Printable View
I don't know much about any of these groups of people other than that they lived during different eras, used horse archers and that Attila the Hun and Genghis (the Mongol) Khan were both ruthless warlords.
What were the differences between these peoples?
Were the Huns the ancestors of the Mongols?
All I know is Huns are a pre-Turkic tribe while Mongols are not a Turkic tribe -but close- though they are generally confused with them.
For sure, we have better individuals here who would make more satisfying explanations. :bow:
.
AFAIK it's a 17th C. humanist who suggested first that the Huns were descended from the Xiong Nu. Jurchen Fury established so firmly in another thread that the Xiong Nu were speaking a very close if not identical language to Turks (Tu Jue), Uyghurs (Hui Hu) and other turkic peoples. However, I don't know of any certain fact stating the relation, if at all, between the Xiong Nu and the Huns.
:director: Jurcheeen!!!
Mongols are yet another Asiatic people speaking an agglutinative language similar in grammar to turkic toungues as well as such distinc speeches as Finnish, Magyar and Japanese, but lacking enough number of cognates especially in basic sets of words such as numbers, pronouns etc. to conclude a language family such as Indo-European or Semitic etc. There are striking similarities between the anatomical shapes and overall phisionomies of all Asiatic peples and common properties in the lifestyles of steppe peoples, no matter ethnicity (that is including the Indo European steppe peoples) enforced by the life conditions.
Well, yes. Somebody call Jurchen Fury over here please. :phonecall:
.
Well I'm not one of them. What I know is that the Huns were a Steppe tribe that lived south of the Avars (from whom Europeans learned of the stirrup). The Mongols were exactly that, people from Mongolia.Quote:
For sure, we have better individuals here who would make more satisfying explanations.
All those steppe nomads were constantly conquering each other and naturally getting pretty ethnically mixed up in the process. By what I've read there's usually considered to be a relatively clear (mainly linguistical) division between Turkic (or, for most of their history since they didn't really get rolling until what was it, around the 600s or so, "proto-Turkic") and Mongolic peoples. The Mongols obviously go to the latter group. The Huns I frankly can't recall what I read about, and don't really feel like looking if I can find any of the articles right now. :shame:
Obviously, however, the Huns can't exactly be the ancestors of the Mongols seeing as how *they* migrated to the western end of the Great Eurasian Steppe Belt in the first few centuries AD, and the Mongols were (and still are) puttering about the eastern end well into the second millenium...
'Course, they might well *share* a common ancestry in one form or another...
Incidentally, do I remember correctly that the Avars were a Mongolic people who had to migrate westwards when the emerging Turks rebelled against them and set out to build their own (and, in the fine tradition of nomads everywhere, rather short-lived) khanate instead ?
.
There are, to my knowledge, more than one people referred to as Avars and probably they are not of the same stock. Let's first eliminate the modern Caucassian people, Avars, who are neither turkic nor mongolic nor from the steppes at all. Then there are the Rouran (I've also seen Juan Juan) against whom the very Turks rebelled and established their own khanate. For the stereotypical conclusions such as
see below. ~;) Then there are Avars in the Eurasian steppe in the seventh century.Quote:
in the fine tradition of nomads everywhere, rather short-lived
Now come... Though with frequent domestic turmoil and periods of certain interruption, the Turk (Türük/Tu Jue/Tu Kyu...) khanate lived from the 6th century up to the 8th, at which time it was being overthrown and short afterwards replaced by the Uyghurs, who were not so short lived and in later stages quite sedentary, and Karluks, migrating southwards becoming the seed of the Kara Khans, who were also sedentary and credited as the first turkic "state" to adopt Islam en masse. (The last ever Türük khagan, although a mere figurehead, ruled until 742.)
The house of Genghis, lthough titularly, ruled in India until mid 19th century; his offspring ruled quite long lived and sedentary statehoods in various places of the old wold: The Yuan dynasty, the Il Khans (who were actually short lived but suceeded by the Jalairids of Jebe's descent and others to last a few centuries), the Golden Khanate, whose latest successors were the Crimen Khans who were deposed in the 18th century and various petty Turkestan emirates are worth naming.
.
No, it's a fine tradition of pastoralists not to build overly long-lived empires. They seem to have been restless that way. How many do you know that in one form or another survived for a truly extended period comparable to what settled realms have proven capable of achieving ? And fracturing into little princedoms that by themselves might be relatively long-lived doesn't quite count - that kind of "balkanization" was the normal state of affairs for the steppe peoples, after all. I know two, and both of them turned into settled nations anyway - the Hungarians and the Turks. All the rest came apart at the seams sooner or later (whereas several settled kingdoms have an unbroken history as essentially cohesive political entities stretching back over a millenia or more), one of the longest-lived AFAIK being the Khazars who lasted something like five hundred years - until the Golden Horde rolled over them. Getting gobbled up by the next up-and-comer seems to have been a fairly common way for nomad empires to go, although plain fracturing seems to have been the most popular.
The Juan-Juan (which is apparently Chinese for "nasty crawling bugs" or somesuch, and thus presumably not what they called themselves) tend to get identified as the ancestors of the Avars, incidentally. They lasted about two hundred years on the steppes around the Black Sea and collapsed in rebellion and fractionalization following a failed siege of Constantinopole, AFAIK. I've been told there's a saying "gone like an Avar" due to the dearth of traces they left behind, apparently left a curiously lasting legacy in the form of the Slavs who fused into a relatively cohesive ethnic group and culture under their overlordship, rebelled and went their merry way when the khanate shattered.
Thanks guys. I was hoping for this very flood of information when I posted here. :)
The Monastery is the best forum on the internet.
Roughly a thousand years.Quote:
Originally Posted by GeWee
I have always found the suggestion pinning the huns as the xiong nu who raided china to be questionable. It seems too far a distance for casual migration over so short a time period. It would be believable if the Huns had an objective I suppose, but they didn't really. It is mostly accepted that the Huns conquered European areas less out of malice than a desire for wealth and the luxuries of the European area. It must be admitted however that the step, being a harsh climate would create similar peoples, and the step is much the same across a great distance. What I mean is that they could've been very similar people (the huns and xiong nu) without much similarity in terms of location.
Casual ? By all accounts they were pushed away by other steppe peoples. The usual story really - pressure from their neighbors tended to be the easily most common reason nomad peoples started the long trans-Eurasian trek. As for the distance, caravans and travelers could cover the Silk Road in a couple of years. There's no reason why an entire nomad people could not similarly traverse virtually the entire width of the great steppe in just decade or two, especially if they're unable to secure decent pastureland along the way from its current occupiers and thus have to move on fairly soon.
Mind you, I've also read that around the time the Hsiung-Nu left their old haunts, the Huns arrived in European consciousness and the Migrations generally started going, the steppes were suffering from a period of drought which duly drove the nomads to look for new lands.
All steppe peoples were rather similar when you look at the basics - pastoral, horse-riding survivalists with a penchant for mounted archery, raiding and good organization. Permutations of thing like religion, art, equipement, favoured combat technique etc. etc. were then pretty much endless. However, the Huns were definitely new arrival from further east by the time they start appearing in records, and the only larger group known to have started migrating from near China inside suitable timeframe were the Hsiung-Nu. It is also well known that whenever a major steppe people started drifting westwards they usually ended up going all the way to the end of the steppe (and either remaining in the Black Sea region, proceeding to the Great Hungarian Plain, or going south towards Iran, Asia Minor and the Middle East when they ran out of steppe), so it's pretty likely the Hsiung-Nu and the Huns are more or less the same bunch (albeit with all the usual odds, ends and conquered subjects added along the way to the latter).
Watchman summed it up extremely well. Migrations happened all the time, and really the only nomads that Europeans bumped up with were forced that way by more powerful tribes (with a few excepetions, like the Mongols).
This rather makes me wonder: if the Huns were driven out by more powerful neighbours (implying they were weak), how did they become such a treat to Europe? Had the Roman empire become that weak? Or are powerful steppe folks unstoppable except by typhoons?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
Well it wasn't like the Hun's tactics were totally new, far from it. And the other steppe menaces to Europe, that ended up in Hungary, the Avars and the Magyars also did pretty well, but they were also pushed to the west by stronger groups.
The successes likely comes from issues with leadership and realitive strength on both sides, as well as the fact that nomadic tactics, despite not being new at all, are often hard to counter by settled folks, for multiple reasons. Even without the Roman weakness the Huns probably would have done well, but nomads are very opportunistic (for good reason).
The Huns did have an improved version of the recurve composite bow, far as I know. Or at least what I've read of the general period often makes references to "the powerful Hunnish bow" as distinct from the ones thus far used in the region. Given how quickly good ideas tend to travel, it probably wasn't too old a device even back in the days they were still raiding China.
To say that the tribes that drifted into the vicinity of Europe had been "weak" or anything is a bit odd. After all, the Huns for example rolled up several nations that by no stretch of imagination can be considered anything else than quite formidable fighters even by nomad standards. It's just that by the very nature of their ecologics and society nomadic empires were rather transient things prone to internal fractures, revolts of subject tribes and general disintegrating entropy. Thus, even strong tribes tend to get brought down sooner or later and have to give way to whoever beat them (often a former subject), but naturally enough they regain their strenght soon when they're away from the most pressing danger. In particular their major military efforts were often something of a do-or-die business - the loss of prestige and sheer military power resulting from a failed campaign might well be what nails the coffin of a prince, as happened to the Avars in the wake of their failed attempt against Constantinopole. Within a few decades of that one there was but a vague memory of their once-powerful steppe empire left, and new up-and-comers were already pushing their control on the splinters. The Hsiung-Nu may simply have found the suddenly unified China and the Wall a bit too much to swallow and battered against them for a while until neighbors saw an opportunity and chased them off. Then the same neighbors more or less did the same - the Juan-Juan (Avars) for example got their arses handed to them by the Toba, a nomad people who had settled in eastern China during the troubled times and as usual had to abandon pastoralism in the process; they obviously knew how to fight, though. Then a subject tribe of their who had been growing in strenght - the Tu Kiue or something like that, better known as Turks - rebelled against them and drove them westwards, set up their own empire in the region, and fractured into multiple khanates inside two centuries or less. Some of the splinters from these then drifted westwards too, as usual snowballing through absorbing smaller tribes encountered along the way.
It should also be remebered that the nomads were mobile; when it came down to it they had no particular need to remain ina given region. So if - and when - another tribe started pushing into their turf too stubbornly (usually as the result of drought, overpopulation, or similar pressing need to find new pasture *now*) it seems to have been relatively common to simply move out of the way rather than fight an extended and somewhat pointless war against an overly determined foe. Sort of like how when you're raiding into someone's territory you tend to avoid the strong forts and concentrate on looting assorted "soft" targets; it's simple cost-efficiency analysis really. For example to my knowledge the Hungarian-Magyars did this when the Pechenegs began to push into their plains - they simply left for less troublesome pastures (which they found in the disputed borderland of Pannonia, nowadays known as Hungary - a steppe army had little trouble pushing aside the feudal armies of the three kingdoms squabbling over the region) rather than bleed themselves dry in a mutually exhaustive war.
Thanks for the answers, Steppe Merc and Watchman. I called them weak because they were driven away, which assumes they weren't powerful enough to hold their land. It didn't occur to me that land does not hold the same value to pastoralists as it does to settled cultures.
Well yeah, but Hungary has less steppe to raise your horses (and most steppe people who were pushed there became more or less settled evantually). It is obviously better to have bigger pastures that can support large herds than smaller ones.
As for the Hunnish bow, it's a bit of a misnomer, as people likely used it before the Huns, such as the Yuezhi, possibelly the later Sarmatians or Alans. But the Huns certaintly used it, and it was a lot more widespread than any other group.
Well you know, it's not who invents it but who patents it... Or in this case introduces it widely enough to start getting noticed.
True, the Great Hungarian Plain doesn't have enough pastureland for nomads; every folk who remained in the region had to abandon pastoralism inside something like generation. Ditto for China. That never seems to have kept anyone (except possibly the Golden Horde, but they had a fair few other reasons to go away too) from taking them over, though. Maybe they just liked being able to extract tribute from the local farmers, easy access to nearby (relatively) rich settled lands and/or didn't quite realize the long-term implications ?
I'm coming in here with no opinion on the matter really, besides that the Huns were a strong menace to the settled European structure.
As has been mentioned a few times the tendency of the steppe is for one tribe to push another, to push another, to push another... you get the point. But outside the Mongols we aren't too sure if there were that many that made a full scale trek across the steppes. Most just displace the next tribe, which would fit with the now 'weakened' tribe.
But somehow the Huns managed to penetrate India as well, though they stayed well clear of Persia, and ended up in Hungary, pushing waves of other tribes before them.
Now is it not possible that the Huns of India fame (White Huns) were not really Huns, but merely another tribe of the steppes. After all they are only vaguely mentioned and described by rather ignorant people as of the Hun people (who would feel that pretty much any tribe that 'lived' in the saddle would be Hunnic). Thus the 'real' Huns would also just be another tribe that got pushed on, and found that they were in fact pretty strong, beating up all the settled enemies near the Black Sea. So going "why not see if we can plunder Europe?"
My point is, that is is odd that the Huns in a weakened state was able to subjugate every single other steppe tribe on their way to Europe. That makes no sense, and it makes little sense for them to set out to do it after the first victory. Settling in the new lands would be more likely if you have just been kicked out yourself. And they can't possibly have been planning, on the borders of China, to go to Europe. The obstacles were simply too great when you are defeated.
The "White" Huns (properly called the Hephtalites, AFAIK) were apparently a bit different bunch than the "Black" Huns who came to Europe, but AFAIK they shared territory (and probably to at least some degree leadership) for a while around the time they were approaching the Black Sea region before going their different ways. The terms may just come from the Hephtalites having been a (reasonably) Caucasian people who were part of the Hunnish confederation for a while, and hence "whiter" than the definitely Asiatic Huns proper. Arabs for example seem to have considered most of the steppe peoples "white" (compared to themselves anyway, and certainly in comparision to the Berbers and Africans), so that sort of distinction would make sense. Then again, similar "color schemes" appear in the names of several other nomad tribes that AFAIK had no such circumstances, and the Turkish khanate that rose in the place of the Yuan-Yuan are known as the Gök ("Blue") Turks... so there may not really be much in the way of particular reasoning involved in the names.
The Huns, the Bulgars, the Avars, the Khazars, the Oghurs (at least some of whom got absorbed into the Magyars, who then settled in Hungary), the Pechenegs (known also by several other names, about all of them apparently meaning roughly "steppe dweller"), many other Turkic tribes... there was quite enough of them. Whatever dynamic now exactly sent the Huns packing westwards seems to have had enough aftereffects to be causing migrations still at least five hundred or so years later, although I've gotten the impression the situation had more or less stabilized by the end of the first millenium AD - the Mongols were straight empire-building conquerors, not migrating conquerors after all.Quote:
But outside the Mongols we aren't too sure if there were that many that made a full scale trek across the steppes.
Had they been able to subjugate "every single other steppe tribe" along the way, they wouldn't have built their empire on the Southern Russian steppes - they'd have established it in Central Asia already. It would not, however, by any means have been necessary for them to achieve such feats either - they only needed to win enough and look threatening enough for resident tribes and confederations to allow them to pass through. No doubt if and when they collided into a strong faction and realized the fact (after the initial skirmishes) they mostly tried to work around that area, or negotiate passage; they might also have "clipped" the edges of several such communities, probably taking along or destroying a few of the smaller component tribes on the side.Quote:
My point is, that is is odd that the Huns in a weakened state was able to subjugate every single other steppe tribe on their way to Europe. That makes no sense, and it makes little sense for them to set out to do it after the first victory. Settling in the new lands would be more likely if you have just been kicked out yourself. And they can't possibly have been planning, on the borders of China, to go to Europe. The obstacles were simply too great when you are defeated.
Mind you, they were probably also well on the path of empire-building long before they got near Europe - but nomad empires have no need per se to remain in one area, and it is entirely conceivable they would have wandered on out of sheer habit if nothing else. They may also have been unhappy with the territory encountered thus far - the eastern steppes at least were suffering from drought and overpopulation (and hence over-grazing of pastures) around the time, and hearing stories of the rich settled lands lying to the far west and south may well have piqued their interest. It's not like the Silk Road was anything new, after all, and even the nomads were no doubt at least vaguely aware there were civilizations far away.
However, it would also seem like migrating nomad tribes tend to just keep going until they find some really rich pickings - a prosperous region to take over, such as the city-states around the Black Sea and the Russian rivers, good pastureland, a weakened empire occupying the above... - or hit an obstacle they can't overcome or circumvent. Oh, a fair few along the way will get killed, remain behind, get absorbed into the local tribes, and all that; but the ones who continue onwards can always refresh their numbers the old-fashioned way and by absorbing small tribes along the road (mind you, the small tribes may be only too happy to sign up into a big, strong group; kinda like joining a gang...).
Nomads often use colors to denote points of the compass. Black is often West, White is often East, though other colors were used (Gold, Blue, etc.)
For a reasonable explanation of links between Xiong Nu (called Hun-Nu in Mongolia) I recommend reading 'Attila-the barbarian who threatened Rome' by John Man, it sheds much light.
I must take issue with the comments about Hun bows. Burial finds of Xiong Nu and Huns reveal almost identical weapons. This is not true of other steppe peoples of the time. A talk with horse archer Kassai Lajos will confirm this.
Also, the Xiong Nu were not totally pastoral nomad, during their era of 1st Century until their downfall they had many large towns and were also a highly cultured nation.
As for exact origin of Huns, there is only speculation, there is no hard evidence. One thing that is almost certain is that they became very mixed as has been suggested. Watchman has given the clearest account.
AFAIK the steppes have long been dotted by a smattering of (almost by default fortified) settlements coexisting, more or less uneasily, with the nomads. It is my impression they had a bit of a symbiotic relationship, although the nomads were probably the ones who profited more from it - the settled folk could engage in crafts the nomads couldn't, but whose products they found useful.
Actually, I once read somewhere that the first earthern ramparts appear in archeological finds around the steppe habitats around the same time as the first traces of horse riding among the nomads - that ought to tell you something about what mounting horses does to a people's military power and aggressive tendencies. The about same happened with the Plain Indians once they figured out the trick, too.
The question of why Xiong Nu being driven west by defeat to stronger tribes and Huns being able to subdue many others and threaten Rome is one topic that John Man covers. Divide and conquer is always the easy way and this is one factor true of Xiong Nu. They were divided into north and south and the south was then first to fall prey to Hsien Pi who eventually defeated the north too. Rome split into east and west and weakened itself much the same. Though driven from their homeland in such ways they were not weak and were able to still defeat those tribes they encountered with superior weaponry and tactics.
Technology spreads pretty quickly once it has been invented.
And in warfare it is pretty obvious what works and and what doesn't so there is an even greater tendancy for the tech to spread.
There is a great deal of pictoral evidence and archialogical evidence that show that the Yuezhi, Sakae and Alans used to some degree the asymetrical bow.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Hun
.
Also, solely depending on one type of weapon to conclude ethnical connection would be like claiming Saddam being Russian for his army used Kaleshnikovs.
.
Silly comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre
Maybe you could post some? I have seen none.Quote:
There is a great deal of pictoral evidence and archialogical evidence that show that the Yuezhi, Sakae and Alans used to some degree the asymetrical bow.
.
Silly comparison for its extremity but valid comment. ~;) It takes more than a monk's assumptions and crossbows to connect two remote people centuries apart ethnically.
.
The remark was extreme yes. Arms trading of this type did not occur in the first few centuries A.D. but you might already guessed this was but one comparison. There really is not the evidence to make any conclusion of exact ethnicity. We are left to assumption. As for Huns being descended from Xiong Nu/Hsiung Nu/Hun Nu, even the 'experts' disagree. I gave John Man as example because his book is new and makes good points. As Istvan Bona the archaeologist concludes, the Huns 'were probably from Turkish stock, probably spoke a Turkish language and possibly were remnants of the Xiong Nu.' Even then, this is a conclusion drawn from a few words and names which are or have been changed in transliteration.
If we go back to the original question maybe we should consider how many true Mongols did the west see? The Golden Horde was furthest west but the Mongol percentage was very small, they were mostly Turkic.
The Mongols operated on the basic "snowballing" principle of all expanding nomad empires - add every new subject you can to your forces. By the time the Golden Horde began to knock on the gates of Europe actual Mongols would have been common only amongst the upper leadership, the rank-and-file being drawn from the bewildering array of subjugated tribes and peoples along the way and organized to fit the Mongol empire and military machine. Heck, I hear they had Chinese siege engineers operating the catapults at that one river battle in Hungary...
.
(Re: Golden Horde) True. The ruling dynasty was that of Genghis' though (via Jochi > Batu). They switched to speaking Turkish (proto-Tatar one can say) too, afterwards. :yes:
.
Well, around those times most of Central Asia west of Mongolia and east of Hungary that didn't speak for example Russian spoke something Turkic far as I know. Them buggers had really gotten around from their humble beginnings, I'll say that much.
.
:inquisitive:
them buggers... them buggers...
:thinking2:
:laugh4:
Yes, the Qïbchaq dialect was really widespread thanks to not only the Cumans and later Qïbchaqs but numerous ghulams/mameluks/mercenaries (most of them founding their own houses) spread as wide as to India.
.
Incorrect. The time that "China was unified" was around the same time the Xiongnu became powerful, which was sometime around 210 BC - 204 BC (I've seen one source suggest it was 209 BC but the dates are more or less around this time). Before that time, the Xiongnu were actually pressured and squeezed on both sides - by the Yuezhi in the west, and by the Donghu in the east. Han Gaozu/Liu Bang "unified China", defeated his opponents in north China by 202 BC. The "Wall" (which was only seen in its current form during the Ming dynasty in the 16th century) didn't do much, if any, at all, against the Xiongnu. Contrary to your statements, some scholars have even suggested that the Xiongnu "unification" was prompted by the Qin conquest of the warring states and the Xiongnu opportunistic rise to power was during the time of the fall of the Qin - to the rise of the Han. In fact, Thomas J. Barfield in "The Hsiung-nu Imperial Confederacy: Organization and Foreign Policy", The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 45 - 61, has even argued, quite convincingly, that it was subsidies that the early emperors of the Former Han paid to the Xiongnu Chanyus and the ruling elite that allowed the Xiongnu to even maintain its political structure and statehood and that the "unification of China" by the Former Han allowed this sort of relationship to happen; in effect, the rise of the Xiongnu to power was very well dependant on the Former Han unification of north China. Also, the height of Xiongnu power was during the late 3rd - late 2nd century BC, contemporary with the early period of the Former Han. Xiongnu power was in the state of gradually being broken when it fought long and exhaustive wars with the Han empire under Wudi and especially his leading generals Huo Qubing and Wei Qing. Also, the Xiongnu were hardly just "chased off" like that; the Xianbei actually absorbed the majority of the Xiongnu and it was the Xiongnu ruling elite that fled the Xianbei conquest of Mongolia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
The Tuoba were not a different nomadic people themselves; they were a clan of the Xianbei, a proto-Mongolic people, along with the Murong Xianbei, etc. The Tuoba were probably highly "Turkicized" as they possibly spoke a Turkic language. Also, the Tuoba, originally calling their dynasty Dai, and later establishing the Beiwei/Northern Wei that eventually ruled all of north China, actually had to fight against the Yan state of the Murong Xianbei in northeastern China, who were actually more "settled" than the Tuoba Xianbei.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
They were the Tujue/Turkut, and they did not drive the Rouran westwards. They massacred the Rouran, probably their ruling elite. The identification by Western scholars of the Rouran with the Avars is very questionable. I've seen attempts to identify the Avars with the Hephthalites instead, and IIRC, it seemed a more convincing argument than the Rouran theory. Also, the Tujue/Turkut fragmentation was actually less than a century.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
The Yuezhi actually fought against the Xiongnu but were initially defeated. After being defeated twice by the Xiongnu, they then migrated first to the Ili and then to Baktria. So it is not necessarily that "it seems to have been relatively common to simply move out of the way rather than fight an extended and somewhat pointless war against an overly determined foe" because in the case of the Yuezhi, for example, they were a powerful steppe people before the rise of the Xiongnu. They fled because they were resilient and because they could, considering their former strength, with their 100,000 - 200,000 warriors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
The attribution of "White Huns" to the Ephthalites is only conventional on the part by the Greco-Roman sources on the subject, namely Ammianus Marcellinus. The statement that they "shared territory with the 'Black' Huns" or "part of the Hunnish confederation" is uncalled for. There have been a number of theories regarding the origins and identity of the Hephthalites, but most seem to point to them as being descendants of the Yuezhi or other "Kuchean-Agnean"-speaking peoples (the Turfanese), while modern researcher Enoki has identified them as being Indo-Iranian based on what they weren't. IMO, his argument could also lead to, and support a Yuezhi/Turfanese origin (namely "Iranicized" Tocharians, just like the later Kushanas) for the Hephthalites. In any case, it is clear that the Hephthalites came from the east, not the west (if they were affiliated with the Huns, they would've come from the west), because the Hephthalites originated from eastern Jungaria and still held control of that region even though they supposedly "migrated" from there, and first invaded Sogdia and then Baktria/Tocharistan, areas which were all east of the Black Sea area. And the territory of the "Black" Huns did not extend anywhere near Transoxiana or Tocharistan so they evidently did not share territory with the "Black" Huns. OTOH, the Hephthalites did share territory with the Rouran, namely in the eastern Jungaria/western Mongolia region, but the Rouran aren't "Huns". Also, before they make their appearances in Western sources in the 5th century, they were said to have dwelt in Jungaria, where the northwestern part of it was inhabitted by the Yueban, who were descended from migrating Xiongnu (from Dou Xian's attack in AD 91) who left their sick and weak north of Kucha. It is also far from definitive that the "Black" Huns were "Asiatic" (you probably mean what in anthropological terms is "Mongoloid"); OTOH, it is likely that the ruling elite of the Huns were probably Mongoloid or at least some of them and probably that was what caught the attention of the Greco-Roman authors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
The Southern Xiongnu was actually a pro-Han buffer state/allied state of the Later Han. The Northern Xiongnu were gradually destroyed by a combination of Later Han and Southern Xiongnu forces from the south and Wuhuan and Xianbei forces from the east combined with droughts and locust plagues. The decisive move came in 89 AD when Dou Xian defeated the Northern Chanyu at Jiluo Mountain and pursued him all the way to the Altai, then erected a stele in north-central Mongolia commemorating his victory. In AD 90, the Southern Chanyu destroyed the remnant base of the Northern Chanyu, and in AD 91 Dou Xian drove the Northern Chanyu away, where the Northern Xiongnu disappear from the history books and in which speculation occurs that these remnant Xiongnu may have been the ancestors of the "Black" Huns. Only a small polity of Xiongnu in Jungaria north of the Tianshan existed free from Xianbei or Han control. The Xianbei gradually took over the territories that formerly belonged to the Northern Xiongnu but did not take over the Southern Xiongnu in the Ordos, who were subject to the Later Han and later to the Cao Wei state.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Hun
I did not mention Han hostilities or subjugation or go into all details. Pressure came from more than only one direction. The Xiong Nu did split and were brought under pressure by Hsien Pi and Han and no doubt others. This just explains why a people are not weak just because they are driven from their lands and also why they could still be a threat to others.
The debate could go on and on. The Huns bound the heads of children that created elongated dome to the skull, this we know from remains yet the sources of the time say nothing of this. It has been suggested that the features are altered by this practice and that accounts for Mongoloid confusion.
I would suppose that the Huns were probably Turkic, maybe just because Turkic was predominant or that they were a mix of race. I can also see that a connection with Xiong Nu is quite possible.
As for Hepthalite and 'Black Hun' this is again a grey area. For sure the 'Black Huns' enter history in the area you describe. The question still remains as to where they came to that area from and most sources agree from the east. Let us not forget too that there was also so called 'Red Hun' around the Hepthalite area.
Once again I say, even archaeological experts disagree. The subject is very intriguing.
The steppes and the people who inhabited them, the various migrations and the reasons for these migrations are a fascinating subject. Unfortunately, the sources are most often outside sources and we have to rely on the accuracy of these to form a perspective of history that is, at best, quite vague.
The Huns and historical fact are possibly the most vague. They suddenly appear and then, almost as suddenly they vanish. Where exactly did they come from and why? This has been argued by many historians and the best we can do is little more than guess work and conjecture.
It is quite feasible that they were in fact, remnants of the Hsiung-Nu; the argument for this is quite believable and vast though the steppe is, it is more than possible, given the time scale, to equate their migration to some 30 miles or so per year. The Hsiung-Nu splintered into two groups, one of which possibly tired of constant conflict, became Han subjects. The other was eventually ousted by Han and Hsien-bi pressure, just as the Hsiung-Nu had defeated the Yue-chi and forced them westwards in a two pronged migration, one to the Ili basin and the smaller to the Tarim basin. The Yue-chi overran Transoxiana, snuffed out the Greek kingdom of Bactria and set the Sakas in motion. After their defeat, the Hsiung-Nu recuperated quite rapidly and made vassals of the Iranian tribes around the Ili basin. The Han acted decisively and struck before the Hsiung-Nu had the time to regain somewhat of their former strength.
The Yue-chi from this point referred to as Kushans, expanded south easterly, conquering the Surens and it is quite possible that the Hsiung-Nu either found them too strong now, or perhaps they may have been one of the reasons behind the Kushan expansion. Whatever the reason, something had caused the appearance of the Alans in the Caucasus region. The Han established control of the Tarim basin to help solve their nomad problems but were unable to maintain this control due to frequent revolt and the huge distance involved. Eventually they had to give up this venture and recede but it is another possible cause of movement on the steppe.
Over in the west, the Ostrogoths began a rapid expansion that saw them extend north to the Baltic and east into the old Bosphoran kingdom, subjugating much of the Sarmatian population of that area. Then began the whirlwind advance of a new, terrifying steppe race who became known as the Huns. I think it is quite likely that they were remnants of the old Hsiung-Nu, probably with an amalgum of other steppe tribes among their ranks and from this point they set in motion a wave of mayhem and panic before them as they conquered their way into the Balkans and Pannonia.
The only link between them and the Mongols was their way of life
........Orda