Tobias Posted September 19, 2006 Report Share Posted September 19, 2006 (edited) but I'm pretty sure the huns came from Central Asia and not very close to Rome at all. They made it as far as the Po River in Italy, where Pope Leo I met him. For some reason, what Leo said to Attila made him turn around, and he died some time later. Edited September 19, 2006 by Tobias Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted September 19, 2006 Report Share Posted September 19, 2006 (edited) They made it as far as the Po River in Italy, where Pope Leo I met him. For some reason, what Leo said to Attila made him turn around, and he died some time later. I believe that Attila's forces were being plagued with malaria. Edited September 19, 2006 by Gaius Octavius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rameses the Great Posted September 19, 2006 Report Share Posted September 19, 2006 (edited) Are you so sure about that? I dont possess a great amount of wealth of Rome -yet anyway- but I'm pretty sure the huns came from Central Asia and not very close to Rome at all. There are some theories they were the early mongolians or related to them. I think this theory is a much more likely than the one you've presented unless of course this has been proven as a fact which I would be surprised and have to read more about it. I think you may have taken Kosmo's post out of context. The Huns without a doubt were steppe living nomads in around Mongolia and Central Asia (maybe parts of Kazakstan.) As the Huns harassed the Eastern Empire, they gave Atilla the lands in which to settle that was Eastern Hungary. They settled in Europe but the race of the original Huns were Asian. Edited September 19, 2006 by Rameses the Great Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted September 20, 2006 Report Share Posted September 20, 2006 They settled in Europe but the race of the original Huns were Asian. Once again, Gaius is:offtopic:. Were the Huns Mongoloid or Causcaloid? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rameses the Great Posted September 20, 2006 Report Share Posted September 20, 2006 Were the Huns Mongoloid or Causcaloid? Well to my understanding they were originally Mongoloid. While going across various lands you can imagine they took some Caucasoids and put them in the army. The Huns were basically the new generation of Mongolians to my understanding. Wikipedia: The Huns were a confederation of Eurasian tribes, most likely of diverse origin with a Turkic-speaking aristocracy, who appeared in Europe in the 4th century, the most famous being Attila. It has also become a more general term for any number of Central Asian equestrian nomads or semi-nomads. Most of these peoples 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). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neos Dionysos Posted September 24, 2006 Report Share Posted September 24, 2006 They made it as far as the Po River in Italy, where Pope Leo I met him. For some reason, what Leo said to Attila made him turn around, and he died some time later. I believe that Attila's forces were being plagued with malaria. That, and Aetius was shadowing him with an army. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julius Ratus Posted November 1, 2006 Report Share Posted November 1, 2006 Keep in mind that Chalon/The Catalaunian Fields, did not end the Hunnic threat. A few years later Attila, at the request of Valentinian III's sister, Honoria, the Huns invaded Northern Italy. Pope Leo "convinced" Attila to leave Italy and not sack Rome. By this point a massive epidemic had cut through the Huns and a simple pay off would have been sufficient to send the Huns home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DecimusCaesar Posted November 1, 2006 Report Share Posted November 1, 2006 Well to my understanding they were originally Mongoloid. While going across various lands you can imagine they took some Caucasoids and put them in the army. The Huns were basically the new generation of Mongolians to my understanding. This is true, archaeologically it is very hard to distinguish what is Hunnic. The old theories suggest that it was the Hsuing-nu who plauged China that were the forefathers of the Huns. This idea was proposed in the 18th Century so I am not sure how valid it still is. What we do know is that by the reign of Attila, the Hunnic peoples had changed. Many Germans had joined their ranks as fellow warriors, while the Hunnic army itself was becoming more specialized. It was no longer the fast moving, cavalry dominated people it once was. The Huns themsleves could only move about 5-10 miles a day by Attila's time, as they had a large baggage train. The Huns also became specialists in siege warfare, they made use of towers and battering rams aginst the Romans; the first Barbarian peoples to do so. This made them a bigger threat than others like the Goths, who after Adrianople in 376, could not take the town as they lacked any artillery or towers. Therefore the Huns were a real threat to Europe and the Battle of the Catalunian Fields helped break them. Attila might have descended upon Italy a year later, but by then his force was not as strong as it once was. Perhaps if the battle had never been fought Attila would have been able to attack the country with his full forces and he might have even taken Rome. Who knows what action he might have taken if he had suceeded, but one thing would be certain: the history of Europe would have turned out very differently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosmo Posted November 4, 2006 Report Share Posted November 4, 2006 All this steppe federations conteined people of diverse ethnicities. They were Altaic people, probably turkish speakers, but for obvious reasons we know very little about their language. They came from Central Asia, but when and how it's debated. Some say that were reminants of Xiongu that threatened China, thus being nore mongolian. Others say that they were from some time in the areas North of Caucasus. I believe more this other theory, because of the later history of bulgars. In Romania, huns came in 376 after defeating the visighots and establish a center in N. Moldova. Until 420 they control area the areas east of Carphatians and a princely tomb was found at Conesti and several tipical hunic objects throut this areas. After 433 they move to Pannonia under the leadership of Atilla and create a federation with alans, ostoghots and gepids. After this in Transilvania, the heart of Dacia, urban life dissapears and also the Cernehov/Santana culture. After Atilla's death (452) and Nedao battle (454) they are replaced in Transilvania by gepids Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted November 4, 2006 Report Share Posted November 4, 2006 Were the Huns being chased out of Central Asia by the Avars? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosmo Posted November 4, 2006 Report Share Posted November 4, 2006 The avars run away from the great turkish federation. It is unknown when and why the huns left Central Asia, but definetly was long before the Gokturk state was established. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.