10-31-2013, 01:18 PM
Quote:Avars and Bulgars would not arrive until the late 6th century though Diocle. At this point Huns probably meant Huns, the Kutigur, Utigur, and Onogur Huns (the 6th century groupings of Huns and Proto-Bulgars) it is believed all shared the same proto-turkic origins as the Bulgars, and the Avars would be the first Turks.
From Wiki, Evan:
"The earliest clear reference to the Avar ethonym comes from Priscus the Rhetor who accounts that, c. 463, the Saraghurs, Onoghurs and Ughors were attacked by the Sabirs, who had been attacked by the Avars. In turn, the Avars had been driven off by people fleeing “man-eating griffins” coming “the ocean” (Priscus Fr 40).Whilst Priscus’ accounts provides some information about the ethno-political situation in the Don-Kuban-Volga region after the demise of the Huns, no equivocal conclusions can be reached. In fact, Denis Sinor has argued that whoever the “Avars” referred to by Priscus were, they were different to the Avars who appear a century later, during Justinian’s reign."
At the end of the Italian war the Langobards and the Gepids were already under the pressure by the Avars, and in 568 many Bulgars followed King Alwin in Italy, they settled in the Southern part of the Peninsula, when the Langobards reached those lands.
I don't think that the the second half of the VI century, the Age of Justinian and Theodora, can be definied 'late sixth century', Evan.
During the 'late VI century' actually we can observe the 'growth' of the Avar threat, culminating with the Siege of Byzantium in the first half of the VII century, when, exactly in 626 AD, a powerful army mainly composed by ... but this is another story.
