45
I don't see why if the Huns used auxiliary troops or not is even a discussion at this point. It would be impossible for a nomadic race to raise an army of 10,000 men, attack, be defeated, raise another, and attack again, all in a short amount of time. The majority of the troops would have been Germanic (which, one might argue, was why the Romans called the Huns Germanic), with a bunch of other people mixed in.

You would have had everything from Goths to Scythians fighting under the Huns.

As for Attila's Empire, it fell primarily because it didn't have a single strong leader to control it. He ruled the way Genghis Khan did -- extermination. If there were people there, there needed to be Huns there to control them. And the Huns, like the Mongols, didn't have the population to constantly watch their subjects.

Di! Ecce hora! Uxor mea me necabit!
Back to Top
poirot View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 21-May-2005
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1838
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Oct-2005 at 04:57

Originally posted by great_hunnic_empire

Yes, After his death Huns went back to Central Asia to join Gokturks  

? are you sure? It would be quite silly.



Edited by poirot
AAAAAAAAAA
"The crisis of yesterday is the joke of tomorrow.�   ~ HG Wells
           
Back to Top
Heraclius View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Sep-2005 at 21:06

 The Huns could be excellent mercenaries, ferocious, fearless, their reputation alone scared the hell out of their enemies, their charges were murderous and enemies rarely stood against them and for good reasons.

 I dont know what the Hun population when they entered Europe but I did definately hear that its may have been 10,000 huns at Chalons, most of their army was made up of Ostrogoths and Gepids and god knows what else. Allies were obviously hugely important to the Huns.

 I'd like to know though what was the size and composition of Attilas army when it invaded Italy after Chalons?

A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
Back to Top
DayI View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2408
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Sep-2005 at 13:28

Huns where more then 10 000, with 10 000 men you cant conquer a place like ukraine nowadays...

Its also said, the archers, warriors took their familiy with them so if there where 10 000 warriors, archers plus their family...

Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Sep-2005 at 06:16
Why hire huns as mercenaries? Simple, they were without a violent expansionist leader and happened to make good cavalrymen,
Back to Top
vulkan02 View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Termythinator

Joined: 27-Apr-2005
Location: U$A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1835
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Sep-2005 at 18:51
Originally posted by Imperator Invictus

The Huns in europe were never very numerous in the first place, probably about 10,000 according to some estimates. Local barbarians far outnumbered the Huns in the Hunnic empire. So when their empire collapsed, it's difficulty to trace where the orignal Huns went. Some say they merged with the Magyars after moving back into Asia.


I find it hard to believe that only 10000 huns were able to conquer all that territory.... maybe if it was 100000 then yeah its more believable.
The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon
Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao
Back to Top
Atillaperna View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 23-Sep-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Sep-2005 at 15:11
The anscestors of modern Hungarians are of course those that followed Arpad through the carpathians (Ugric), who came after Atilla and his Altaic Huns.  But Magyars see themselves more as descendants of the Huns, which although far less directly that Arpad's people, they are.

I'm reading the book entitled 'Atilla, the barbarian king that challenged Rome' by John Man, and i really recommend it.  It's an eye-opening and very captoivating read.  It tell about Lajos Kassai, a Hungarian who over the past twenty years has taken it upon himself to revive the ancient horse-back archery skills of the HUns, and has achieved his goal and now runs a school teaching the Hunnic maneuvers of archery whilst in the saddle.  A great man who lives for his profession.

The Huns get attention today, but for the wrong reasons.  They were a great race of Turkish stock (related to the Xihongnu) that ruled from the Caucasus to Friesland-Holland.

Regards.
Back to Top
tadamson View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 25-Jul-2005
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 451
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Sep-2005 at 21:29
Originally posted by great_hunnic_empire

 

worked for roman army as mercenaries? C'mon romans had enough of them, why should they be needed Hun's help

Yes Huns werent large enough of population but they were given high spiritual powers to make rule over romans, goths, vandals, germenic right? or they were so weak, who anyone can manipulated them easily and made Huns big threats for Romans by germenic, goths, vandals, franks, saxons



Im curious, whare have you picked up your history from?  Any particular text books ?

I note that you are from Britain and are interested in the Huns.  You should read

The World of the Huns: Studies in Their History and Culture  by
Otto J.Maenchen Helfen
  • Hardcover 631 pages (December 1973)
  • Publisher: University of California Press
  • Language: English
  • ISBN: 0520015967

  • Second hand copies are cheap and it's far and away the best book ever published on the Huns.
    rgds.

          Tom..
    Back to Top
     Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>

    Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

    Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
    Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

    This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.