The Huns

[Robert Vermaat]

try volunteers from Roman lands? There were apparently enough Romans willing to work for other lords, especially deserters or those forced out because of crimes or tax pressure. And if there were enough germanic volunteers to fight for the Romans, there should have been some willing to go the other way..

Roman traitors and Germanic foederati switching to the enemy ? I've never read about the latter picking up Roman skills and technological knowhow. Foederati, I thought, were just grunts of dubious quality. As for Roman traitors, what rewards could they expect from a barbarian chieftain besides protection and money ? They'd have to live among barbarians for the rest of their lives abandoning the creature comforts of a Roman lifestyle.

I did not speak of foederati but of volunteers, who were integrated into the Roman army like the next guy. Many of these men rose to high ranks and their sons could eventually reach very high posts or even become emperor!

You can call Romans who fled to the barbarians 'traitors' of course, but then I expect you don't care too much for the sometimes enormous tax pressures that rested on Roman citizens. It is known that Roman society favoured the very rich, and the rest of the population, if hitting rock bottom, often had no choice - either flee or become (at best) a slave. Many of the lower Roman classes did not have any 'creature comforts' to speak of, and especially during the harsh economic crisis of the 5th c., many must have been tempted to look for better fortunes elsewhere. You can be poor in barbarian lands as easy as in Roman lands, with about as much chances for justice, but the barbarian lords at least don't have a totally repressive taxation system.

Don't underestimate these people - there happened to be quite qualified people among them, from what we would call the higher middle classes. Barbarians were not stupid and apparently had no problems in admitting them.

[Theodosius the Great]

Ironhand,

About the Goths, a lot of what you say makes sense. I can see how barbarian confederations would splinter into subgroups if a siege dragged on. But that seems to be all the more reason to take a small town by assault. Even the simplest barbarian, I would think, could construct siege ladders and battering rams. So, I think there's more going on with their unwillingness or inability to take towns and cities.

I think a major difference that allowed the 5th century Huns, unlike the 4th century Goths, to starve out cities was that they had a base to operate from that could supply Attila from vast distances. The Goths after Adrianople had no such base and could only live off the land by foraging. This was made difficult by Theodosius who ordered all food provisions to be stored inside the cities. How ironic, the Goths controlled the countryside unopposed yet they were starved out by the Romans huddling behind city walls !

The weakness of the Huns was lack of numbers to hold a conquered territory and in short the very natures of the people does not lend itself well to times of peace. While they were very capable at applying the same types of intelligence to other non-military matters, the softer form of life did not appeal to them.

Agreed. I would state it more plainly by saying that the Huns, like the Mongols, had no culture to offer their subjects once they became sedentary in the 5th century. They, again like the Mongols, became assimilated by the native populations. The Huns converted to Christianity while many Mongols became Muslims. As long as both groups remained nomadic or semi-nomadic the could rely on what little culture they had to preserve their identities.

Hi Voritgern,

I did not speak of foederati but of volunteers, who were integrated into the Roman army like the next guy. Many of these men rose to high ranks and their sons could eventually reach very high posts or even become emperor!

Volunteers ? They were a rare breed from what I read about the Late Empire. Most soldiers were either conscripted or born into the army since pay was so meager and danger was so great, right ? Self-mutilation seems to have been wide spread to avoid conscription based on new laws penalizing such methods. Nonetheless, I suppose there were a few men willing to sign up.

More likely volunteers, I thought, would be upper class Romans like Orestes who served willingly under Attila.

You can call Romans who fled to the barbarians 'traitors' of course, but then I expect you don't care too much for the sometimes enormous tax pressures that rested on Roman citizens.

Fleeing is one thing. Actively serving the enemies of the state is quite another, imo. Besides, two wrongs don't make a right.

It is known that Roman society favoured the very rich

Yes, I remember reading that too from AHM Jone's "The Later Roman Empire". I would've expropriated a few senatorial offenders to make an example. :twisted: Seriously.

Many of the lower Roman classes did not have any 'creature comforts' to speak of, and especially during the harsh economic crisis of the 5th c.

Didn't everyone in a city or town have access to baths, hot water, etc... ?

You can be poor in barbarian lands as easy as in Roman lands, with about as much chances for justice, but the barbarian lords at least don't have a totally repressive taxation system.

Right, but if you're poor what are the chances that you have valuable knowledge and skills that would interest barbarians who want to conquer cities and towns ?

Don't underestimate these people - there happened to be quite qualified people among them, from what we would call the higher middle classes.

I only questioned the quality of foederates which I mistakenly thought you were referring to.

Barbarians were not stupid and apparently had no problems in admitting them

Intelligence was never an issue. Just physical, military, and technological inabilities that prevented barbarians from besieging Roman towns and cities. And accepting barbarian recruits at this period seems to have been done more out of desperation than admiration.

~Theo

[Treveri Gaul]

"Robers Wess writes about Atilla: Attila there was game like that less with a shock than the Roman ones, who threw a thousand in front of the beasts from the aim of delight. With much less so cruel, than Iván the terrible, you are Cortes Pizarro. Doing his explication long: Attila showed more clemency with Rome's pardoning, than Denserich, Belizár, the Vikings, the Germans, or the Spanish mercenaries, who looted without all looks. [5] "

[PMBardunias]

It's been written that the Huns compressed their children noses with bandages in order to make'em flat and fit better inside the helms nasals... Wouldn't have been easier to make the helmets bigger?

I've never seen nasal deformation as you describe, but the cranial deformation Jools noted can be quite extreme. Here is a link to some Incan skulls (just look at the pics, the text is crap):

http://www.crystalinks.com/incanskulls.html

These guys would have looked like something out of Tolkien.

[Treveri Gaul]

Interesting thing the skull stretching. A female skeleton with a provided stretching skull was found in a Germanic grave at us the IV. from a century.

[Ironhand]

Same here. I've seen examples of skull deformation, but never anything indicating purposeful nasal deformation. Hun children probably fight alot and perhaps developing a boxer's nose happened early quite often and it was misinterpreted by archaeologists. Archaeologists misinterpretting information - nah that doesn't happen. hock: hock: :evil: .

BTW I agree with you Theodosius. The Goths were very capable and the sometimes problem with siegecraft is not because of lack of intelligence or technology. A lot of it also depends on the goal of the matter and the stage of the attack. Often Germanic groups when settling do not mass one overly large army and then begin attacking using only the original numbers. They often do not have the numbers originally to risk staying immobile for a long period of time until more ships arrive. That would give enemy factions time to get their courage and get organized for an assault. The Huns were much better when it came to dealing with supply lines than Germanics on the whole, true. Its definately a complex matter and one when could talk days about.

[Treveri Gaul]

[quote="L.Valerius Gaudentius

What is the difference between "Black Huns" and "White Huns"?

Black Huns = Karahun
White Huns = Heftaliták / Hepthalite/

That why interesting from the viewpoint of Europe the white Huns?

" According to the archaeological evidences so the leaf moulds were Hun. If we complete this with the fact that he is the Ã

[Treveri Gaul]

This is very good book.

[jonwr]

I don't know if its been mentioned before, but this is a pretty good book.
The World of the Huns: Studies in Their History and Culture.
By Otto J. Maenchen-Helfen.
Jon R

[Treveri Gaul]

" The Finno-Ugric scholar the bankruptcy of views



The authors drew up diverse theories in the course of the efforts being aimed at the classification of the Hun language. But Guignes, Klaproth, Ritter, Koskien, Németh Gyula and according to others the Huns Turkishs. Bicsarin, Neumann, Shiratori and according to others Mongolians. The török-mongol to language family Pelliot enumerates them, Franke and Grousset. Considers the European Huns Finno-Ugric.Considers the European Huns Finno-Ugric but Vivien de Saint Martin, Ranke and Neumann, for Slav one Veszelin, Hovajski and Zabelinj, for Germanic one Müllenhoff, Fick, Hoops and Much, finally for Caucasus one Jelic and Mészáros Gyula. In our days themselves are held up, without it but, that a convincing answer would be given onto the question.His typical peculiarity the Turkish for languages the deficiency of the double consonant, I do not break because of this name Attilasz and the Ellas.

E remained we may allow certain negative statements to ourselves simply based on vocabulary, that the Hun language may not be Turkish, Mongolian, or Iranian language. (Moór/1963 /64)

It is allowed the Hun and the identification of the Hungarian language, or the Hun personal names. The meaning of Attila's name go on a language father, but rings the Hungarian father with a word. Ellas' name is a used Hungarian name in the Ã

[Ioannes Vandalicus]

again...
You know, with all respect - it just a theory, which hungarian scientist tells us. Other scientist tell different things. Which theory is better? You say this evidence, but others have evidence too.
It is difficult to judge Hun language, just because the fact we don´t know hunnic language. We know just a few words and few names. We can connect it with almost everything, just beacuse we do not know enought.
So we cannot take this theory as a one only truth. It is just one theory.

And last thing. In Afghanistan, we can follow origin of some surnames to the greek language, from the time of Alexander the Great. But does this mean that they are Greeks?

[Treveri Gaul]

These unfortunately not theories, these facts.

I did not translate all of the article unfortunately, but I will do it. It theory that the Hun incisions use identical signs with the Hungarian incision? It theory that the text translated from the Hun runic writing a today living Hungarian person understands?

About what you write that is theory. I wrote already early, scholars like that wrote those theories who do not know it it is not spoken the you are Hungarian the Hun language. This approximately like that that Hungarian from Jan Zsizska I would write a coursebook to you. The Hungarian language uses most vowels. That why? Because of that because we struggle with the Latin language even the Celtic ones although the ancient incision our writing syllable writing it was possible to express everything with him punctual.

Read it Tatárlakai clay ones written about disk. Only with Hun-Hungarian runic writing understandable the Sumerian on him signs. Early kb 5000-7000 year. He is the device used for the statement of the summer solstice. The geologiai it was made of clay which can be found there according to examinations. I would need him for it an good convincing conclusio that the Sumerian language in the future isolated?

Over old your coursebooks, replacing them would be his time. :wink:

[Ioannes Vandalicus]

thats why these teories are not supported in the world? you mean, the sumerologists are all stupid, because they did not use hungarian to translate sumerian texts (they dont. they used babylonian sources to understand it)?
i understand that this "sumer-magyar theory is very popular in hungary, but it doubts me that I could not find not I have seen other than magyar study which would support this theory.
Still we have other no more no less serious studies, which connect this language to the basque, or dravid languages, or tibetan languages. Other controversial theories put it along even indo-european (english, yes, english!) and japanese, but this is very controversial. In fact, Sumerian was put in relation with almost EVERY known agglutinative language.
So again. Today MAJORITY of linguistic community considere it to be isolate language.
And I am with the majority until you show me other than hungarian sources. Not because they are bad, just because I want to see it from different perspectives.

[Robert Vermaat]

Vallus, please remember that although the Huns are within this topic, proving links between Huns, Avars and Hungarians is clearly not a topic for this forum.

I'm not saying you can't write it, but please write it in the OT section if it strays too far away from the Huns. Thank you.

[Ioannes Vandalicus]

Robert, please, can you move it? I have some more things to say, but this is really of topic from Huns.