Talk:Huns

A reconstruction of Attila - image

"A reconstruction of Attila by George S. Stuart, Museum of Ventura County." image shows Attila riding a horse with his foot in a stirrup.
The Huns didn't know the stirrup. It was invented by the Magyars. That George S. Stuart didn't know that, well... it's just an artifahrty picture. But using this false image in a supposedly scientific article reveals that the author doesn't have any knowledge of the subject either. From here on the article and it's author have lost all credibility and it become a cyber-rubbish in best case or an anti Hun/Magyar propaganda piece at worst.

Predecessors and Sucessors

The huns formed a state, proto-state under Bleda and Attila. Thats the consensus (even if it was a "robbing state")

So, it should have their predecessors and sucessors¡

For predecessors:

-Since the xiong-Nu connection debate will rage for some time, no mention should be done.

-The Alans, conquered by huns

-The Greuthungi, conquered by huns

-The Thervingi, conquered in part by huns

-Roman Pannonia province: base under Attila

-Perhaps lombards, ruggi,sarmatian, and other conquered tribes

Successors:

-After Nedao:

-The kingdom of the Rugii

-The kingdom of the Gepids

-The kingdom of the Ostrogoths

-A suebian kingdom in the danube.

Bolghars, kutrigurs, utrigurs remain speculative, so no for the moment.

Comments?

Add Avars

There's basically no mention of the Pannonian Avars in the article even though they were the next major power in the area (and possibly related to the Huns). Can someone please add more of them, at least among the successors and in the lead? 2A01:36D:118:298E:98E6:AB21:75F3:8BFA (talk) 11:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

"Attila's Court"

The article names "Attila's Court" as the empire's capital. I believe this is taken directly from the game Sid Meier's Civilization V wherein this name is a contrivance for not having an actual list of cities in the empire. Should be removed. 23.241.35.25 (talk) 04:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

New genetics paper

There appears to be a new genetics paper on this subject, by Gnecchi-Ruscone et al. [1]. According to the abstract: We find no evidence for the presence of a large eastern/steppe descent community among the Hun- and post-Hun-period Carpathian Basin population. We also observe a high genetic diversity among the eastern-type burials that recapitulates the variability observed across the Eurasian Steppe. This suggests a mixed origin of the incoming steppe conquerors. Nevertheless, long-shared genomic tracts provide compelling evidence of genetic lineages directly connecting some individuals of the highest Xiongnu-period elite with 5th to 6th century CE Carpathian Basin individuals, showing that some European Huns descended from them. @Austronesier and Andrew Lancaster: I differ to your superior understanding of genetics, but it seems like something to be added (in brief!) here and to Origins of the Huns, I'd say? We need to be careful how we frame this, of course, and not give it overdue weight given that it's a single study.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

It strikes me that the paper's most important points are:

1. Even the Hunnic elite shows a high genetic diversity, with only some individuals showing connections to the Xiongnu;
2. There isn't evidence for a mass migration of the type later performed by the Avars;

But that's just what I've gleaned from a quick perusal of the "discussion" section.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

"Xiongnu-like" might be more accurate but it sounds about right at first sight. So there are articles now seeming to demonstrate not only the viability of a part of the Hun ancestry coming (indirectly) from quite far east, but also, OTOH, that this was a complex "trickle". I don't know if this disproves mass migration in the sense of mass migration from the eastern European steppes. I am reminded of this other article I noticed Florin Corta mentioning: https://www.academia.edu/127182405/Ancient_DNA_reveals_reproductive_barrier_despite_shared_Avar_period_culture --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if this disproves mass migration in the sense of mass migration from the eastern European steppes - I meant a mass migration of the Xiongnu across Eurasia, just to clarify.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

This paper might deserve appropriate attention, since I am not recognising any serious contradiction with Maróti et al.: Whole genome analysis sheds light on the genetic origin of Huns, Avars and conquering Hungarians, as already referenced in the article. Tympanus (talk) 09:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

How does everyone feel about the version added at Origin of the Huns by Sentausa [2]? Seems about right.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, as we can see from these genetic studies, the horselord (Scythian) steppe folks migrated both westward and eastward across the 8,000 km-long steppe zone, mixing with many peoples. For example, there were many Asian Scythian and Sarmatian components among the Xiongnu. [3], and ancient Mongolia also was ethnically diverse.[4] Other genetic study stated that European Hun elite had connection to Xiongnu, but majority of European Huns were Sarmatian and Germanic [5]. Which means Huns were not only Huns as we can see also from this new genetic study, but it was many tribes always, a tribal confederation. Like according to genetic studies Hungarian conquerors also were very diverse [6] (they also had Xiongnu and Sarmatian components [7]), even the name of Magyars (Hungarians) came just from the leader tribe name. This Hun origin story of Hungarians came from the Hungarian royal dynasty, according to genetic studies the royal Arpad and Aba family had Hun connections [8] [9]. But of course the Hungarian conquerors just mixed with the locals (like with the remnant of Avars, Slavs...), and those locals already mixed with every other previous incomer people. Uploading my personal DNA sample to MyTrueAncestry, as Hungarian from the Carpathian Basin, my genetic is ancient local + I have sample matches from all of those above listed steppe folks (Scythian, Sarmatian, Asian Scythian, Hungarian conquerors, Avars, Carpathian Basin Hun, Xionghu...) + Germanic and Slavic components. When a new genetic study published like this, I check my new sample matches, after this mentioned Avar genetic study I found about 50 Avar Carpathian Basin sample matches with my DNA: [10] OrionNimrod (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Fine, I do agree with this obvious competent addition. Tympanus (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Physical appearance, religion, modern associations with savagery.

Ammianus Marcellinus describes the Huns as physically misshapen and monstrously ugly, with deep scars on their cheeks to prevent beard growth. He mentions their strong, compact limbs, thick necks, and overall appearance, which he compares to two-legged beasts or rough-hewn statues. Their facial features, particularly the lack of beauty and beard growth, are depicted as signs of their harsh upbringing.

[[Ammianus Marcellinus]] described the Huns as "like unreasoning beasts, they are utterly ignorant of the difference between right and wrong; they are deceitful and ambiguous in speech, never bound by any reverence for religion or for superstition.{{sfnm|1a1=Ammianus Marcellinus|1y=1862|1t=Res Gestae|1p=31|2a1=Yonge|2y=1862|2t=Res Gestae|2p=31|3a1=Harvard University Press|3y=1862|3p=1}}

[[Adolf Hitler]] referenced the Huns in his book [[Mein Kampf|''Mein Kampf'']] as part of his broader ideological framework regarding race and the supposed superiority of the Aryan race. He associated the Huns with the invasions of Europe during the 4th and 5th centuries, which he considered destructive and destabilizing to the [[Roman Empire]]. Hitler’s racial theories linked the Huns to the concept of racial degeneration of [[Slavs]] in Europe.{{sfn|Koonz|2003|pp=178–180}}

can these be added? Oa0214 (talk) 08:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

The first quote is Ammianus describing the Huns as monstrous - this is already discussed as a general trope in the article and is not useful in actually figuring out how the Huns appeared. I don't think we ought to include it.

The second quote (on religion) just says the same thing as what's already in the article, just with a quote rather than a brief summary. We know Ammianus is wrong, so I'm not sure why we should emphasize this to our readers.

The last one is far too long. There's no reason to say that Hitler associated the Huns with invasions in the 4th and 5th centuries - that's what modern historians do as well! I'd say we could include at most a sentence about the misuse for racial purposes, and I'm not sure we really need even that. It's not as though Hitler and other racists used the Huns alone to describe Slavs as racial degenerate. It had more to do with Mongols and the Golden Horde.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Hitler's mention of the invasion of the Huns and the effect on the Roman Empire is certainly relevant as it would have immense influence on his audience at the time.

Ammianus's comments on physical appearance and religion do seem to add to what has briefly been mentioned but I thought it would be insightful as he is a Roman writer describing the Huns from when they were invading Europe. I am curious what you mean when you say "We know Ammianus is wrong". Oa0214 (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Since Hitler himself acted without any convincing traceability against ethnic minorities with a cruelty that was in no way inferior to the Huns, he should not be quoted. Tympanus (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

It is relevant under the section "modern associations with savagery" because of the affect it would have had on society, it has nothing to do with bias of the author. Oa0214 (talk) 06:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think Hitler's musings on Huns and Slavs are particularly noteworthy, as he did not say anything original. If you can find a source discussing the Huns (and Mongols, etc) more generally as a source of racial degeneration, that might be worth adding.

And I say that Ammianus is wrong because the Huns did not look like monsters. There's likewise no point in quoting him saying the Huns were dumb brutes without religion. There's no point in quoting him when his information is useless according to modern scholars.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

you need to provide a source for that claim because if we are disregarding an eyewitness testimony on the appearance of the Huns then there needs to be a valid reason. Oa0214 (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

The sources are in the sections in question - just read the text that’s already there.—-Ermenrich (talk) 12:17, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I should also note that the section on appearance is in the "Origins" section. It's not just a general section on what the Huns looked like and was originally titled "Race".--Ermenrich (talk) 13:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

@ Oa0214: Your objection misses the point, as Hitler was not a historian, but – possibly apart from a chance hit – an exorbitant political failure. His ethnic views are generally rejected and therefore not favoured for referencing. However, I would not reject Ammianus' assessment of the Huns on the basis of non-negligible historical transmissions! Tympanus (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Ammianus’s views are already referenced in the article. The question is whether they need to be quoted verbatim.—Ermenrich (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

At best, I would quote Ammianus verbatim with another contemporary author who at least basically agrees with his depictions. Tympanus (talk) 10:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I think that the view regarding the failure of the Roman Empire caused by the Huns does seem relevant to bring up, not as a source of fact but as the view some people had in the pre WW2 era. Oa0214 (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

We are already reporting some of the general types of opinions people had in the past. What you are asking for is a specific focus upon the opinions of one person. But his opinions on this particular point on not (as far as I know) particularly influential or even very different from the opinions of other people in the past?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Exactly right, Andrew.—-Ermenrich (talk) 12:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Legacy of the Huns: Links to the Hungarians

Links to the Hungarians

This part of the entry needs to be updated and corrected. As it stands, it is shows a strong political influence (which is not history and not relevant) and quotes very dated material which ignores the scientific, archaeological, historical and genetic publications of the last 30 years.

Beginning in the High Middle Ages, Hungarian sources have claimed descent from or a close relationship between the Hungarians (Magyars) and the Huns.

This statement is true as far as written source material goes, but it should be remembered that most Hungarian heritage has been lost due to the Ottoman Empire’s destruction of buildings on a level not seen elsewhere in Europe. It is very likely that most medieval chronicles have been lost.

However, Lampert von Hersfeld reports on a “Sword of Attila” being donated to Otto, Duke of Bavaria in 1063 by Anastasia, widowed queen of Hungary, who subsequently withdrew to a monastery. It is generally accepted that this sword is the Vienna sabre, a typical 9^th-10^th C Magyar sabre. It is unlikely that Anastasia would have learned of Attila in Kiev, or in the convent, therefore the only place she might have heard of this sword being linked to Attila would logically be the Hungarian royal court.

Wiki goes on to say:

The claim appears to have first arisen in non-Hungarian sources and only gradually been taken up by the Hungarians themselves because of its negative connotations.

The question is ”negative connotations” to whom? Certainly not Hungarians. This claim is simply unproven and should be removed. It should be noted that there are no medieval Hungarian sources indicating any kind of disapproval of Attila and the Huns as ancestors or predecessors. It was very much taken as read in the whole country, whether based on folk stories or on written sources, until the 19th Century.

The Anonymous Gesta Hungarorum (after 1200) is the first Hungarian source to mention that the line of Árpádian kings were descendants of Attila, but he makes no claim that the Hungarian and Hun peoples are related.

It’s actually “Anonymus” and not the English form. In this work, Árpád repeatedly states that he is of the ”offspring of Attila”, and that his claim to the Carpathian Basin/Hungary is that it belonged to his ancestor, Attila, and therefore it is his inheritance.

These works were not written in a vacuum, the author had to have the approval of the king and the royal house. It should be noted that there was no objection to Master P.’s (Anonymus) work in the Royal Court of King Béla III, which there would certainly have been if the royal house had not had a native tradition relating to the Huns.

The first Hungarian author to claim that Hun and Hungarian peoples were related was Simon of Kéza in his Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum (1282–1285).

Correction: The first EXTANT source. Incidentally, the materials of the later Pictorial Chronicle are from earlier sources than either Anonymus or Kézai.

Simon claimed that the Huns and Hungarians were descended from two brothers, named Hunor and Magor. These claims gave the Hungarians an ancient pedigree and served to legitimize their conquest of Pannonia.

This was not his “claim”, it was common belief.  All Kézai did was record folk stories and the Royal House’s internal legends about their origins. Why would the Hungarians need an ancient ”pedigree” ? Also, given that they completed their cnquest of the Carpathian Basin by defeating the invading the East Franks at Pressburg in 907, why would they need to ”legitimise” their conquest more than 300 years later? And surely, if they wanted a ”pedigree” to impress Christendom, they should have linked themselves to some ”Christian” ruler, like Charlemage, not the hated Attila.

Incidentally, Thomas of Spalato, who wrote before Kézai, also made the connection between the Huns and Magyars. Also incidentally, the Hungarian form of the name was Etele, not Attila.

The mention of Hunor and Magor by Kézai is part of the retelling of an ancient Eurasian origin legend, in which two brothers (Hunor and Magor) chase a miraculous stag/hind, which leads them to a new country and where they find wives and settle down. Attila Mátéffy writes in a book dedicated to the Hungarian folklore and Shamanism expert, Mihály Hoppál, that:

When we analyse the whole chain of motifs, we realize, that the heroic tales and legends containing all the motifs are found in Central Eurasia, especially in the nomadic steppe region. These are the components of the original and most archaic motif sequence.

The Wiki section goes on:

Modern scholars largely dismiss these claims. Regarding the claimed Hunnish origins found in these chronicles, Jenő Szűcs writes:

The Hunnish origin of the Magyars is, of course, a fiction, just like the Trojan origin of the French or any of the other origo gentis theories fabricated at much the same time. The Magyars in fact originated from the Ugrian branch of the Finno-Ugrian peoples; in the course of their wanderings in the steppes of Eastern Europe they assimilated a variety of (especially Iranian and different Turkic) cultural and ethnic elements, but they had neither genetic nor historical links to the Huns.

Jenő Szűcs is certainly not a “modern scholar”, having died before the end of Communism. It should be noted for those not in the field, that studies of nomadic cultures have taken off since the fall of the Soviet Union and quoting dated material like this does no-one any good. It should, at the very least, be balanced with a more up-to-date version, representing the other view. There are many historians who do consider the Huns to be involved in Hungarian ethnogenesis, but not necessarily in an oversimplified manner. Some saw the very persistent legends of the Huns in Hungary as pointing to the Onogur Bulgars, or others to the Avars, or to a possible distant link with the actual Huns. Some examples of historians who perceive a link between the two peoples include:

Gyula Németh, Zoltán Gombocz, János Berze Nagy, Gyula László, Dezső Dümmerth, János Makkay, Mihály Hoppál and György Szabados, to name just a few.

This next bit is very serious and could be actual libel!

While the notion that the Hungarians are descended from the Huns has been rejected by mainstream scholarship … (false!) , the idea has continued to exert a relevant influence on Hungarian nationalism and national identity. A majority of the Hungarian aristocracy continued to ascribe to the Hunnic view into the early twentieth century. The Fascist Arrow Cross Party similarly referred to Hungary as Hunnia in its propaganda. The supposed Hunnic origins of the Hungarians also played a large role in the modern radical right-wing party Jobbik's ideology of Pan-Turanism.

This entire section is rubbish and says nothing of ethnography, musicology or historiography, therefore should be removed. It’s merely politics.

This very poor Wiki section goes on:

Members of the Hungarian right wing, with the support of the government of prime minister Viktor Orbán and academic institutions such as the Institute of Hungarian Research (Magyarságkutató Intézet, MKI), continue to promote Hungarian descent from the Huns.

This is modern political spin, and has nothing to do with the history or the actual legacy of the Huns, but rather daily politics. If this section claims to represent the legacy of the Huns in Hungary, then let it do that. I can help a lot with actual scholarship, but not ideological nonsense!

As for the MKI, I know many people who work there, and none of them claims either neo-Nazi ideology nor descent from the Huns. As this section could give rise to a libel suit, I suggest it be removed and replaced by actual Hunnic and Steppe heritage among Hungarians. Cavszabo (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:TLDR - but I notice an utter lack of sources and a potential WP:conflict of interest if you "know many people who work" at the MKI. The threat to sue is also laughable - let Orban and his cronies try.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)