I'm Attila

[gamavor]

Of all barbarians, of all times, Attila is the one that I have always had a soft spot in my heart, although exactly because of him much needed help in 451 at Avarayr against Persians was denied.

 

 

Attila d. 453

 

FLAGELLUM DEI (LATIN: SCOURGE OF GOD), king of the Huns from 434 to 453 (ruling jointly with his elder brother Bleda until 445). He was one of the greatest of the barbarian rulers who assailed the Roman Empire, invading the southern Balkan provinces and Greece and then Gaul and Italy. In legend he appears under the name Etzel in the Nibelungenlied and under the name Atli in Icelandic sagas.

 

 

 

ATTILA (406?-453).

 

Of all the barbarian leaders who attacked the Roman Empire, none is more famous than Attila the Hun. In western Europe his ferocity earned him the nickname Scourge of God. He was king of the Huns from 434 until his death in 453. He shared power temporarily with his elder brother, Bleda, whom he murdered in about 445.

 

By the 5th century the Huns ruled a large empire. The Western Roman Empire had almost totally disintegrated. The Eastern, or Byzantine, Empire, which had its capital at Constantinople (now Istanbul, Turkey), was much stronger than its counterpart to the west. But it had extended its boundaries over too wide an area to stop an invasion at any one point. To keep from being attacked, the Eastern emperor paid an annual tribute to the Huns. The emperor's failure to keep up payments led Attila to invade the Byzantine Empire in two campaigns, in 441-443 and in 447-449. Much of what is now the Balkan region was devastated. The empire lost territory and had to pay a larger tribute.

 

In 450 Attila claimed Honoria, sister of the Western emperor, Valentinian III, as his wife. As a dowry he expected half of the Western Empire. To enforce this claim, Attila invaded Gaul (France) in 451. He was defeated and forced to withdraw. In 452 he overran much of northern Italy but turned back before attacking Rome. His next plan was to lead another invasion of the Byzantine Empire, but he died suddenly after celebrating the last of his marriages. He was succeeded by his sons, who divided his empire.

 

AD 445: Attila the Hun

 

The most famous of the Huns, Attila assumed full power over his people when he murdered his brother Bleda in 445. Before that, he had shared power with Bleda for 11 years, following the death of their uncle Rugila. The fear that Attila inspired earned him the appellation Scourge of God.

 

The Western Roman Empire was slowly disintegrating when the Huns under Bleda and Attila negotiated peace with the Eastern Empire. The emperor promised to pay 700 pounds of gold each year to the Huns as payment for not attacking the Eastern Empire. When the emperor missed some of his payments, Attila invaded the empire, once from 441 to 443 and again from 447 to 449. Much of the region was devastated, and the emperor was forced to increase his tribute.

 

Attila's only military defeat occurred during his invasion of Gaul (modern France) in 451. Following that, he invaded much of Italy and planned to reconquer the Eastern Empire. Attila died in his sleep in 453, however, before he could accomplish his plan. The men who buried him and his treasures were put to death so that his burial place would remain unknown.

 

Attacks on the Eastern Empire.

 

The empire that Attila and his elder brother Bleda inherited seems to have stretched from the Alps and the Baltic in the west to somewhere near the Caspian Sea in the east. Their first known action on becoming joint rulers was the negotiation of a peace treaty with the Eastern Roman Empire, which was concluded at the city of Margus (Pozarevac). By the terms of the treaty the Romans undertook to double the subsidies they had been paying to the Huns and in future to pay 700 pounds (300 kilograms) of gold each year.

 

From 435 to 439 the activities of Attila are unknown, but he seems to have been engaged in subduing barbarian peoples to the north or east of his dominions. The Eastern Romans do not appear to have paid the sums stipulated in the treaty of Margus, and so in 441, when their forces were occupied in the west and on the eastern frontier, Attila launched a heavy assault on the Danubian frontier of the Eastern Empire. He captured and razed a number of important cities, including Singidunum (Belgrade). The Eastern Romans managed to arrange a truce for the year 442 and recalled their forces from the West. But in 443 Attila resumed his attack. He began by taking and destroying towns on the Danube and then drove into the interior of the empire toward Naissus (Nis) and Serdica (Sofia), both of which he destroyed. He next turned toward Constantinople, took Philippopolis, defeated the main Eastern Roman forces in a succession of battles, and so reached the sea both north and south of Constantinople. It was hopeless for the Hun archers to attack the great walls of the capital; so Attila turned on the remnants of the empire's forces, which had withdrawn into the peninsula of Gallipoli, and destroyed them. In the peace treaty that followed, he obliged the Eastern Empire to pay the arrears of tribute, which he calculated at 6,000 pounds of gold, and he trebled the annual tribute, henceforth extorting 2,100 pounds of gold each year.

 

Attila's movements after the conclusion of peace in the autumn of 443 are unknown. About 445 he murdered his brother Bleda and thenceforth ruled the Huns as an autocrat. He made his second great attack on the Eastern Roman Empire in 447, but little is known of the details of the campaign. It was planned on an even bigger scale than that of 441-443, and its main weight was directed toward the provinces of Lower Scythia and Moesia in southeastern Europe--i.e., farther to the east than the earlier assault. He engaged the Eastern Empire's forces on the Utus (Vid) River and defeated them, but he himself suffered serious losses. He then devastated the Balkan provinces and drove southward into Greece, where he was only stopped at Thermopylae. The three years following the invasion were filled with complicated negotiations between Attila and the diplomats of the Eastern Roman emperor Theodosius II. Much information about these diplomatic encounters has been preserved in the fragments of the History of Priscus of Panium, who visited Attila's headquarters in Walachia in company with a Roman embassy in 449. The treaty by which the war was terminated was harsher than that of 443; the Eastern Romans had to evacuate a wide belt of territory south of the Danube, and the tribute payable by them was continued, though the rate is not known.

 

Invasion of Gaul.

 

Attila's next great campaign was the invasion of Gaul in 451. Hitherto, he appears to have been on friendly terms with the Roman general Aetius, the real ruler of the West at this time, and his motives for marching into Gaul have not been recorded. He announced that his objective in the West was the kingdom of the Visigoths (a Germanic people who had conquered parts of the two Roman empires) centred on Tolosa (Toulouse) and that he had no quarrel with the Western emperor, Valentinian III. But in the spring of 450, Honoria, the Emperor's sister, sent her ring to Attila, asking him to rescue her from a marriage that had been arranged for her. Attila thereupon claimed Honoria as his wife and demanded half the Western Empire as her dowry. When Attila had already entered Gaul, Aetius reached an agreement with the Visigothic king, Theodoric I, to combine their forces in resisting the Huns. Many legends surround the campaign that followed. It is certain, however, that Attila almost succeeded in occupying Aurelianum (Orléans) before the allies arrived. Indeed, the Huns had already gained a footing inside the city when Aetius and Theodoric forced them to withdraw. The decisive engagement was the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains, or, according to some authorities, of Maurica (both places are unidentified). After fierce fighting, in which the Visigothic king was killed, Attila withdrew and shortly afterward retired from Gaul. This was his first and only defeat.

 

In 452 the Huns invaded Italy and sacked several cities, including Aquileia, Patavium (Padua), Verona, Brixia (Brescia), Bergomum (Bergamo), and Mediolanum (Milan); Aetius could do nothing to halt them. But the famine and pestilence raging in Italy in that year compelled the Huns to leave without crossing the Apennines.

 

In 453 Attila was intending to attack the Eastern Empire, where the new emperor Marcian had refused to pay the subsidies agreed upon by his predecessor, Theodosius II. But during the night following his marriage, Attila died in his sleep. Those who buried him and his treasures were subsequently put to death by the Huns so that his grave might never be discovered. He was succeeded by his sons, who divided his empire among them.

 

Priscus, who saw Attila when he visited his camp in 448, described him as a short, squat man with a large head, deep-set eyes, flat nose, and a thin beard. According to the historians, Attila was, though of an irritable, blustering, and truculent disposition, a very persistent negotiator and by no means pitiless. When Priscus attended a banquet given by him, he noticed that Attila was served off wooden plates and ate only meat, whereas his chief lieutenants dined off silver platters loaded with dainties. No description of his qualities as a general survives, but his successes before the invasion of Gaul show him to have been an outstanding commander.

 

http://ragz-international.com/attila.htm

[Accelerated]

Atilla was a true savage. Unlike the Mongols who came after him, he didnt seek empire, only glory and booty.

[Dave]

Don't forget that these huns were turkic.

[Teutonic Knight]

Don't forget that these huns were turkic.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Originally yeah.

Huns in Europe, including Atilla were not Turkic.

They were of IE origin, mostly Alans, Slavs and various Gothic tribes.

[gamavor]

In many historic sources Attila is described as the leader who re-unified the Scythes.

 

He was merciless and cruel, but just. He never attacked without reason. He was one of the few barbarians that stormed Europe, who was known as a builder not only destroyer.

[gurgen]

Did you know he choked in his own blood after banging his nose against a door, still dazed from sex with two women?

[gamavor]

banging his nose against a door, still dazed from sex with two women? 

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

 

That's highly unlikelly! Trust me!!! I would refrain from further comments, because Arpa might label me as Inspector Groupso!

Edited September 10, 2004 by gamavor

[skhara]

Huns are not Indo-European!! They gave birth to both Mongols and Turks.

[Teutonic Knight]

Huns are not Indo-European!!  They gave birth to both Mongols and Turks.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

 

The original Huns, we're not talking about them

[gamavor]

The Huns and some geographic "insides" for begginers:)))

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n35q-rM6nLU

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyYNJfwXuVc...ted&search=

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HZc90ZZcGg...ted&search=

 

 

The Huns were an early confederation of Central Asian equestrian nomads or semi-nomads.[1]

 

Some of these Eurasian tribes moved into Europe in the 4th and 5th centuries, most famously under Attila the Hun. Huns remaining in Asia are recorded by neighboring peoples to the south, east, and west as having occupied Central Asia roughly from the 4th century to the 6th century, with some surviving in the Caucasus until the early 8th century. The Huns were Mongoloid in appearance according to Roman writers. The only extant description on Attila's appearance is that of Priscus: "short of stature, with a broad chest and a large head; his eyes were small, his beard thin and sprinkled with gray; and he had a flat nose and a swarthy complexion, showing the evidences of his origin." Attila's physical appearance was most likely that of an Eastern Asian: Mongol and Turkic.[

[edit] Origin and identity

The research and debate about the Asian ancestral origins of the Huns has been ongoing since the 18th century. For example philologists still debate to this day which ethnonym from Chinese, Persian or Armenian sources is not identical with the Latin Hunni or the Greek Chounnoi as evidence of the Huns' identity.[3]

 

Recent genetic research[3] shows that the great confederations of steppe warriors were not an ethnically homogeneous people, but tended to be composed of various Eurasian clans, Mongoloid (Turkic, Tungus, Mongol, Finno-Ugric) and Caucasoid (Iranian, peoples of the Caucasus), the Huns had even incorporated many unrelated Iranian Scythian tribes (Alans, Sarmatians), Germanic tribes (Gepids, Goths) and Slav tribes. Hun identity is further complicated by the fame of the name, as apparently many clans claimed to be Huns for the prestige of the name. Similarly, Greek or Latin chroniclers may have used "Huns" in a more general sense, to describe social or ethnic characteristics, believed place of origin, or reputation.[3]"All we can say safely", says Walter Pohl,"is that the name Huns, in late antiquity, described prestigious ruling groups of steppe warriors".[3] These views come in the context of the ethnocentric and nationalistic scholarship of past generations, which often presumed that an ethnic homogeneity must underlie a socially and culturally homogeneous people.[4]

 

Evidence from genetic and ethnogenesis research contrasts with traditional theories based on Chinese records, archaeology, linguistics and other indirect evidence. These theories contain various elements: that the name "Hun" first described a nomadic ruling group of warriors whose ethnic origins were in Central Asia, and was most likely in present day Mongolia; that possibly they were related to, or part of, the Xiongnu (first suggested by Joseph de Guignes in the 18th century); that the Xiongnu were defeated by the Chinese Han Empire; and that this is why they left Mongolia and moved west, eventually invading Europe 200 years later. Indirect evidence includes the transmission of the composite bow, the so-called Hun bow, from Central Asia to the west.

 

This narrative is ingrained in western (and eastern) historiography, but the evidence is often indirect or ambiguous. The Huns left practically no written records. There is no record of what happened between the time they left China and arrived in Europe 150 years later. The last mention of the northern Xiongnu was their defeat by the Chinese in 151 at the lake of Barkol, after which they fled to the western steppe at K'ang-chü (centered on Turkestan in Kazakhstan). Chinese records between the 3rd and 4th century suggest that a small tribe called Yueban, remnants of northern Xiongnu, was distributed about the steppe of Kazakhstan.

 

One recent line of reasoning favors a political and cultural link between the Huns and the Xiongnu. The Central Asian (Sogdian and Bactrian) sources of the 4th century translate "Huns" as "Xiongnu", and "Xiongnu" as "Huns"; also, Xiongnu and Hunnish cauldrons are virtually identical, and were buried on the same spots (river banks) in Hungary and in the Ordos.[5]

 

The Huns may be of Turkic origin. This school of thought emerged when Joseph de Guignes in the 18th century identified the Huns with the Xiongnu or (H)siung-nu.[6] It is supported by O. Maenchen-Helfen on the basis of his linguistic studies.[7][8] English scholar Peter Heather called the Huns "the first group of Turkic, as opposed to Iranian, nomads to have intruded into Europe".[9] Turkish researcher Kemal Cemal bolsters this assertion by showing similarities in words and names in Turkic and Hunnic languages, and similarities in systems of governance of Hunnic and Turkic tribes. Hungarian historian Gyula Nemeth also supports this view.[10] Uyghur historian Turghun Almas has suggested a link between the Huns and the Uyghurs, a Turkic speaking people who reside in Xinjiang, China.

 

The so-called "White Huns" of Procopius were probably not related to the classical Huns, but were most likely related to the Indo-European Iranians and Tocharians.[11][12][13]

 

 

[edit] History

 

The Hunnic Empire stretched from the steppes of Central Asia into modern Germany, and from the Black Sea to the Baltic Sea

[edit] 2nd-5th centuries

Dionysius Periegetes describes a people who may be Huns living near the Caspian Sea in the 2nd century. By AD 139, the European geographer Ptolemy writes that the "Khuni" are next to the Dnieper River and ruled by "Suni". He lists the "Chuni" as among the "Sarmatian" White Hun tribes in the second century, although it is not known for certain if these people were the Huns. The 5th century Armenian historian Moses of Khorene, in his "History of Armenia," introduces the Hunni near the Sarmatians and describes their capture of the city of Balk ("Kush" in Armenian) sometime between 194 and 214, which explains why the Greeks call that city Hunuk.

 

Following the defeat of the Xiongnu by the Han, Xiongnu history is unknown for a century; thereafter, the Liu family of southern Xiongnu Tiefu attempted to establish a state in western China (see Han Zhao). Chionites (OIONO/Xiyon) appear on the scene in Transoxiana in 320 immediately after Jin Zhun overthrew Liu Can, sending the Xiongnu into chaos. Later Kidara came along to lead the Chionites into pressing on the Kushans.

 

In the west, Ostrogoths came in contact with the Huns in AD 358. The Armenians mention Vund c.370: the first recorded Hunnish leader in the Caucasus region. The Romans invited the Huns east of Ukraine to settle Pannonia in 361, and in 372 they pushed west led by their king Balimir, and defeated the Alans. In the east, in the early 5th century, Tiefu Xia is the last southern Xiongnu dynasty in Western China and the Alchon / Huna appear in what is now Afghanistan and Pakistan. At this point deciphering Hunnish histories for the multi-linguist becomes easier with relatively well-documented events in Byzantine, Armenian, Iranian, Indian, and Chinese sources.

 

 

[edit] European Huns

 

A 14th century chivalric-romanticized painting of "the huns" laying siege to a city. Note anachronistic details in weapons, armor and city type. Chronicon Pictum, 1360.The Huns appeared in Europe in the 4th century, apparently from in Central Asia. They first appeared north of the Black Sea, forcing a large number of Goths to seek refuge in the Roman Empire; later, the Huns appeared west of the Carpathians in Pannonia, probably sometime between 400 and 410, perhaps triggering the massive migration of Germanic tribes westward across the Rhine in December 406.

 

The establishment of the 5th century Hunnic Empire marks a historically early instance of horseback migration. Under the leadership of Attila the Hun, the Huns achieved hegemony over several well-organized rivals by using superior weaponry such as the Hun bow, and a well-organized system of taxation. Supplementing their wealth by plundering wealthy Roman cities to the south, the Huns maintained the loyalties of a diverse number of tributary tribes.

 

Attila's Huns incorporated groups of unrelated tributary peoples. In Europe, Alans, Gepids, Scirii, Rugians, Sarmatians, Slavs and Gothic tribes all united under the Hun family military elite. After Attila's death, some of his Huns eventually settled in Pannonia, but the Empire dissolved after his sons were defeated by Ardaric's coalition at the Battle of Nedao in 454, at modern day Nedava.

 

Memory of the Hunnish conquest was transmitted orally among Germanic peoples and is an important component in the Old Norse Völsunga saga and Hervarar saga, and the Middle High German Nibelungenlied, all of which portray Migrations period events a millennium before their written recordings. In the Hervarar saga, the Goths make first contact with the bow-wielding Huns and meet them in an epic battle on the plains of the Danube. In the Völsunga saga and the Nibelungenlied, Attila (Atli in Norse and Etzel in German) defeats the Frankish king Sigebert I (Sigurðr or Siegfried) and the Burgundian King Guntram (Gunnar or Gunther), but is later assassinated by Queen Fredegund (Gudrun or Kriemhild), the sister of the latter and wife of the former.

 

 

[edit] Successor nations

Many nations have tried to assert themselves as ethnic or cultural successors to the Huns. For instance, the Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans may indicate that they believed themselves to have been descended from Attila. The Bulgars certainly were part of the Hun tribal alliance for some time, and some have hypothesized in the past that the Chuvash language (which is believed to have descended from the Bulgar language) is the closest surviving relative of the Hunnish language.[14]

 

The Magyars (Hungarians) also have laid claims to Hunnish heritage. Because the Huns who invaded Europe represented a loose coalition of various peoples, it is possible that Magyars were part of it. Until the early 20th century, many Hungarian historians believed that the Székely people (the Hungarians' "brother nation" who live in Transylvania) were the descendants of the Huns.

 

The names "Hun" and "Hungarian" sound alike, but differ in etymology. The name "Hungarian" is derived from a Turkish phrase "onogur" which means "ten tribes", which possibly refers to a tribal covenant between the different Hungarian tribes that moved into the area of today's Hungary at the end of the 9th century.

 

In 2005, a group of about 2,500 Hungarians petitioned the government for recognition of minority status as direct descendants of Attila. The bid failed, but gained some publicity for the group, which formed in the early 1990s and appears to represent a special Hun(garian)-centric brand of mysticism. The self-proclaimed Huns are not known to possess any distinctly Hunnish culture or language beyond what would be available from historical and modern-mystical Hungarian sources.[15]

 

While it is clear that the Huns left descendants all over Eastern Europe, the disintegration of the Hun Empire meant they never regained their lost glory. One reason was that the Huns never fully established the mechanisms of a state, such as bureaucracy and taxes, unlike the Magyars or Golden Horde. Once disorganized, the Huns were absorbed by more organized polities.

 

 

[edit] Historiography

The term "Hun" has been also used to describe peoples with no historical connection to what scholars consider to be "Huns".

 

On July 27, 1900, during the Boxer Rebellion in China, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany gave the order to "make the name 'German' remembered in China for a thousand years, so that no Chinaman [sic] will ever again dare to even squint at a German". This speech, wherein Kaiser Wilhelm invoked the memory of the 5th-century Huns, coupled with the Pickelhaube or spiked helmet worn by German forces until 1916, that was reminiscent of ancient Hun (and Hungarian) helmets, gave rise to the later derogatory English usage of the latter term for their German enemy during World War I. This usage was reinforced by Allied propaganda throughout the war, and many pilots of the RFC referred to their foe as "The Hun". The usage resurfaced during World War II. (more)

[Hellektor]

The Huns and some geographic "insides" for begginers:)))

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n35q-rM6nLU

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyYNJfwXuVc...ted&search=

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HZc90ZZcGg...ted&search=

The Huns were an early confederation of Central Asian equestrian nomads or semi-nomads.[1]

The Turkish cancer had not reached Central Asia in the 5th century. The nomadic peoples of Central Asia were mainly of Iranian origin. I don't know about the Huns, they may be whatever they are, Turks will lay claim to any ethnicity without providing the least proof.

 

P.S. What do you think of Hannibal?

 

******

 

Some copy/pasting from my megafile:

http://www.rozanehmagazine.com/NoveDec05/Pic14--TurkExpand.gif

 

Chronology of the spreading of the Human Civilization-deficiency Virus better known by the four-letter word Turk

 

The Turanian Fallacy

 

In Iranian mythology, Fereidun has three sons: Iraj (Aria), Tur and Salm (Sayrima). Salm received Rum (Rome, the West, in fact Sarmatia, from Sarm = Salm). Tur received the East. Iraj received Iran.

 

It is supposed that Iranians are descendants of Iraj (the term Arya = Iran comes from here), Turanians come from Tur and the Sarmatians (Ossetians, Alans) are from Salm. All these peoples are of Iranian origin.

 

The Turanians were the Iranian peoples of the north east of Iran, who were less developed, had a nomadic way of life unlike the civilized Iranians and had a different religion. The Iranians and the Turanians were always engaged in war, pictured beautifully in Ferdowsi's Shahnameh.

 

Of course, by the conquest of Central Asia by the Tu Kiu, the savage ancestors of the Turks in the sixth century A.D., the demography of the area changed in favor of the Turks.

 

Abusing the similarity between Turk and Turan, the Turks have also usurped the word Turanian (just with the rest of the universe) and have undeservedly attributed it to themselves.

 

 

[Hellektor]

The Magyars (Hungarians) also have laid claims to Hunnish heritage. Because the Huns who invaded Europe represented a loose coalition of various peoples, it is possible that Magyars were part of it. Until the early 20th century, many Hungarian historians believed that the Székely people (the Hungarians' "brother nation" who live in Transylvania) were the descendants of the Huns.

 

The names "Hun" and "Hungarian" sound alike, but differ in etymology. The name "Hungarian" is derived from a Turkish phrase "onogur" which means "ten tribes", which possibly refers to a tribal covenant between the different Hungarian tribes that moved into the area of today's Hungary at the end of the 9th century.

I always thought the term "Hungarian" was a coupling of "Hun" and "Magyar". I believed the Magyars were the indigenous people of that part of Europe and the country that came about from their mixing with invading Huns was called after both ethnicities. I haven't done any research on this, so my knowledge here is zilch. I just thought that this made sense.

[irlandahay]

I always thought the term "Hungarian" was a coupling of "Hun" and "Magyar". I believed the Magyars were the indigenous people of that part of Europe and the country that came about from their mixing with invading Huns was called after both ethnicities. I haven't done any research on this, so my knowledge here is zilch. I just thought that this made sense.

 

you are right on that one my friend

The huns after Attila's death didnt just pack up and leave, they settled in modern day Hungary.