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

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Attila the Hun-is he Asian or Indo-European?
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1516171819>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Kapikulu View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Berlin
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1914 		  Quote Kapikulu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Attila the Hun-is he Asian or Indo-European?
    Posted: 10-Sep-2006 at 12:04
Originally posted by Jeru

 
"He considered his new life among the Scythians better than his old life among the Romans, and the reasons he gave were as follows: "After war the Scythians live in inactivity, enjoying what they have got, and not at all, or very little, harassed. The Romans, on the other hand, are in the first place very liable to perish in war, as they have to rest their hopes of safety on others, and are not allowed, on account of their tyrants to use arms.
 
It is also known that Attila was accusing his brother Bleda-the Great Khan of Huns before him whom was thrown off the throne by Attila himself- of living in a too "Roman" way and forgetting his roots..
 
Attila, who passed his childhood in Rome, sometimes being together with Vandal prince and king-to-be Geiserich, was obviously hateful of Roman lifestyle..  
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli
Back to Top
Leonardo View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jan-2006
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 778 		  Quote Leonardo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Sep-2006 at 12:57
Originally posted by Kapikulu

 
Attila, who passed his childhood in Rome, sometimes being together with Vandal prince and king-to-be Geiserich, was obviously hateful of Roman lifestyle..  
 
 
And you are obviously unbiased towards what you call "Roman lifestyle", which you obviously know perfectly ...
 
 
 
Back to Top
Kapikulu View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Berlin
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1914 		  Quote Kapikulu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Sep-2006 at 13:17
Originally posted by Leonardo

Originally posted by Kapikulu

 
Attila, who passed his childhood in Rome, sometimes being together with Vandal prince and king-to-be Geiserich, was obviously hateful of Roman lifestyle..  
 
 
And you are obviously unbiased towards what you call "Roman lifestyle", which you obviously know perfectly ...
 
 
 
 
QuestionI didn't really understand what you meant out there...Having and stating no specific negative or positive thoughts over Roman lifestyle, I was trying to explain Attila's point of view, who liked and preferred the life in steppes and tents to life in cities and houses.
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli
Back to Top
Leonardo View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jan-2006
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 778 		  Quote Leonardo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Sep-2006 at 13:41
And to describe what you call a preference for "the life in steppes and tents to life in cities and houses" you use the word "hateful".
Obviously you are not biased.
 
 
 
Back to Top
Kapikulu View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Berlin
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1914 		  Quote Kapikulu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Sep-2006 at 14:46
Originally posted by Leonardo

And to describe what you call a preference for "the life in steppes and tents to life in cities and houses" you use the word "hateful".
Obviously you are not biased.
 
 
 
 
Attila was hateful of such a lifestyle, yes...Not myself.


Edited by Kapikulu - 18-Mar-2007 at 08:09
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli
Back to Top
elnet View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 11-Sep-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0 		  Quote elnet Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Sep-2006 at 15:43
Smile  book's name is HUNS                                                                  
      
       writer's name is MARCEL BRİON   
 
       HE İS A FRENC WRİTER 
Back to Top
omergun View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 24-Sep-2006
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 106 		  Quote omergun Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Sep-2006 at 21:55
Originally posted by Kids

From most of books I read, Atilla is identified with Oriental (Eastern Asian) characters (yellowish skin, short, small eyes, flat nose as according to Priscus's encounter with Attila).
 
But why then in Hungary Attila (as a national hero in Hungary) is depicted as European like figure as well as in recent American movie Attila???
 
 
Is is because Europeans can not accept the fact that Attila is non-white? 


First of all Atilla is Trkish. His appearence is Trkish. He is the most famous TrkHun leader in the medieval. In the medieval he succeeded bringing all TrkHuns together and making a dynamic force.  He wanted to make the from the Balkans to the Chinese wall Great TrkHun Empire bigger. Atilla begon his European conquer journey with EastRoma(Byzantium). In 434 he forced the EastRomans to make peace-contracts and pay taxes. After his brother Bleda died, he became the leader of the TrkHun Empire in 445. He had West-Asia and Middle-Europe in his controls. Both Romans werent able to fight TrkHun Empire. Atilla died in 453. After his dead the TrkHun Empire Empire weakened. TrkHuns from Middle-Europe went back to the east. Some of them stayed in the Hungary of now. Hungarian people from Hunnic origin are from Trkic origin.


Edited by omergun - 24-Sep-2006 at 21:59
Back to Top
Celestial View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 24-Sep-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28 		  Quote Celestial Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Sep-2006 at 21:58
    Attila was a Turkic leader. Huns were Central Asians so Attila looked not European but Mongolian.
Back to Top
omergun View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 24-Sep-2006
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 106 		  Quote omergun Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Sep-2006 at 22:06
Although in the past the Huns are thought to have been Mongolian emigrants, it is far more likely that they were of Turkic origin. This point has been repeated by thousands of historians, sinologists, turcologists, altaistics, and other researchers. Let me try to state how this idea began with Sinology researchers.

Sinology research in Europe

While the Mongol Empire was in the ascendancy, the power of the Catholic Church seemed to be fading, and the power of the Pope was somewhat shaky. At the same time, the Mongols opened the eastern roads for travel, and the Pope decided that there were now so many evident non-Christians that his power in the West was under severe threat. If he could convert these non-Christians he could regain power. As a result, Jesuit missionaries started to head east. Before spreading Christianity, they researched Chinese beliefs. They examined Chinese history and philosophy. There were some missioners who stayed twenty or thirty years in China, and built up healthy relations with Chinese scholars. They also started to translate Chinese books about both history and philosophy into Western languages. The first translations were made in Portuguese. Then this was translated to the other languages; Spanish, Italian and French. So the West started to learn about China from these Jesuit missionaries.

Sin means China in Latin and Sinology means sciences of China." Sinology mainly started with these translations in the sixteenth century, and Turk history became part of this study. Later, the number of Sinology studies increased with many travellers from the West heading to China. The book written by de Guinness in the eighteenth century is accepted as one of the important collected studies about Turkish history. De Guinness did not know Chinese but he wrote the history of the Turks, Mongols and Tartars by using Jesuit missionaries' translations. It was printed under the name of General History of Turks, Tatars and Mongols.

All the information obtained to this point by the researchers showed that the Huns were of Turkic origin. We learn nearly all our current knowledge on the Huns from the information left to us by their contemporary neighbours.

For example. It is pretty definite that their language was Turkic. Chinese annals reveals that the Hunnic language was very close to that of the Tles, a Turkic tribe. The Byzantine Empire said that the language of the Huns was the same as the languages of the Bulgars, Avars, Szeklers (the last of whom were descended from the European Huns themselves - Ed.) and other tribes which were flooding into Eastern Europe from Central Asia. The historians of that period accepted that these Turkic-speaking tribes were no different from the Huns because their languages were the same.

There are many words written in Chinese chronicles which were used by Huns in daily life. These are Turkic words. K Shiratoriy, reading a Hunnic sentence which has survived to the present day, has proven that it is Turkic. Hunnic-runic writings belonging to European Huns in Cafcasia [sic] has been read and has been proven to be of Turkic origin.

One area for backing up this claim is that of Hunnic names. It is difficult to explain the names belonging to Asian Huns because of fact that they were translated into Chinese in the form of Chinese names. The meanings of the names of European Huns can be comfortably explained in Turkish. One of the most striking features related to European Hunnic names is that they can't be explained by any language but Turkish. Some of the names belonged to the German language due to cultural interaction, but the majority of them were Turkish.

I will try to explain some of these:

(a famous hunnic leader) Balamir = Bala (child, kid) + Mir (king)

(the son of Attila) Dengizik = sea storm

(a general) Oniki, known to Europeans as Onegesios, = the number 12

(the son of Attila) Csaba = shepherd

(a Hunnic leader) Atakam = Ata (grandfather, father), Kam = the person who is responsible for the religious rituals (in shamanism)

Eskam = Es = couple + Kam = (as above)

Aybars = Ay = moon (and also the colour white in Turkish) + Bars (or Pars) = leopard, or a wild animal

The author W Bang has proven the name of Attila's wife was Arikan in Turkish in the result on his researches.

Some Hunnish Words


English
GOD
POLITICAL POWER
GIRL
WOMAN
HORSETAIL
MAGIC
ARMY
IRANIAN
GO
WOLF
STRONG/THICK
SWORD
COUNTRY


Hunnish
TENGRI*
KUT
KIZ
KATUN
TUG
BY
ORDA
TAT
BAR
BRI
TOK
KILI
EL

Turkish
TENGRI
KUT
KIZ
KATUN/KADIN/HATUN
TUG
BY
ORDA/ORDU
TAT
BAR
BRI/KURT
TOK
KILI
EL


* Tengri also means "God" or "Heaven" in Mongolian.


However, there are many names and captions belonging to Hunnish leaders which were written down in a document at Duro-Eropas, a border castle in Doma which was captured by the Persians in 260 BC. These names and captions are Turkish names and captions.

Aramaic writing in present-day Georgia appeared in the period following the Huns' penetration into the Caucuses. This writing was also used by the Bulgars. It is estimated that this writing was proto-Turkic and appeared before the Orkhun inscriptions in Mongolia.

A book written by Gyula Nemeth, the world famous Hungarian historian is recommended for further reading on this subject, and will greatly expand on this short feature. There are many Turkology institutes which study on the origins of the Turks in many European countries from Denmark and Germany to Russia and Japan. All of these contain a great number of resources regarding the origin of the Huns.

As stated, many sources claim the Huns were of Mongol origin, since European Huns were somewhat mongoloid in appearance. Some historians also accept Turks as Mongols. All of these views are somewhat back-to-front. The Chinese annals say the Mongols always lived to the east of the lands in which the Huns dwelt. The Mongols originate from what is now known as Manchuria.

The Mongol Empire was based on Turkic elements rather than Mongol elements. The governing structure of the empire was based on Turkic ideas of governing. The official language of the Mongol Empire was Uigrian, which is a Turkic language. Eighteen Turkish tribes played an important role in the founding of the Mongol Empire. There are many more examples that show the effects of Turkic elements on the Mongol Empire.

For example, the Indian Moghal Empire was established by Turks. But many scholars still hold the belief that the Moghals were of Mongol origin. The truth is that the language of the Moghals was Turkic, and that the founders of this empire were proud of being Turk.

You can come across many researchers who say the Huns are a nation whose origin is still mystery. When you look at bibliographies on internet sites you will see that those sites have referenced the work of historians such as McGovern and Haelfen-Manchen, but these sites don't say these authors already accept the Huns as Turkic. Haelfen-Manchen accepts that Asiatic Huns were in fact of Turkic origin and says that their language was also Turkic, but he raises an objection by adding that, in his view, European Huns are not descended from Asiatic Huns.

I don't know the reason for it but many European researchers still seem not to accept that Attila's Huns were of Turkic stock.

Hunnic Descendants

The word "Hun" comes from the word "kun" in Turkish ...It means people, or nation. Many now accept that the Bulgars are the descendants of the Huns. The ancestor of the Bulgars is Kobrat Han, who was the son of Irnek. Irnek was the son or grandson of Attila. So the Bulgars are directly descended from the Huns. Their writings were a different version of the Turkish-Runic writing used in Mongolia.

The Magyars (Hungarians) are also the descendants of the Huns (although modern Hungary itself also consists of a large number of Avar descendants mixed in - Ed). The dynasty of Arpad, which founded the present-day Hungary, is descended from the dynasty of Attila. The very name of the country comes from the name On-Ogur, which is a Turkish tribe. The Magyars consisted of six amalgamated Turkish tribes and one other Turkish tribe.

Magyars and Bulgars were accepted by the Byzantines as Turkic. for example, the Magyars were called Turks by the Byzantines during the ninth and twelfth centuries. Both of these tribes have since been assimilated into the native peoples in which they migrated and settled and have lost their own cultural features.

There are still hundreds of Turkish words in the Hungarian language. I hope these few examples will help you in clarifying the origin of the Huns.

Source: Kemal Cemal
Back to Top
omergun View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 24-Sep-2006
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 106 		  Quote omergun Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Sep-2006 at 22:32
Originally posted by Celestial

    Attila was a Turkic leader. Huns were Central Asians so Attila looked not European but Mongolian.


Atilla had a Trkic appearence. Trkic appearence is different than Mongolian appearence. Trks and Mongolians lived for long times together, but the appearences are definetly different. Trks conquered many areas, because of this there could be some mixes(this counts for every nation), but the main appearence of The Trks never changed.

A picture of Atilla
Back to Top
Raider View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 06-Jun-2005
Location: Hungary
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 804 		  Quote Raider Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Sep-2006 at 02:33
Originally posted by omergun


(the son of Attila) Csaba = shepherd

Well, Csaba was originally a Hungarian chief of the 10th century.  His figure later merged with the Hun story in the Szekler tales.
Back to Top
Batu View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 31-Aug-2006
Location: Barad-dur
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 405 		  Quote Batu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Sep-2006 at 09:45
have you ever heard "Huing-nu" s? they are eastern Huns and 100 percent turkish(maybe 20 percent mongol)
A wizard is never late,nor he is early he arrives exactly when he means to :) ( Gandalf the White in the Third Age of History Empire Of Istari )
Back to Top
Arald View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 16-Mar-2007
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0 		  Quote Arald Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Mar-2007 at 15:14
I never knew turks were so obsessed about attila. is there NOTHING more interesting in your entire history? attila belongs to no nation, he was of a people that have long since vanished, only Hungary could partially claim him. are you turks equally enthusiastic about the president of kyrgystan? or are you just as intrigued by the prime minister of uzbekistan? I wouldn`t think so...you are just claiming a historically significant figure to boost your own nation's "glory", even if only artificially.


nice picture of attila by the way....you wouldn't also happen to have a few snapshots of Aetius lying around, would you? :) Or maybe an mpeg-format clip of the Battle of Chalons ?
Back to Top
Mortazaa View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 15-Mar-2007
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28 		  Quote Mortazaa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Mar-2007 at 15:28
yeah, he was my ancestor. Why should not I obsessed with him?
Back to Top
Hellios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 25-Sep-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1933 		  Quote Hellios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Mar-2007 at 15:57
Originally posted by Arald

I never knew turks were so obsessed about attila. is there NOTHING more interesting in your entire history? attila belongs to no nation, he was of a people that have long since vanished, only Hungary could partially claim him. are you turks equally enthusiastic about the president of kyrgystan? or are you just as intrigued by the prime minister of uzbekistan? I wouldn`t think so...you are just claiming a historically significant figure to boost your own nation's "glory", even if only artificially.

nice picture of attila by the way....you wouldn't also happen to have a few snapshots of Aetius lying around, would you? :) Or maybe an mpeg-format clip of the Battle of Chalons ?
 
 
Back to Top
Arald View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 16-Mar-2007
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0 		  Quote Arald Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Mar-2007 at 18:25
Originally posted by Mortazaa

yeah, he was my ancestor. Why should not I obsessed with him?



and how sure are you that he was your ancestor? what proof exactly do you have to support this assertion? (that he was the "ancestor" of the turks, to be more specific). Little to nothing is known about the huns' culture or their ultimate fate for that matter, yet amazingly some people still profess with utmost certainty that they are the rightful heirs of the huns.   this is...amusing, to say the least.

As for the warning...I thank you for your interest in my post Hellios but I think you are overlooking the blatant disregard for the following rule in some posts:

"Unacceptable remarks can take the form of direct messages disparaging a national group, indirect messages overly promoting one's national group..."

The rule should apply for everyone.

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Mar-2007 at 19:05
Originally posted by xi_tujue

Originally posted by arras

Huns were Indo-European people as well as Allans, Sarmatians, all Turkic tribes, Scithians, Bulgars, Avars and other nomadic people who came from central Asia. Etnicaly they had same origin as most other European, Iranian and Indian (Aryana) people and their language was part of Indo-European group. There are some doubds if Ugro-Finish languages are part of Indo-European group but then that Hungarian people are direct descendants of Huns is questionable. Some historians claim it is only part of national myth like many similar across other nations.
Notice that people of Hungaria don't call themself Huns but Magiars and they don't call their country Hungaria.

Do not be confused about their "asiatic" look.
 
just a question why is it if someone or people played a important role in history "white"(caucasians) claime them as one of their own.
 
Because the Hungarians of today do not look like their ancestors of yesterday, they are assimilated to the "European look" if you want to call it that through mixing with other tribes and peoples of Caucasian origin who inhabited the region of Panonia. People associate what they are familiar with, if Hungarians still looked very Asian they would associate images of Attila and Arpad. etc to more Asiatic/ Central Asian faces. Same as Jesus pbuh in Europe he is white, in the Middle East that is not necessarily the case.
Back to Top
Hellios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 25-Sep-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1933 		  Quote Hellios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Mar-2007 at 19:19
Originally posted by Arald

As for the warning...I thank you for your interest in my post Hellios but I think you are overlooking the blatant disregard for the following rule in some posts:

"Unacceptable remarks can take the form of direct messages disparaging a national group, indirect messages overly promoting one's national group..."

The rule should apply for everyone.
 
Direct messages against other national groups are dealt with first.
Indirect messages promoting one's own national group too much are discussed among mods later.
 
Back to Top
Arald View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 16-Mar-2007
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0 		  Quote Arald Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Mar-2007 at 19:29
Speculations as to what the Hungarians may have looked like are unnecessary as it is pretty much known what they looked like. Theirs would have been a diverse genepool, made up not only of turanid types or asian-looking peoples but of ash-blonde greyish-blue-eyed east baltic types, for example, as well. All this is of course extremely well documented in an interesting work by the renowned Hungarian anthropologist Dr. Kiszely Istvn.

Edited by Arald - 16-Mar-2007 at 19:30
Back to Top
Penelope View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Alia Atreides

Joined: 26-Aug-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1042 		  Quote Penelope Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2007 at 01:45
If what they say about the "Chinese War" is completely accurate, and if it Really took The Huns less than 150 years to reach Europe, then the migration itself is unparalleled. What changes do you think could have occured to The Huns within that timespan?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1516171819>

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 0.094 seconds.