Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
great_hunnic_empire
Janissary
Joined: 12-Sep-2005
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Topic: conquest of attila the hun Posted: 13-Sep-2005 at 20:04 |
Yes, After his death Huns went back to Central Asia to join Gokturks
|
The land that my horse has rode on, there shall not be a grass againAtilla the Hun
p2.forumforfree.com/turan.html
|
|
tadamson
Baron
Joined: 25-Jul-2005
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 451
|
Posted: 14-Sep-2005 at 09:58 |
Originally posted by great_hunnic_empire
Yes, After his death Huns went back to Central Asia to join Gokturks
|
No... The Goths and others rose up and broke the
control of the Huns. The Alans split and moved West. Many
individual Huns joine the Roman Armies.
There was no mass migration of Huns thousands of miles to join the gok Turk.
|
rgds.
Tom..
|
|
great_hunnic_empire
Janissary
Joined: 12-Sep-2005
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Posted: 14-Sep-2005 at 10:50 |
Originally posted by tadamson
Originally posted by great_hunnic_empire
Yes, After his death Huns went back to Central Asia to join Gokturks |
No... The Goths and others rose up and broke the control of the Huns. The Alans split and moved West. Many individual Huns joine the Roman Armies. There was no mass migration of Huns thousands of miles to join the gok Turk.
|
yes Goth rose up and germenics too. So think of other way round, they migrated from Central Asia to Europe, so why should not they migrate back? it's simple they were nomadic
Also there was a another threat for east romans 150 years later after Attila's death. Avar Turkish Empire. This empire were consists of Peceneks and Huns Turkish tribes.
You mean east romans right? because West Romans was collapsed shortly after GrayWolf death.
Peceneks joined to Roman army but after they found out they were fighting against Turks in Manzigert War 1071 they changed their side.
They went back to Central Asia to join Gokturks, Uygurs, North and South Huns where located northern India in that time.
I will not be discussing anymore about Huns because it's already accepted origin of them, lifestyle, leaders and politics between another nations
|
The land that my horse has rode on, there shall not be a grass againAtilla the Hun
p2.forumforfree.com/turan.html
|
|
Heraclius
Chieftain
Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
|
Posted: 14-Sep-2005 at 10:52 |
Yes there is many accounts of Huns serving in 6th and 7th century Byzantine armies as mercenaries for example, its seems they were largely dispersed or assimilated after the Hun empire collapsed.
It should be pointed out that the *huns* themselves wernt in very high numbers Ive read accounts of the battle of Chalons that suggest only around 10 - 15 thousand of the *hunnic* army were actually huns and the rest were an assortment of Gepids and Ostrogoths and other germanics who fought for the Hun King.
|
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
|
|
great_hunnic_empire
Janissary
Joined: 12-Sep-2005
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Posted: 14-Sep-2005 at 11:32 |
Originally posted by Heraclius
Yes there is many accounts of Huns serving in 6th and 7th century Byzantine armies as mercenaries for example, its seems they were largely dispersed or assimilated after the Hun empire collapsed.
It should be pointed out that the *huns* themselves wernt in very high numbers Ive read accounts of the battle of Chalons that suggest only around 10 - 15 thousand of the *hunnic* army were actually huns and the rest were an assortment of Gepids and Ostrogoths and other germanics who fought for the Hun King.
|
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
|
The land that my horse has rode on, there shall not be a grass againAtilla the Hun
p2.forumforfree.com/turan.html
|
|
Seko
Emperor
Spammer
Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
|
Posted: 14-Sep-2005 at 14:06 |
I'm speechless in front of our astute colleague.
|
|
tadamson
Baron
Joined: 25-Jul-2005
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 451
|
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..
|
|
Atillaperna
Immortal Guard
Joined: 23-Sep-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
|
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.
|
|
vulkan02
Arch Duke
Termythinator
Joined: 27-Apr-2005
Location: U$A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1835
|
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
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
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,
|
|
DayI
Sultan
Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2408
|
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...
|
|
|
Heraclius
Chieftain
Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
|
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.
|
|
poirot
Arch Duke
Editorial Staff
Joined: 21-May-2005
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1838
|
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
|
|
Abyssmal Fiend
Shogun
Joined: 18-Aug-2004
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 233
|
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!
|
|
vulkan02
Arch Duke
Termythinator
Joined: 27-Apr-2005
Location: U$A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1835
|
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
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
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.
|
|
Seko
Emperor
Spammer
Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
|
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
|
|
Mark I.
Immortal Guard
Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Finland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
|
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.
|
|
Turk Nomad
Shogun
suspended
Joined: 11-Sep-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 228
|
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?
|
|
Toluy
Housecarl
Joined: 12-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 31
|
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?
|
|