conquest of attila the hun

 

 

Edited by Raider

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.

No, I don't think so, other than the group of people in Hungary.  A lot of Huns did return to Asia once Atilla died.  I guess they just assimilated into Turk or Mongol culture.

Raider, how accurate is that map?

Originally posted by Degredado Raider, how accurate is that map?

That's a sweet map--nicely done.  I once saw a similar map that even included what is now Denmark and southern Sweden within Attila's domain.  So, there seems to be some debate as to the accuracy of drawing maps of Attila's empire.  However, based on the available historical sources, Raider's map reflects the general consensus regarding borders.

I don't think there's a way to answer that question in terms of ethnology because we're not sure what the Hunnic ethnicity really is. If we are to define Huns are people who came from the Central steppes, then it would be highly improbably that Bulgars have much trace of Hunnic descent. On the other hand, it is possible that ancestors of the Bulgars were part of the Hunnic Empire. So in that respect, it is understandable for many eastern European to claim a link to the Huns.

A similar case is with the Byzantines and the Russian Romanovs claiming linkage to the Romans, while not being people of the "Latin" ethnicity. In fact, I would bet that even in the Roman Empire itself, Latin ethnicity was less than 5%.

People like to take advantage of the fact that some of these empires were very large, while not fully respecting the fact that they contained a diverse group of people.


Edited by Imperator Invictus

Originally posted by Imperator Invictus A similar case is with the Byzantines and the Russian Romanovs claiming linkage to the Romans, while not being people of the "Latin" ethnicity. In fact, I would bet that even in the Roman Empire itself, Latin ethnicity was less than 5%. People like to take advantage of the fact that some of these empires were very large, while not fully respecting the fact that they contained a diverse group of people.

This is true. The Hunnic Empire itself was made of very few Huns. The common folk of the empire was largely comprised of Germanic tribes, Dacians and perhaps Slavs as well.

As for the Roman Empire, a theory of mine is that the genuine Latin ethnicity ceased to exist early in its history. It was Roman practice to send Romans to newly conquered lands to make the people more accepting of Roman rule. As the people of Latium were dispersed into the new provinces, newly conquered people came to Latium, and soon there were no 'Latins', only Latin speakers.

The reason why the Byzantines and, to a lesser extent, the Russians claimed lineage to the Roman Empire is not because of race. The Byzantines based the structure of their society upon the original Roman model, and in turn, the Russians based the structure of their society on the Byzantines. So logically, the Russians could trace their lineage back to Rome.

Originally posted by Imperator Invictus I don't think there's a way to answer that question in terms of ethnology because we're not sure what the Hunnic ethnicity really is. If we are to define Huns are people who came from the Central steppes, then it would be highly improbably that Bulgars have much trace of Hunnic descent. On the other hand, it is possible that ancestors of the Bulgars were part of the Hunnic Empire. So in that respect, it is understandable for many eastern European to claim a link to the Huns. A similar case is with the Byzantines and the Russian Romanovs claiming linkage to the Romans, while not being people of the "Latin" ethnicity. In fact, I would bet that even in the Roman Empire itself, Latin ethnicity was less than 5%. People like to take advantage of the fact that some of these empires were very large, while not fully respecting the fact that they contained a diverse group of people.

The Romanovs claiming Roman linkage when in reality they were of Viking decent. What ever works I guess!  

Originally posted by doorman Didn't the Huns end up becoming  the Bulgars?  As I recall the  Bulgars  split into two groups, one became th Volga Bulgars settling  around the Volga river east of Moscow and the other settled  in Bulgaria.

Actually, they split into 5 groups led by khan Asparuh and his 4 brothers. Aparuh's Bulgars settled around the Danube and established the First Bulgarian empire in 681. Kuber's Bulgars settled in Macedonia. They both mixed heavily with the slavs and were united in one state by khan Krum, who annexed Macedonia to Bulgaria. He is the khan, who annexed Sofia, our modern capital, to the Bulgarian empire.

Khan Asparuh's biggest brother - Bayan, settled around the Volga and became leader of the Volga Bulgars.

One of his brothers, I don't remember who exactly, even made it to northern Italy, but the Bulgars there were assimilated. The other two made it to the Baltic coast and modern day Poland, but the Bulgars there were also assimilated from the locals and vanished from the historic scene.

I do know that Bulgarians and Hungarians have some sort of a relationship between them. I red it in a site, but can't remember it. Does anyone have any info about this?