Talk:Huns

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?

Burial practices
It seems to me that a section on what (we think) we know about Hunnic burial practices is in order. My question: does it belong in society and culture or material culture? It's clearly not actually an aspect of material culture, as it's a practice, but what we know about it is both how we derive our knowledge of Hunnic material culture and known through material culture. Thoughts?--Ermenrich (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, I know this: The very typical feature of the Asian Hun and European Hun cemeteries is the partial horse burials, almost in all Hun graves there are only remain of horses. Outside the Huns, only the Hungarians used partial horse burials. This ancient tradition that went through centuries, it is easily identifiable in the Huns and Hungarians graves. OrionNimrod (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

awkward sentence in lede?
to European tradition, they were first reported living east of the Volga River, in an area that was part of Scythia at the time;[1] the Huns' arrival in Europe is associated with the migration westward of an Iranian people, the Alans. No big issue but apart from wondering why this is not two sentences I am not sure readers will be able to understand the point about the Alans if they do not already know it. I suppose the intention is to mention that the Huns are seen as having caused other people to migrate? I am not really sure why this is in the lead. But it is an interesting point that they changed the demographic and political landscape in Eastern Europe, creating an ethnically diverse barbarian power centre on the Roman danubian frontier, but why only mention the Alans, and why tag this on the end of another sentence? Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm sure there was originally a reason for these things, but I don't remember what it was. Feel free to change as you see fit.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I couldn't decide on the best improvement: avoid the complication or spell the point out more. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The clause about the Alans is cited to Sinor (pp. 179–180), who says:


 * There can be no quarrel with the statement that, before their coming into contact with the Roman world, the Huns lived east of the Azov Sea, on the south Russian steppe, or perhaps even further east in the not clearly circumscribed, measureless lands of "Scythia," whence all bad things come. The first to bear the brunt of a Hun attack were the Alans nomadizing along the Don (Tanais), a people whose way of life was in many ways similar to that of the Huns, but who were not filled with the fury of aggression. The paucity of available information does not allow the compilation of a precise account of the clashes between Huns and Alans but it is clear that the former were victorious and that the surviving Alans joined the victors in their further warlike undertakings. These events took place in the early 370s. Carlstak (talk) 04:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Missing word in first paragraph
"By 430, they had established a vast, but short-lived, on the Danubian frontier of the Roman empire in Europe"

There seems to be a word missing between "short-lived" and "on" here. I'm guessing it should be either realm, kingdom, confederation etc., but I'm not knowledgeable enough about Hunnic history to say for sure. Can someone with more info add the right word? Lamaredia (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Fixed. My guess is it was removed by mistake during recent edits.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oops. That would be my fault indeed. Thanks Ermenrich.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2024
In the paragraph discussing cranial elongation, taking should be taken. “ with the argument that it was practiced by their nobility and then taking up by Germanic groups” HooterMcGavin (talk) 05:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks,, well spotted.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  06:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Hungarian links to the Huns
@Andrew Lancaster @Ermenrich you are most active two anti-vandal users in this article. so please look at this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Hungarian_sentiment&diff=prev&oldid=1233467944

User OrionNimrod has an agenda regarding the Huns, aiming to portray them as ancestors of the conquering Hungarians.

He claims that Serb, Slovak, and Romanian nationalists use the slur 'Mongol' against Hungarians due to their "Hun origin." His source does not mention anything about Huns and Hun ancestry.

Nations in Europe with Asian origins, such as the Finns and Turks, are also called 'Mongol' as a slur by foreigners. What evidence supports that Hungarians are descended from the Huns at this point? A medieval myth?

This article also denies any connection between Hungarians and the Huns. He tries to mislead users. 2A02:FF0:3316:5B87:C036:CAEA:45D1:7A01 (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, examples from “smart” Romanian nationalists who call Hungarians as “Mongol”:


 * lhttps://www.hungarianconservative.com/articles/current/romanian_football_fans_andorra_kosovo_anti_hungarian_mocking_greater_hungary_map_uefa_craiova/
 * Attacking a Hungarian military cemetery in Transylvania, 21 October 2023: https://media.szekelyhon.ro/pictures/0000001/0000095/nn_uzvolgye_2k23_ok_21_pnt_01.jpg “Barbarian Hungarians came from Mongolia and robbed our lands in 1290. After that, the Mongol-Hungarians also brought their families here.”
 * Asian Huns were in today Mongolia, Hungarian name including the Hun word and medieval documents claim Hungarian Hun connection. It does not matter is true or not in this case, but as we can see the ethnic slur come from this. Asia is very big, and slur for Hungarians is “Mongol” because of that and not “Chinese, Indonesian, Pakistanian, Afgan, Balinese…” OrionNimrod (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Such slurs may or may not give an indication of real history, but they are not a reliable source we can use. On WP we summarize what experts have published when writing carefully.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC) Note that my answer is written on the understanding that this question is about whether such slurs might be relevant to THIS article, which is about the real historical Huns.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)