Differences between Huns and Mongols?

[The Hun]

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.

[Watchman]

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...

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
(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.
.

[Watchman]

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.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.

them buggers... them buggers...


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.
.

[jurchen fury]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[jurchen fury]

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.

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.

[jurchen fury]

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.

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.

[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.

[Orda Khan]

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