10-17-2013, 12:13 PM
It wasn't Herodotus who proposed the Huns were Scythian, it was some other guy in the 4th century who gave 4 theories of the origin of the Huns, and used Herodotus for his work.
The Massagetae and Saka we know became the first Alan confederation. That Alan confederation went on to conquer all other Sarmatian nad Scythian peoples with their 4-lath composite asymmetric bow.
The Huns introduced the 7-lath composite asymmetric bow, which gave them an edge ofver their conquerors. Most have tried to conclude on the origin of the Huns based on their language - which seems to be Onoghruric in nature. That language group has almost entierely died out, replaced by other forms of Turkic. Either way, the Huns were in the same language grouping as Bulgars and Slavs, but were neither Bulgar or Slavic. We know they had replaced the Scythians north of the Caspian and Aral sea by 70 AD, and we know they had conquered the Acatziri on the River Volga some time in the 3rd Century or 4th Century, so their first confederation originated far from the Proto-Slavs and Proto-Bulgars in East Europe (Northeast of Belarus).
All we con conclude is that the term "Hun" referred to a steppe nomad confederation. It is only in the period from 370 to 468 that we can tie the term Hun with an actual people, whom were unknown but probably Proto-Turkic mixed with other ethnic groups (notably Mongols, Iranians, and Finno-Ugrians).
The Kutigur, Utigur, and Onogur Huns that succeeded the huns themselves seem to have been Proto-Bulgar or Slavic mostly, and their steppe contingents were probably Avar or Magyar. The Later Khazars are said to have come from the Acatziri, but this is extremely unlikely.
The Massagetae and Saka we know became the first Alan confederation. That Alan confederation went on to conquer all other Sarmatian nad Scythian peoples with their 4-lath composite asymmetric bow.
The Huns introduced the 7-lath composite asymmetric bow, which gave them an edge ofver their conquerors. Most have tried to conclude on the origin of the Huns based on their language - which seems to be Onoghruric in nature. That language group has almost entierely died out, replaced by other forms of Turkic. Either way, the Huns were in the same language grouping as Bulgars and Slavs, but were neither Bulgar or Slavic. We know they had replaced the Scythians north of the Caspian and Aral sea by 70 AD, and we know they had conquered the Acatziri on the River Volga some time in the 3rd Century or 4th Century, so their first confederation originated far from the Proto-Slavs and Proto-Bulgars in East Europe (Northeast of Belarus).
All we con conclude is that the term "Hun" referred to a steppe nomad confederation. It is only in the period from 370 to 468 that we can tie the term Hun with an actual people, whom were unknown but probably Proto-Turkic mixed with other ethnic groups (notably Mongols, Iranians, and Finno-Ugrians).
The Kutigur, Utigur, and Onogur Huns that succeeded the huns themselves seem to have been Proto-Bulgar or Slavic mostly, and their steppe contingents were probably Avar or Magyar. The Later Khazars are said to have come from the Acatziri, but this is extremely unlikely.
Evan Schultheis | MODERATOR
Rhomaios Living History Society
Support us on Patreon
Rhomaios Living History Society
Support us on Patreon
