Talk:Huns

Huns are masters of Ahirs and Gujjars

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=vRwS6FmS2g0C&pg=PA229&dq=gujjars+are+ahirs&hl=en&ei=KQB_Td2zMsfirAeyxvm5Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=gujjars%20are%20ahirs&f=false http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=bmeVTbq_Cs7srQfPqYXsCw&ct=result&id=gxA3AAAAIAAJ&dq=abhira+history+of+rajputs&q=abhiras+

A history of Panjabi literature (1100-1932): a brief study of reactions between Panjabi life and letters based largely on important MSS & rare and select representative published works, with a new supplement-page-177

Locations of Hun successor states in 500 AD (map)

I was interested to see more of this map, but unfortunately whoever posted it appears to have cropped or truncated it. Parts are missing, including part of the key to identification of smaller states. Does anyone know where is the original of this map? Can it be restored to its full extent? Ptilinopus (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Map

The maps, as they were, were highly questionable. Simply - the Huns did not rule Saxony, Denmark, the southern Baltic or anything east of the Dnieper-Don interfluvial (ie the Huns did not rule central Asia); according to literary and archaeological evidence. The old maps were based on Spehperhds historical atlas (made in the 1970s)- which has been affirmed to be of questionable historical precision, and John Man's book which is more a pop-history book for the everyday reader. Thus I present a map based on Peter Heather's recent work. Slovenski Volk (talk) 05:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

history of the mongolian steppe land

Hunnu empire founded in 209 BC by Modun Shianyu. Lasted for 302 years ended in 93 AC. The rise of the empire was in 198 when the Hunnu were contolling the Silk Line which was across the mongolian gobi dessert, had 50 years peace treaty with the Han nation (China). Han nation were paying gold, silk, rice and corn in order to keep the peace treaty. The Hunnu empire had 3 provinces where the center was controlled by the King Shaniyu, right part was controlled by the Luli wan(Lord), where the left part was controlled by the Juki wan(lord). This were the time Mongolians developed the grouping of the population, later made more complex and divided again in each peace. There were 24 Tumts(plural) of population leaded by the King and the lords straights. 1 Tum is equal to 10.000 in Mongolian language, tumt means group holds 1 tum people. Later Chinggis Haan developed myangat(1000 in Mongolian) Zuut(100 in Mongolian) Aravt(10 in Mongolian). In Chinese notes it is said that Hunnu's Military system was at the most neat at the times of Modune. At the utmost powerful stage Hunnu's land were to the North Baigal(nature in Mongolian) Nuur(lake in mongolian), to the East till Ordos(Tan empire), to the West bordering with Tureks(Turks) and to the south till the great wall. At the times of Hunnu the Han(China) nation first founded as well, strictly under control of Hunnu's every year they had to pay goods in order to keep peace treaty and gifted severel Yanji and Gunji (both means the princess) to the Hunnu Kings. Second king was Tumen Shianiyu the son Modun Shianiyu.

Origin Noted in chinese books, there were lot of individual small tribes lived in Mongolia, most of them had a trading relation with the China around 1000 BC. In 300-400 BC amongst the Tribes of Mongolia there were Alliance established between the most powerful 2 tribes Hunnu and Dunhu. The Allience had become powerful in year 310 BC. To become a known country the rivalry of the Wans(lords) in order to get the political power helped very much. And in the year 209 BC Modune Shanniu succeeded to build an empire known in asia as Hunnu, in western as Huns. Both word Hunnu and Hun means human in mongolian language.

The fall Fall of the Empire first took stage in 48 AC when the Sumbe(often reffered as sianbi) tribe started competed for political power and eventually Divided Hunnu nation in 2 North and South. South side leaded by the Sumbe allied with the Han(china). Later in 93 AC Sumbe succeeded to defeat the Hunnu and later established the Second Empire ever existed on Mongolian territory called Sumbe(siyanbi) country.

Later after the fall of Sumbe the Turegs(Turkish) started to appear in Mongolian territory and founded turkish dominated 3rd country called Tureg country.

As always been the rival and the neighbour of the Mongolia, the Chinese recorders lived recorded all the activities with the Mongolians from time to time.

There should be no further argument about Huns were Turkish or something. Because ancestor, land, language, culture, religion in every single aspect turkish got their own and so does the Mongolians. Turkish and Mongolians were just similar two nationals existed at the same time at different place. The Mongol empire were the 8th or 9th country founded on Mongolian territory which was the most powerful of the Mongolians.

As a order 1st Hunnu 2nd Sumbe 3rd Tureg 4th Uighur 5th Ih nirun(jujan) and several other nationals had succeeded to build their empire on Mongol land. However most of them are the ancestors of the present day Mongolians not the Turks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.92.51 (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

my opinion

There is no way to say for one hundred percent sure that the Huns were turks or mongols. Nobody can go back to that time and test their DNA. Mongolians and Turks may have 1 ancestor, because in modern days turkic and mongolian there are lots of similarities and even exact same words for the same meanings. Also in many turkic books and stories cites that mongol and turks share the same ancestor. Even i heard some turkish people saying there is no turks without mongolian blood.

1. Huns can have same ancestor with the turks but long lost, because after the Hunnu(Huns) empire fallen the turks were the 3rd to establish their own empire defeating the Sumbe (referred as Xianbi the second empire built on mongol lands) who were the descendants of huns on mongol land. The empire were called tureg. 2. Huns can be derived from native herder tribe that they are the first peoples to gather around to build community on mongol land. Because the significance and markings of civilised human community starts not long before the huns started to leave their footprints, which counts way before 500 BC. 3. There are several chinese writings and books survived till now quoting that china had interest of trading with the nomadic herders of the north. Furthermore it is marked around that time the starting of the hunnu empire around 500BC.

Due to its long existence chinese writers had noted lots of stories, tales and even the book that shows the trading bill has survived till today. It is the best evidence because it is written and kept that we can know what happened. European people knows Atilla as the resemblance of huns. But according to the history Atilla was the leader of the group which was exiled due to conflict with the higher ups. But original stories of huns came thousand years before Atilla.

I don't really believe in doctors profs talking about history as they have seen it. But what i understand is they just grow the theories. Besides some of them deeply believes in their theories whilst the evidence and recordings the hard evidence still lies in the locked libraries in china. They are just peoples who are 2 thousand years younger and born with 2 thousand miles away and talk like they have seen it.

I don't also believe in quran of muslim or what was there punjabi or panjabi, any other religious books because they are like a whole planet away from huns and or mongolians. Which could have fell from sky who knows on the planet earth that i lives on i haven't seen and it is not possible to book to fell from nowhere of the space and land securely on human hands. Or maybe god were too racist to give one to mongolians or to some other peoples. God in the first language of the world and in latin referes to Sun. Some people are just too retarded to understand that.

The evidence was released but i couldn't remember when or how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.144.236 (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Economy and Religion sections

At this diff I have reverted a long essay-style series of comments. Most of the few substantive and referenced points from it are already appropriately mentioned in the article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks like a good faith effort. When I get a moment (and have my sources in front of me), I'll review closer and clean it up. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It does and I look forward to your valued advice. It also seem to rely on the given source, http://kronk.narod.ru/library/klashtorny-savinov-2005-1-1-5.htm, which (according to Google Translate) is mainly about the Xiongnu neighbours of the Chinese. The relevant sections look generally like OR - for example "There is also a theory that Attila was the “God on the Earth” for the Huns. It can be justified by the following story. Once at the dinner the Huns lauded Attila and the Emperor of Rome. Bigilas, one of the translators, noticed that when people talked about the Roman Emperor they referred to the God and when they talked about Attila they did not. He pointed that this is unfair. The Huns did not like this remark and were excited about this comment. This justifies the fact the Attila was also a kind of God for the Huns." is a rather free interpretation of the sources which I haven't seen anywhere else. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I have the E. A. Thompson book and the material added sounded familiar so I wanted to give myself time to check it. Specifically, my memory of E. A. Thompson's book was what seemed to me a rather biased view on the Hun socioeconomic structure and the editor's new sections seemed to be trying to counter-balance that view. It seems that the editor might be relying on Maenchen-Helfen's book though, which I don't have. I agree with you that the style of the newly added sections is not up to standards and the substantive material is found elsewhere. That said, the editor has shown us how we could improve this article by adding new Economy and Religion (or other) sections. The information is somewhat buried in the Society and Culture section. Actually, all of section 4 seems rather muddled. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Tengrism article mentions Huns as spreading said religion to Europe, but no mention here?

There appears to be an inconsistency between the article on Tengrism and this article. If the Huns can be associated with Tengrism, why is it not mentioned here, and if the evidence is insufficient than the article on Tengrism needs to be significantly reformed.