Jump to content

Talk:Huns

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 95.87.248.121 (talk) at 22:03, 30 August 2016 (→No Hunnic History post Nedao?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

What is the subject of the article?

The article's title suggests that the article is about the Huns, and not about other peoples who were or may have been or claim to be connected to them. Of course, all relevant theories should be mentioned in the article, but there are articles dedicated to the Utigurs, Xiungnu, etc. I think, we do not need to write about the Huns' (alleged or actual) successors when writing about their origin. Borsoka (talk) 02:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shallow argument to destroy the structure of the article (Origin- Modern ethnogenesis interpretation - Traditional Xiongnu theory - Evidence against the link with Xiongnu). Strong evidence is provided against the link with Xiongnu and you simply want to delete the information because you don't like it but do not have any counterarguments. 130.204.142.213 (talk) 03:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I do not care whether Huns and Xiongnu were connected or not. Would you be more specific? What pieces of important (and verified) information were deleted? Borsoka (talk) 03:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit removed a large amount of material which is already included elsewhere in the article, some very vague arguments from ignorance, and also some arguments (with RS) that do indicate some continuity between Huns and later peoples. I look forward to suggestions on this talk page for edits that use only the relevant parts of the material. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: The edits by IP '130.204.142.213' and User:Epnax, like previously by IP '46.40.112.239', '188.254.217.159', and blocked IP '93.152.143.113' and User:PavelStaykov (in August 2015), have the same or almost the same behavior (way of speech, no signature etc.), use of sources and claims (see eg. noticeboard and talk1, talk2). The sources he cited were reviewed recently at Bulgars talk page. All IP address are located in Bulgaria. I think we're dealing with the same editor all this time.--Crovata (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Recently finished the article on Onogurs and Kutrigurs, the Utigurs will follow, but at the moment Epnax reverted the Kutrigurs article to previous revision Kutrigurs, as well those of the Huns and Zabergan, because he finds it, as usually, "Turkic Vandalism" and "Biased turko-nationalist propaganda".--Crovata (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need of discussion, when you finish these articles, every single nomadic tribe/nation from Central Asia will be of Turkic origin. Probably this is normal, because you are Turk. What is not normal is your deleting of information that you don't like(under various false accusations) instead of simply adding what you want to say into the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epnax (talk • contribs) 18:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why you're so delusional? Why do you want to prove that Bulgars and other tribes were Huns, ie. stubbornly negate their Turkic heritage, negate modern scholarship and scholars who are specialists in the field. Why it affects you so much personally? How much longer will it take? Whether you see that all this has more to do with you than the article? --Crovata (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ask yourself the same. This section of the article was written before many years by someone else, I simply added a couple of books to support the information. You have deleted it without even thinking, do you realize how wrong is it to delete a whole section, supported by multiple sources, from such an important article as "Huns" ?Epnax (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Epnax, it would help if you would discuss your various points on this talk page, one by one, and gain consensus, before you put them into the main article. This article does suffer from a variety of ill-supported modern nationalist narratives, and it is semi-protected for a good reason. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't expect any discussion from Epnax, who is  Confirmed, blocked, and tagged. Crovata, thanks for the heads up, but try not to use words like "delusional" when responding to other users, even if you strongly suspect they are socks and even if they turn out to be socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Keatinge What's your current opinion, and do you have any questions? What sections should be primarly worked on?--Crovata (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Primarly you should delete every vestige that suggests Huns were not Turks. Someone can read them. But primarily you should study 451 F

As someone who speaks several Sinitic/Sinitic-influenced languages, I was really surprised to learn that the idea of the Huns and the Xiongnu being the same people is considered controversial at all. For your information, 'Xiongnu' is the contemporary Mandarin pronunciation, which is a relatively young language that tends to corrupt 'h' into 'x' and is far removed from older Sinitic languages. The word is pronounced with a 'h' in almost all other Sinitic/Sinitic-influenced languages, such as 'Hongno' in Cantonese, 'Hiungnu' in Hakka, and 'Hyongno' in Korean. In fact, the normal transliteration for the English term 'hun' would literally just *be* 'xiongnu', so Chinese has to forcibly drop the 'n' sound from the transliteration entirely and replace with the term for 'person', making 'Xiongnu'=匈奴 and 'Hun'=匈人 ('xiong-person'). So I guess I just really don't see how the similarity in names can be 'controversial' at all to be honest... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.48.182.6 (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be generally agreed that the words "Hun" and "Xiongnu", and other variants, referred to prestigious groups of steppe nomads over a wide range of time and space but were probably all derived from the same origin. Not proven, but I don't see anyone argue against it. The problem comes when we try to identify a wide range of groups as the "same people." That concept, "same people", is very tricky. Does that mean that they all spoke the same language? Same dialect? Related languages? Had nobility who were actually related to each other? Or believed they were? Or were "the same people" as some modern ethnic / national group which can point to some degree of continuity with steppe nomads? Think of the Mughals? A "Persianate dynasty of Chagatai Turco-Mongol origin" - does that mean that Bahadur Shah II was a Persian, was a Turk, was a Mongol, while he wrote Urdu poetry? One feature doesn't make modern ethno-nationalist claims secure, and while people of the first millennium had their own identities and loyalties these weren't the identities of modern nations nor loyalties to modern ideas of nationalism. Caution and careful adherence to Wikipedia guidelines are required here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 23:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


To whom it may concern

Due to the article and talk pages are protected, there is a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Tacitus about something in the article. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 00:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Naming of Huns by Tacitus

Added on behalf of BLebow4500, the request was listed above on RFPP and linked to by Tbhotch previously.

The article says that Tacitus refers to the Huns as the "Hunnoi", which dovetails nicely with the Chinese "Xiōngnú" and is a fact found all over the internet; however, according to [1], Tacitius refers to them as "Hunos." I do not know Latin, so perhaps "Hunnoi" is acceptable in some declension, but the claim in this article that Tacitus says "Hunnoi" does not have a citation. Can someone knowledgeable about Latin check this out? --BLebow4500 (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the change. --BLebow4500 (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hunos is the accusative plural. It makes more sense to mention the nominative, huni, though the usual Latin spelling was actually hunni.[2] --Macrakis (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the sort of thing I was hoping for since I don't know any Latin. My concern, though, as I said, is that Tactitus didn't use that form, and "Huni" is misleadingly close to Xiongu given the reconstruction of Chinese. How about if Tacitus's actual form is provided in the lead paragraph and then an explanation provided below? --BLebow4500 (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Borsoka changed the page, noting that my citation was a primary source not a secondary source. I undid that change with a request to discuss the issue on this talk page and then changed my citation to a secondary source. --BLebow4500 (talk) 09:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We should not discuss any issues on this Talk page if we cannot verify that that issue is relevant for the subject of the article. Can you refer to a reliable source to verify your claim that Tacitus' text is relevant for the purposes of this article? Borsoka (talk) 09:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The internet is filled with pages claiming that Tacitus called the Huns "Hunnoi." My guess is that those claims come from this article which formerly made that claim without a citation, and I was merely trying to correct this misinformation. However, as to whether this information should have been in the article before I made my edit, I believe the citation is important as it is the earliest clear mention of the Huns and it should be worked into the history section. It is also information relevant to linking the Huns to the Xiongnu. See also wiktionary:匈 and wiktionary:奴 for reconstructions of the syllables. --BLebow4500 (talk) 09:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I see that Borsoka has put question marks next to my claim that Tacitus is the first to mention the Huns. I have no problem with deleting the word "first." Is it possible to discuss the issues here on the talk page instead of having an edit war? --BLebow4500 (talk) 09:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, also, I'm confused about why my citation has attached to it the comment "non-primary source needed". I have listed a non-primary source. --BLebow4500 (talk) 09:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If my understanding is correct your above message means that you cannot refer to to a reliable source to verify that Tacitus' text is relevant for the purposes of this article. If this is the case why did you revert my edit here ([3])? Borsoka (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My only reason for reverting that edit was that it seemed to be starting an edit war when I had already asked if the issues could be discussed here. If my reversion was poor etiquette, I apologize. I'm confused about how to convince people to discuss the issues. I made my first edit only after posting to this talk page and waiting for about a week with no response, and my edit was followed by two people changing my edit without discussion. I'm not sure what you mean by "to verify that Tacitus' text is relevant for the purposes of this article". The mere fact that Tacitus mentions the Huns earlier than anyone else cited in this article seems adequately important. --BLebow4500 (talk) 09:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NOR. I understand that you think that it is relevant, but you should verify this claim with proper references to at least one reliable source, written by a historian or scholar, who also thinks that Tacitus' text relevant for the history of the Huns. Borsoka (talk) 09:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't understand your point. This article has a section on the history of the Huns and the fact that Tacitus talks about them, as mentioned in my secondary source, seems relevant to their history. --BLebow4500 (talk) 10:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
However, "your" secondary source (Barnes) specifically states that Tacitus did not write of the Huns and it was only Orosius who identified Tacitus' Scythicae gentes from Tacitus' text with the Alans, Huns and Goths. That is why we should not carry out original research. Can you cite reliable sources to verify the results of your own original research? Borsoka (talk) 10:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the follow-up. Now I understand your point. I think this sentence should be deleted and should never have been in the article to begin with. --BLebow4500 (talk) 10:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your understanding. Borsoka (talk) 10:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Name "hun" is one signification only for who understand their world. So delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.55.154.195 (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Early Movement of Huns

The first paragraph states that the Huns moved from the Caspian Sea to the Caucasus Mountains in a SOUTHEASTERN direction. Since the Caucasus are WEST of the entire Caspian Sea, how is this description of the direction of movement possible? Shouldn't be a SOUTHWESTERN movement? Bsteel2000 (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No Hunnic History post Nedao?

Why is there no mention of the post-Nedao Hunnic state? It is well known that the collapse of Hunnic control in the region of "Dacia" or the Danubian Basin was a slow and complex process that involved the transformation of their Dualist state back into the traditional East-West Senior-Junior king partnership between Attila's sons. The incoming Oghur Turkish peoples (the Oghurs, Onoghurs, etc. who were Huns of the Tiele Confederation which had collapsed) helped transform the Hun Empire into the Kutrigur and Utigur Hun (Bulgar) states in the 480's and would eventually be assimilated by the Avars (before a section of that former state would revolt after 626 and help form Old Great Bulgaria). Many Authors show this is what happened - Istvan Bona, Hyun Jin Kim, and although they don't go into much of the latter part even authors like Peter Heather and Maenchen-Helfen do show the Huns became the Utigur and Kutrigur Huns.

MMFA (talk) 11:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because there was no post-Nedao Hunnic state or confederation, and Kutrigurs, Utigurs, Onogurs, Bulgars, Tiele confederation, Pannonian Avars and other Turkic tribal confederations were not tribes of the Huns - several scholars like Hyun Jin Kim wrongly mix these terms, and uncritically place the term of the Huns along the other tribes in the source (see the review of his work) like they belonged to somekind "Hunnish nation", for which there is no evidence.--Crovata (talk) 12:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of the review of Kim's work, which is flawed and does state he likes to find Huns where their aren't. I largely agree with the review, e.g. I'm fairly certain Ardareiks (Ardaric) was not a Hun. The leading theory shows that Avars were a splinter of the Hepthaltites and therefore Hua, not Huns. However, when it comes to the Kutrigurs and Utigurs, which if you've read and accounted for the biases in the primary sources, there is evidence to show that the Kutrigur and Utigurs who are called explicitly Huns by Roman sources and probably are the Hun Empire. The fragments and more complete chronologies do show a slow retreat back into the Pontic steppes: again, this is even acknowledged by Western Historians like Peter Heather. Istvan Bona, whose work from 2002(?) is considered the most reliable and foremost work on the Huns available, largely shows the same thing.
There is evidence that these peoples (Huns, Avars, Hua/Hepthaltites, Rouran, Tiele Confederation) were all part of the Oghur branch of Turkish speaking peoples. Their names imply it and the fact that Priscus does not record Utigurs and Kutrigurs entering into Europe (well... maybe the Utigurs as he does mention "Oghurs" in general) suggests that these two states formed out of the retreating Huns and the Onoghurs, Saragurs, and Oghurs. (The Sabirs were not Huns - Kim even says that, he suggests they were Xianbei although having read that paper the Etymology is somewhat shoddy). I think Kim is probably taking into account the Fluidic nature of the Steppe - the Avars were a ruling Dynasty, the same way he treats the Attilanic Huns. I would certainly not call Old Great Bulgaria "Huns" (even if one could prove that the Bulgars Kubrat and Asparukh were descended from Attila) but the Kutrigurs and Utigurs are stated by the Romans to be from Attila's Empire (allegedly founded by sons called "Kutrigur" and "Utigur").
In short, cause this is kind of ranty, a section needs to be written. Just without the bias of whatever that guy edited the old section back in with.MMFA (talk) 12:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

entirely wrong, biased and deceitful answer. There was such section on the article, it was Crovata job to remove it. [4] VANDAL work ? Only turkic editors believe that Huns came from Nowhere and after century defeating both Roman empires they disappeared back into Nowhere. It is not in their interest to delve deeper who were the Huns, the only thing that these guys are interested is WP articles to state they were Turks, or at least - of turkish extraction.--95.129.41.112 (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Typical sock-puppet reply by User:PavelStaykov, doesn't know what WP:VANDAL mean, does not want to accept the reality of the tribal confederations, for PavelStaykov Huns (and other Turkis-speaking tribes from the Pontic steppe and Pannonia) were not even Turkic-speaking or semi-Turkic speaking people, there were anything else but Turkic people because he has an anti-Turkic sentiment, and personally attacks other editors because of it. He edited the same wall of text which already tried to paste on other articles. Just ignore him and the pathological case will be once again reported.--Crovata (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked the article history quickly but I can't see when this content was originally added and removed but the fact that it has been removed before, presumably a long time ago, and that we have been without it since then with no complaints, has encouraged me to revert it. I have not looked into the content itself deeply. Do any uninvolved editors think it is valid? If so, I'd be happy to bring it back. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No matter when it was added and deleted, it is not good for WP not to have it - the section is supported by 22 books, at least 20-30 more books on this topic are available on Google Books and readers interested in this topic (what happened to the huns after Attila) will discover them. Maybe the section is not well written, but when it is on the article gradually it will be improved. If it is not on the article - not good for WP. --95.129.41.112 (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Golden's book is freely available online and is more or less the definitive basic guide to Steppe History. It is very, very well sourced and he shows connections between the Huns and Oghurs, although he does not explicitly state the Kutrigurs and Utigurs formed out of the Hunnic state.

https://www.academia.edu/9609971/Studies_on_the_Peoples_and_Cultures_of_the_Eurasian_Steppes

MMFA (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly advise you NOT to start with Golden. Start with the mainstream scholars: Omeljan Pritsak [5], [6], Edwin G. Pulleyblank (paste in your browser hrcak.srce.hr/file/161177 - very good work), David Marshall Lang [7], René Grousset [8], Steven Runciman [9], Sanping Chen [10], [11] Of course Otto J. Maenchen-Helfen is mandatory. Some of these (and others) can be downloaded with emule [12] ( which is illegal :) ) --95.87.248.121 (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


After that you can read a little bit Lev Gumilyov in order to see how the science SHOULD NOT be done and practice - if this is science at all, better to say sci-fi. Not only he is the worst historian of all time, but also he is a MANIAC - he claims that in his veins flows the blood of Turkic Jochi Khan, the founder of the Golden Horde !!! [13] No other guy have done more harm on the historical study of the Huns than Lev Gumilyov. Peter Golden is a mild, a little bit more scientific version of Gumilyov. --95.87.248.121 (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Huns&oldid=736953069"