Talk:Huns/Archive 3

Purported linguistic Xiongnu Hun connection
I've reverted that short paragraph again.

From the hunnic language, only names (of unknown meaning) and three words are preserved. From the Xiongnu language, only names and titles, and only in phonetic transliteration in Chinese are preserved. In both cases, there is no scientific consensus even to what type of language they spoke. I don't quite understand how under such circumstances, "recent research" can "connect" two items that are largely unknown, while still following established scientific principles. It seems that this is merely the speculation of just one individual of unknown qualification. It will need independent confirmation by other researchers (who actually agree with him, not just report "he said so") before it makes sense to mention it in the article. --Latebird (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with your reasoning and questions, but what you asked is exactly the point, that in these recent linguistic studies it was pointed out that those Hunnic words thought of Turkic origin so far have been found in Mongolian language too, along with a part of those words known from the Xiongnu language, and from these Turko-Mongolic linguistic relations it was figured out that those common words in both languages are of common origin from an another, separate language of a time that preceding that of the Huns, and also considering the other known Hunnic and Xiongnu words of unknown origin that aren't in either of the above languages, in lingustic terms, it can have only one explanation, that this common ancestor language of these words could be only the autonomous Xiongnu language from which the Hunnic descended (in the terms used by you, these "two unknown languages" are the same). Tough I know, but it's the science :). Have you even read the sources I mentioned? Those are reviewed academic (Routledge Academic Publisher, see Academic publishing) and university (Inner Mongolian University and Eötvös Loránd University Presses) sources based on works of a number of professors and scholars and each one has its own bibliography of references in it, so not just "one said so" type of things and thus I thougth that these are verifiable and reliable sources suiting the requirements of Verifiability and presenting such a very important school of thought what deserve one sentence (if not more) of mention in the article, and one sentence is not undue weight. Dzsoker (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've just read the interview with prof. Uchiraltu. While the translation (in horrible English) always uses the word "Huns", what Uchiraltu is talking bout are almost exclusively the Xiongnu. This makes the text extremely confusing to read, and gives a very false impression to someone who isn't aware of the difference (or doesn't care about it). The only time when he explicitly speaks about the "real" (European) Huns that this article is about, he simply admits that hardly anything is known about their language.


 * What he really did in his research, was to compare Xiongnu words with Göktürk inscriptions, and to a much larger extent Mongolian with Hungarian words. If that interview is any indication, then the Hunnic language doesn't really enter the picture, other than by pure conjecture. Even for the Xiongnu, he says that he can't decide whether their language was closer to Turkic or Mongolic.


 * If anything, then this is ongoing and unfinished research, and as such not suitable material for an Encyclopedia. --Latebird (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Why did you insert your reply above my second comment? It specifically addresses some of your "arguments". Firstly, the research is about Xiongnu words, and only marginally if at all about Hunnic ones (there are only 3 (three) hunnic words known that would be useful for comparison). It is really annoying how Hungarian sources use the word "Huns" for both, as if they tried to deliberately confuse the matter.
 * Secondly, just because something was printed by an "academic publisher" doesn't mean it reflects established knowledge. In fact, it is one of the purposes of such publishers to also print unconfirmed research theories, because other researchers need to be able to learn and comment about them. This is in contrast to Wikipedia, which explicitly avoids that and only includes what is established knowledge.
 * And third, just comparing a number of words between languages does not prove that they have a common origin. Compare the Altaic languages, where the Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic branches were at times thought to be genetically related, because they have many common words and even similar grammars. However, as of today, this theory has largely been rejected, for a varitey of reasons. Finding common words between Xiongnu and Altaic languages is simply to be expected, because they lived in the same geographical region. It needs a lot more to prove a connection that goes beyond that. --Latebird (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a note. The Altaic theory has most definitely not been largely rejected.  You've made it sound like Altaic has gone the way of the old Ural-Altaic theory, but that is a vast oversimplification of the state of Altaic as a language family.  Linguists still recognize some sort of relationship, especially between the "micro-Altaic" group (Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic).  The devil is in the details.  --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course the Altaic languages are related "somehow". But I don't think there are many people who still propose a genetic relationship even between those in the micro-Altaic group. --Latebird (talk) 09:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Just reading the interview of Uchiraltu in more detail... It seems to me that Prof. Uchiraltu is a Mongolian interested in finding proof of Mongolian descent from the Xiongnu.  This is why in the interview he talks about Mongolian and Hungarian words and the Xiongnu language being similar to early Mongol.  It looks like yet another perfect example of confirmation bias where evidence that doesn't support one's theory is avoided.  There is no talk about Chinese sources identifying the Mongols as descendants of the Donghu nor is there talk about how the Hungarian words that are cognate with Mongolian words are loans from an r-Turkic language.  Uchiraltu even goes so far as to appear in the interview to completely ignore the history of the Hungarian words he is researching.  This is because this evidence doesn't support Uchiraltu's theory of Xiongnu-Mongol continuity and Prof. Uchiraltu apparently has no arguments against that evidence. Disappointing scholarship.  And I was looking forward to some good new information on this subject.  --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Latebird:

Because I wrote that before your second comment. The professor used the word Huns in that interview not the Hungarian sources, they use the word hun for Hun and hiungnu for Xiongnu. But not the interview is important here but the linguistic studies published by him and the others. From your statements I ascertained you didn`t read either of the sources, or any of the mentioned studies, just speculating. This is not the way of dispute. I think we shouldn't involve ourselves in disproofing published works of linguist experts with our own thoughts, this would be original research. I can't even imagine that Wikipedia prohibits mentioning published recent studies and researches of experts. This is the main question here, not what we think about one thing or other.

So I disagree, but please lets reverse the direction of this dispute and focus on the content: Please explain which policies of Wikipedia does that sentence violate? If it violates any it should be removed, but if none it shouldn't, I think.

P.S. The current article is full of obvious errors even with nonsense sentences. Dzsoker (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Sborsody:

I think you may have missed the point and chronology of his research. He states that based on his 15 years of research he considered so far the Mongolian to the most related to the language of the Xiongnu. He knows very well that the Mongolians were the Xianbei (Donghu). (Before he got acquainted with the Hungarian language material, but it was just in 2006, so he could only make some quick overviews and begin the research with this new data.)

And it makes some sense, because he goes with the chronology of history, and consider the succession order in political meaning as the Xiongnu, Xianbei (Mongols), Huns, Turks. The Xianbei and the Turk were the subjects of the Xiongnu, and after the Xiongnu migrated westwards to became Huns, the Turks were the subjects of the Rouran and Touba, these last two are of Xianbei. And the point lies here, that those separate words of Hunnic and Xiongnu considered Turkic so far are in the Mongolian too and the proto-Turks were Xianbei subjects for almost five hundred years, so those dignity titles couldn't come from Turkic to Mongolian, only from the Xiongnu/Hun. And the Xiongnu words he has reconstructed from the ancient Chinese chronicles are connected more to Mongolian than to Turkic. What is logical also, because he considers the Mongolians much older people than the Turks as such, what is also true. And thus the Mongolians connect more to the Xiongnu than the Turks. And from these he has pointed out that the Xiongnu language and so also the Hunnic could not be Turkic for sure, and because of the other reconstructed words and from the Touba-Chinese dictionaries and other informations of the Chinese chronincles we can know that the Touba were Mongolian and their language was not Xiongnu, so it has only one explanation: that the Xiongnu also had an original language (and it was that of the Huns also).

And on the Hungarian words, he doesn't ignore the history of the Hungarian words he is researching at all, becase he considers a number of those were Xiongnu words too (but he just started the research with these as I mentioned above), from what they went to Turkic. And with his new Hungarian colleagues they have also found even such Xiongnu words in Hungarian with exact meanings and layouts which aren't either in Turkic or Mongolian and maybe such Hungarian words also which are not in the Turkish, only in Touba and both of those type of words have unknown etymologies in the established Uralic theory of the Hungarian language. But these new Hungarian related findings are not connected to his original Xiongnu/Hunnic theory, and on these there aren't much info in his book what collects his studies of the past 15 years of research which were published in the Inner Mongolian University Press from the second half of the 1990s.

"And I was looking forward to some good new information on this subject." you may should start with the other source I supported: from the interpreter of Uchiraltu book Dr.O.B. interview "for example Angela Marcantonio linguist, the professor of Cambridge University attracted the attention to a recent published summarywork. Therein Schönig writes at the chapter of Turkic-Mongolian collocations, that their common progenitors may had been the Huns or the post-Hunnic people" and in this article also a thorough critical overview of Altaic thing can be found "Generally, the more carefully the areal factor has been investigated, the smaller the size of the residue open to the genetic explanation has tended to become. According to many scholars it only comprises a small number of monosyllabic lexical roots, including the personal pronouns and a few other deictic and auxiliary items. For these, other possible explanations have also been proposed. Most importantly, the 'Altaic' languages do not seem to share a common basic vocabulary of the type normally present in cases of genetic relationship..." (pg. 403). Schönig, Claus. 2003. "Turko-Mongolic Relations," The Mongolic Languages. Ed. Juha Janhunen. Routledge. Pages 403-419.

P.S.: So I think this new school of thought can be mentioned in the article for as we can see from this conversation also, it provides important new informations on researches of specialists to the wide public. Dzsoker (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the reply. As I said, this is the impression I got from reading the interview unfortunately without having read the book.  Additionally, I urge you to look more into Angela Marcantonio, specifically other linguists' review of her work.  It makes grown men cry.   (Note User:Ante Aikio) and   At least in Altaics the proponents and opponents have been constructive to each other with their criticism where work like Marcantonio's just hinders progress in Uralics.  --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 03:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I knew those things) I've already read the second review you wrote, but what's your opinion about Claus Schönig and his article on Turko-Mongolic relations? Dzsoker (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll let you know when I find a copy to read. :) --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 04:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

STOP Sborsody
this guy want to remove Hun's Turkic identity, he also once claimed that Huns were Iranian tribe!!!: damn!!! those were the days my friend--195.174.23.184 (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Good joke, anonymous! And if it were true that I once claimed Huns were Iranian, prove it instead of spreading false rumors.  --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * OH! Hi Orkh! It was you who first said that I was claiming Huns were Iranians in Talk:Huns.  You couldn't prove it then and you can't prove it now.  --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

hi, Borsody, you again back on job, i wish you ll be in the way, but destroying the Turkic roots in the first paraghraph is not the solution. it cant be removed. how could it be destroying Norse roots of Vikings? right? its the same, brother.--195.174.23.184 (talk) 08:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * To you it may be the same. The difference is that the Norse roots of the Vikings is supported by direct evidence whereas such evidence is found to be greatly lacking for the Huns.  --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Another problematic sentence
"Many clans may also have claimed to be Huns..." Saying "many clans" is somewhat weaselish. We should be able to say which clans. Does anyone have the Walter Pohl source? The preview on books.google doesn't display all the pages. Even worse, this line may be a direct copy from that source. It must be checked. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 06:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Language of the Huns
In the article itself, Otto Maenchen-Helfen's reference is used where it is said that supposedly the number of Turkish words in the Hunnic language was very small...in the same reference if the conclusions page is observed it says otherwise...so if someone could please re-edit the language of the Hun's it would be more appropriate for Wikipedia. Here is the link http://www.kroraina.com/huns/mh/mh_11.html. Cheers. 190.26.88.84 (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hrm, that seems like an oversimplification of the conclusion, which says, "To judge by the tribal names, a great part of the Huns must have spoken a Turkish language.... The personal names give a different picture." --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree in that it is a little simplified but in the wikipedia article it says completely the opposite saying that the names and words in Turkish were very small but if the whole Otto Maenchen-Helfen's study is analysed even in the conclusion it is possible to observe that the number of names in Turkish is greater than the names in other languages in addition to the tribal names. In the article the the only mention of Maenchen-Helfen's work says 'The number of Hun names which are certainly or most probably Turkish is small' whereas the the whole section about tribal names and the results that show most of names appear to be Turkish is not even mentioned and if wikipedia is supposed to be a successful encyclopedia all relevant and significant information should be included. Thanks. 190.26.88.84 (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Its Turkic, not Turkiish

'Visigoths' and 'Ostrogoths'
Is it not incorrect to speak of Visi- and Ostro-Goths prior and during the Hun era. They were rather known as Greuthingi and Tervingi. Visigoths and Ostrogoths appear after the collapse of the Hun Empire Hxseek (talk) 09:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hungary and the Huns
The article states: "The Magyars (Hungarians) in particular lay claim to Hunnic heritage." How accurate is this statement? Norvo (talk) 04:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you asking how accurate it is that the Magyars lay claim to Hunnic heritage or are you asking how accurate the claim is? --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 04:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the unintended ambiguity. I was concerned about the accuracy of the claim that Magyars seriously assert Hunnic heritage, not whether such assertions are anthropologically accurate. If the answer is yes, then it would also be useful to have some information on how widespread the claim is among Magyars. A source would be useful, too. Norvo (talk) 02:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say that some Hungarians do think this. It was widely believed in the 19th century and perpetuated by the famous Géza Gárdonyi novel, The Invisible Man which is about Attila and the Huns. I doubt that the belief is widespread among educated folks today. We call ourselves Magyar; the term Hungarian used outside Hungary has, as far as I know, no connection to the Huns; the similarity is a coincidence. I can't remember the details of where I read this, but it was supposedly used by a Byzantine monk-explorer in a 5th-6th century or so manuscript for the tribal association led by or called the Onoghurs (or Onogurs). The Magyar tribes were members of this association. When the Magyar tribes left this association and migrated to the present-day Hungary around the 9th century the name stuck. Possible further linguistic evidence for this is the Russian term for Hungarians, Венгр (approximate English pronunciation Wengher). And of course the German term for Hungary is Ungarn.kovesp (talk) 01:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Pre-Attila period
There were no Visigoths or Ostrogoths in the 4th century. They were formed after the collapse of the Huns, ie in 5th century A.D. rather, they were Greuthingi and Tervingi Hxseek (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Archeology vs. Mythology
It's curious to read that because there are no modern archeological data to confirm the claim that the Huns are part of the XiongNu tribe who migrated out of Mongolia in the 1st century AD after they were defeated by the Han Chinese, the "modern scholars" in the West reverted to the 6th century AD Gothic claim that the Huns were a savage race descended from "witches and evil spirits". Good thinking, whoever the "modern scholars" are! Even though Chinese kept detailed records and their history clearly identified the Huns as the branch of XiongNu who refused to sumbit to Han and migrated west to crush less formidable foes, even though there are many cultural similarities and identical military strategies between the Huns, the XiongNu, and the Mongols, it's not sufficient proof for the "western scholars". Sounds rather like "racism" at work here. --VimalaNowlis (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No. Sounds like your theory is baseless and at a primary school level. The Chinese said all northern barbarians were descended from the Xingnu, like all ROmans called people from the Pontic steppe Scythians. Just labelling on the part of Chinese sources. Huns cannot be "descended" from Xiongnu. Apart from lack of any concrete evidence, the Xiongnu was a political entity, not a "race", or anthropoligcal type. When the Xiongnu federation ended, then that was it. ANother clan took over. That there are similarities means little, as all steppe nomads had a similar culture. Doesn;t mean they were all born to one mother in the Altay mountains ! Get real Hxseek (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Chinese did not say all northern peoples were descended from the Xiongnu. What proof do you have that they were not their own ethnic group? Claiming such suggests that they must have spoken many different languages and that there was no Xiongnu language because there was no Xiongnu people. --Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 09:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It's no secret. All such groups from the western Eurasia to the east were no discretly bound peoples, but nomadic confederacies which formed, unformed and re-formed numerus times. Because of their location (ie Mongolia) and the similar 'savage' nomadic lifestyle, the Han simply often caled all subsequent groups descendents of the Xiongnu. Hxseek (talk) 08:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no mention in their historical books about the other tribes being descended from the Xiongnu (not in Book of Tang or Book of Zhou. Can you provide a source for this claim?) They do say the Xiongnu are descended from Wolves though --Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 19:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

HUNS=TURKS, TURKS=HUNS
Huns were the original Asian Turkic nomads!!! i didnt see their ethinicy in the page, where are the editors, are they sleeping? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.101.253.75 (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Everything about Huns in wikipedia is completely FALSE.Just check the maps.Huns have never been in area near the Baltic sea.Since the ice age, the eastern part of it is populated by Baltic tribes.Who wrote all this nonsense ?

didnt the huns attack some of the baltic tribes??? im probably completely wrong, but i thought they did.67.177.121.141 (talk) 22:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)SK

Hunai' are 'guniai/ganiai' Baltic people. This name gunai/guniai/pogonia(the herald of Lithuania and Gudia-Belorussia) means people riding horses and hunting/catching/sheparding herds. JUST CHECK THEIR NAMES. Atila (Eitila or Vaidila means the chief ruler or chief priest), Rugila (a rye), Uldinas (Gulbinas means a male swan), Dengizikas (Danguzhiukas means a child who belongs to heavens), Irnik (Stirniukas means a little roe), Hernak (Sherniukas means a little boar), Ellac (Elniukas means a little deer), Nedava (not giving), Sava (ours), Margus (pied/varicoloured), Bleda (Briedis means a male moose)''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.173.120 (talk) 10:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Just check the names" is a main method of the folk etymology. 94.21.155.224 (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Real and true map with finno-ugric, baltic and other tribes.
http://www.vaidilute.com/books/gimbutas/figure-36.jpg

As you see, Huns have populated at least 4 times smaller regions, far to east, never in Europe.

Therefore it's non usable to judging of where huns live in other times. 94.21.155.224 (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This figure depicts a singe time preriod (of when?), showing movemets of the hun tribes.

Is this map of the huns acurate?

 * As I know right, also the list below, but those periods are not shown on this map. I think to have a better map of Huns, it must be scanned then I'll upload. Privateer of Hungary 20:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This 'hunok.jpg' is unfinished/unusable. It has disfigured borderlines, and 7 colors in the legend but only 1 in the picture. 94.21.155.224 (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The map in the article is inaccurate. As someone mentioned, the huns never occupied up to the baltic. They might have raided the area, but their base was limited to area of hungary to black sea Hxseek 12:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

-But is the map I posted more accurate? (N33 06:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC))

Why is there a tendency to avoid the term, Turkic, in the first paragraph?
The man who associated (European) Huns with Xiongnu (Asian Huns), Joseph de Guignes, said both people were Turkic. Why is there a tendency to give a wrong impression?--Mttll (talk) 08:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Mttll, because they dont want to see Turkic civilation texts in here wikipedia. because they are fascist pan-aryan losers. and also see the Xiongnu page. they re-write and fulled the page with tons of bullshit. everybody knows the Xiongnu (Doğu Hun) were proto-Turks but they removed sources and nobody take care about it. --195.174.23.184 (talk) 12:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem has always been with the wording. Writers such as Orkh (195.174.23.184 above) wrote in absolutes with regards to the Turkic characteristics of the Huns when the debate by scholars on this is still ongoing, despite what De Guignes wrote so long ago.  Thompson (1996) doesn't even really go into the subject of whether they were Turkic or not and instead focuses on the Huns themselves, starting their history at the point when they enter Roman sources.  It seems like every time mention is made of the possibility of the Huns being Turkic, some writer gets offended and tries to change the meaning to be absolute one way or another.  Or weird sentences are made like "core of aristocracy".  This is also true of the Xiongnu article where scholarly debate on the Xiongnu being Turkic is also still ongoing.  Orkh would be surprised to learn that I personally believe the Huns were Turkic, but he sees in me instead some sort of pan-aryan facsist because he is unable to divorce his own personal opinion from the goals of Wikipedia to provide well-research encyclopedic NPOV articles.  --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but if wikipedia was the collective of very fair and open minded people, i wouldnt react like that.. see Xiongnu page and see what does Wikipedia mean for!--195.174.23.184 (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This is because Xiongnu were not Turks. They came much earlier in history than the Gokturks, who created an empire during Tang dynasty in China. Xiongnu split into two tribes, north and south. Northern migrated westward (into Europe) and the Southern stayed and settled in Shaanxi province in northern central China. Turks are Turks, Mongols are Mongols, and Xiongnu are neither. They are much more ancient, and as a result, most likely influenced Turks, Mongols, and others who did not establish empires until much later or even have any unification among their tribes. Even Gokturks were not the original group of Turks(e.g. Uighur, Kyrgyz, and some others were not part of them). Turkish nationalists and extremists like to make such claims although it has nothing to do with their history.
 * I think the section about the bid for a "Hun minority" in Hungary should be removed, as it was several years ago that a group of crackpots came up with this idea to try to avoid paying taxes, nothing else. This has nothing relevent to do with Hun identity or culture. If there is a section for this, there should be one about Turkish Gray Wolves and other nationalists who like to claim descent from the Huns as well...--218.20.120.78 (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Should it be that 'Turkic' people are 'Hunnic' people's rather than the other way around? 'Hun' (or Xiongnu which was pronounce 'Huni') preceded the name 'Turk' (Tujue) by a few hundred years according to Chinese history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.185.78 (talk) 07:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, assuming that they were the same people, however that's part of the basis for refuting the assertion that Turks are descended from Huns. They were not. The Huns created an empire much earlier than the Turks, who took over hundreds of years after the Huns left. Many Turkish nationalists even try to claim that Native Americans are Turks. Tibetans also lived as steppe nomads before adopting Buddhism, and Koreans were originally nomads from Siberia as well. No one tries to claim them as being Turkic/Mongolic/Tungusic. They are separate people, as were the Huns. Yes, it is entirely possible that the Altaic branch is bigger than just the 3 aforementioned groups. --Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 09:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

--- In terms of the citizens per se, the Xiongnu were a confederacy of tribes, unified under a single governing military system, somewhat an umbrella term maybe? like how Central Asians were called Mongols in the 12-13th century, whereas today Mongol only means those from Mongolia (though it could have possibly largely also referenced Altaic-speakers which in my strong opinion is correct - given there is hardly historically any other common languages in the Ordos/Altai regions other than Altaic or Sinic (vastly much fewer Yinesian or Indo-European). The question probably just is how closely related the ruling class of the Huns in Europe, were to the rulers of Xiongnu. Were the European Huns rulers direct descendants, unrelated, or descendants of a remote second cousin once removed. Likely, they were culturally the same but with only distant common ancestry (i.e. both likely turkic). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.154.193 (talk) 09:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Huns in India
There is no reference in this article to the Huns in India. As far as I have read, they were a significant presence there, especially in Rajasthan. (See Rima Hooja's History of Rajasthan for example.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.176.153 (talk) 07:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hepthalites were non-Hunnic (by blood) mostly originally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.154.193 (talk) 09:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Attila
I'm surprised that there's so little about the Huns during the reign of Attila on this page. I mean, I know he has his own article, but considering how he's the first thing people think of when they hear "Hun", you would think his section would be bigger. 14 February 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.116.83 (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Article date nomenclature
Richard, you changed the dating format of this article twice, first partially and the a few months later you changed the entire article. Why did you do this?

First partial change with no mention:

14:36, 24 September 2009 Richard Keatinge (talk | contribs) (39,064 bytes) (added quotations from Jordanes - even though he may never have seen a Hun) (undo)

Complete change done 6 weeks later: 16:59, 9 November 2009 Richard Keatinge (talk | contribs) (39,862 bytes) (standardized dating format - CE) (undo)

From what I can see, you half modified the dating systems in September so that the article was partially using a mix of AD/BC & CE/BCE (mostly AD/BC) and then six week slater you changed the remainder of the article to fit with the system you added... You have not shown a substantive reason for changing the dating system and this article has been AD/BC from the first entry.

Monsieur Voltaire (talk)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Monsieur Voltaire (talk • contribs) 22:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Investigating... it seems that I added Jordanes, with his date in CE without even thinking about it (or remembering that I'd done so), then changed the rest of the article some weeks later for consistency. No upset intended, sorry - it's not even as if I care significantly about date formats, certainly not enough to argue about it. Feel free to apply any consistent format that you may prefer. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry if i came across accusatory in tone. I feel strongly about this only because I have noticed an agenda amongst many editors/contributors to change dating. Your knowledge and contributions to this article and others is exemplary and very much appreciated by people like myself looking to learn. Monsieur Voltaire (talk)


 * My apologies also - I was definitely too hasty with the revert. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Mukhamadiev article, include brief mention or not?
The inscription on the Khan Diggiz plate is interpreted by Mukhamadiev as giving the name of a known Hunnic king, son of Attila, in a form of Turkish.

- This seems somewhat relevant, but it has been removed because it is "are unconfirmed and unreviewed, and aren't included in any of the newer enycyclopedias and other articles about the Huns, despite it appeared 14 years ago." What do other editors think? Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Huns are the first known turkish state
Huns, are the first known turkish nomads, that has been discovered, why cant you say that? Please reflect History as it is, I hope this is a respectable website, then a political one. If you like to read more and ask for more evidence there is plenty of them!!! Attilla is a turkish name too, turkish has been a culture since 5,000 years, you can still see the turks in central asia such as Uzbeks, kazakhs
 * Turkish has been a culture since 5000 years?Maybe they build the pyramids also?And sumeria and china is also originally turkish probably?Funny that turks first are heard off, for about 1500 years ago.I wonder about this evidence.Probably the historical evidence is located in nowadays Turkey.Dont look a the backside of the evidences,probaly there is written made in taiwan there.The huns were of unknown orign,probably a snowball effect over the steppes, a mixed bunch.


 * You are an idiot. I am a chinese I know that our historian recorded huns from 300 BC until 220 AD, when the Han dynasty collapsed and new normadic tribes driven the huns out of the mongolian plateau. And Turks came in around 600 AD after united all the normadic tribes in the mongolian steppe. East turkish empire were beaten by the Tang dynasty and driven out of the mongolian steppe by some other normadic tribes, then there comes to the western turkish empire, the later were terminated around 200 years later. Mongolian are the latest tribe that united all the normadics in the mongolian empire in 13 century. Huns, Turks and Mongolian are three out of countless normadic tribes that established great nation and caused the migration of people. However, I don't believe the turk language is similar to the Huns because the Turkish language is not mutually intelligible with the mongolian! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.117.228.62 (talk) 11:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The Biggest Scandal of Wikipedia
The Huns who dress, speak, look a like of 100% old Turks, are shown like the Slavs or Germans in the Huns page of wiki... congratulations to editors and the wiki family for this stupidness u suckz —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.233.18.59 (talk) 09:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Where does it say the Huns are Slavs or Germans? -- Stbalbach 18:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Saying the Huns were 100% Turks is akin to saying the population of the United States is Roman because the title of the ruler president comes from Latin or that the population is Greek since the name of our current president comes from Greek. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 15:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

217.12.62.106 22:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)::HUN-GARY. A pretty big scandal, it's true. For a while, there were some partially right usefull remarks on Huns at this place. I self also tried to contribute 2006 with my knowledge about latest development of several old and new trends in the ONLY COUNTRY in the WHOLE WORLD, that in FACT bears the NAME of HUNS, i.e. HUNGARY, where I am living. Who to the hell dares to delete such work?

Herewith I kindly ask all highly stupid nationalistic fanatics to shedup their faces with any foreign so-called projects, since HUNS indeed DID leave their originating Eastern territories (and that at a time when nobody heard a single funny tune about peoples living now there), and after sudden death of Attila their main groups become dissolved in the Carpathian Basin, Central Europe, counting yet some thousand here. Sure, Huns are neither slavic, nor germanic, but also not turkic. Try to understand, NOT ALL of the possibly some dozen smaller or greater nations originating from West or Central/Inner Asia and then migrating far west, must be "automaticly" turkic, even not, when they dressed likely. Similarly, e.g. also Jesus or Greeks are NOT "turkic", etc. Finaly, we find research on archeology, epigraphics, texts like letters, historiae, annales, mt.DNA, etc.

Thus, the "turkic project" should better include for example kurdic history, I recommend, and leave the Huns in and for Hungary, where they belong to. OK? Anadolu and Turks alone are great in history, they do not need to "rape" other cultures. Salem -Privateer from Hungary


 * Hi 217.12.62.106. From the main page:
 * The names "Hun" and "Hungarian" sound alike, but they have different linguistic background (etymology). The name "Hungarian" is derived from a Turkish phrase "onogur" which means "ten tribes", which possibly refers to a tribal covenant between the different Hungarian tribes that moved into the area of today's Hungary at the end of the 9th century.DenizTC 04:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Denizz: Maybe it can be heard one times in Turkey when I repeat: We "Hungarians" are rather Magyars, with some roots and genes(!), i.e DNA of Magyars, some of Huns, Iranian, etc. and then it is us quite equal, if Turks call it "Hungarian" (in English?). On the other side "Onogur" may mean 10 tribes, but unfortunatelly the Huns called theyselves not so, we call ourselves not so, and nobody calls either Huns or Magyars so. Thus, they are in fact not Onogurs. Onogurs were another bulgaro-turkic mixing living in another area, i.e. NOT with Huns or Magyars, and later splitting in early Bulgars, and Turks wandering forth different ways. Privateer from Hungary

Or, the explanation put forth by Benedek Elek: When the Magyars invaded Pannonia, one of the first fortresses they captured was called Ung. In Hungarian, fortress is vár, and the locative case is marked by the suffix -i. Therefore, someone from the fortress of Ung would be an "Ung-vár-i" in Hungarian, which when latinized, became the basis for the word "Hungary." Korossyl 06:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't know. Please check also Hungarian_people. If this Benedek Elek is a reliable source, you might want to update those sections. If not, these are just speculations, hearsays, we can't have them. The explanation seems a little bit stretchy. DenizTC 08:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Benedek Elek was a lovely story-teller for the youth, I also loved, but by no means a historian, You can check it on this authentic site: http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedek_Elek. His books on Hun(garian) mythology and translations from Grimm Brothers, etc., are very popular today too, however not to use here.


 * The "Fortress of Ung" etymology is a folk etymology originating back to the Middle Ages. If I recall right, it comes from Simon Kezai's Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 15:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Right; Benedek wrote at the beginning of the 20th century, when the Hun-Magyar connection was a given. Wikipedia would not consider him a reputable source; I happen to believe him. I was just showing our nationalist friend that among the foremost minds on the "Huns are Hungarians" side, there is still no proposed etymological connection. Korossyl 17:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Nobody said and no one say Huns are Hungarians or vica versa. Sure, Huns were no Turks too. But latest in about 500-400 B.C. meet many peoples of the stepp in North of Black Sea, so Huns and Magyars (and Awars, etc. see also Sauromathia, Khazaria, Kagante) - we can consider following close contacts (mutual actions, genetic mixage, exchange of words) till dead of Western Hun Attila A.D. 435 in his "Hunnic headquarter" the territory of today Hungary (between rivers Duna=Danube and Tisza, with today's memorial)We can also be rather sure by archeology and of written sources, that Magyars were partially and/or occasionally invaded the Carpathian basin in one or two waves "before" final settling there A.D.893.

Thus, some "Hungarians" must be in fact descendant of Hun. Consider too, older sources mention some gens of old world with not true, i.e. other names. We self call ourselves also not "Hungarians", but "Magyars". Besides an important remark toward so-called "Turkic project": No lexica knows anything, or mention any trace about "Turks" before! A.D.600 - quite similar e.g. to "Slaves", evidently by reason of lack of such epigraphics in sources. Therefore Bulgaro-turkic history is another one, having much less, if any at all, to do with Hun-Magyar history in that early period of time. Turkic writer here are unfortunatelly nationalistic blinds, the whole world should be of turkic origin - ridiculous. Privateer from Hungary

nobody wants you to convert turkish. 70 million people is enough for us:) but Huns were one of the biggest Turkic empire in history. its your choice to own this empire. i dont want to say further things about your ancestry. in here its honour to be from Turkic or Turkish, and i dont care whats the meaning of this in europe.--Orkh (talk) 06:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

'''Everbody HUNS=HUNGARİAN thats big nonsense...FOR EXAMPLE: Frenchs are not Germen.But The name of French comes from Germen tribes name.And everbody knows Bulgars were Turk(PROTO-TURKS) Bulgar word also Turkish word.But today they are SLAV.And SLAV .. Slav(SLOVEN) just tribes name But TODAY.And TATARS are TURKİC but Tatar word comes from Mogol tribes name. And Whats meaning of HUN? Tukurgur unogur-Onugur-HUNUGUR. OGUR means=in Turkish ARROW. TEN ARROW. Please everybody can research that and also Byzantine Empire,Sabar Turks,Bulgars,and History of Magyars. And magyars must accept that Turkic tribes were inside Magyars. AND Tell me Who is your Fascist leader ? "KONT PAL TELEKİ" your former prime minister. And He said: We are part of TURAN. He was president of FEDERATİON OF MAGYAR TURAN İF anybody dont know TURAN=PANTURKİSM   ........... İf magyars wants to be Turk of course BECAUSE HUNS=TURK'''   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.230.61.156 (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually the French people are Germans. Well, mostly a mix of Germans, Celts and Italians. Who are all decisively related anyway. So that isn't a good example to cite when talking about the false belief that Hungarians are Huns.

before being a solid kingdom the european huns conquared hungarian lands and used there as an basement.time by time this land called hungary..magyars and bulgarians are tribes that came from east to current hungarian and bulgarian lands many years after the fall of european hunnic kingdom..through the history they become slavic tribe..so current hungarians are not the grand children of huns..and by the way the huns were a strong and warrior tribe where came from central asia and possibly grand father of the current turks lives on republic of turkey and other nations which races are brother with turkey turkishs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.176.100.236 (talk) 01:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Seriously, I don't know why turkishs want to "enter" in the history of Europe and almost all european countries. It's not just this article, they are in many articles about history and trying to "put down" this theories. As an example above, Bulgars =! Bulgarians. So, Bulgars have a proto-Turkic origin, but Bulgarians are a miscegenation between Bulgars and the Slavs "invaders" who came after. Leonardomio (talk) 13:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

We dont need to enter anywhere... only you cant handle your reality... you much rather get related to vikings... because you want to feel so christian and so beatiful about yourself... not that we really care about it in Turkey... but stop tempering with our history for your racial and religious ends... as far as we are concerned you can get related to Eskimos or Gypsies... We are already in the history not only in Europe... all the way to North America (We crossed Berring Channel)and we even have similar words with American indians and Japanese people not to mension the grammar... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.185.107 (talk) 10:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

All the pages about huns, attila and his empire were more accurate before, but it seems some racists cleared all the sentences about hun-turkic origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.173.238.144 (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The "Onoghur" suggestion is merely a suggestion and not a scholarly consensus. The Chinese today even refer to Hungary as "Xiongyali"(匈牙利), bearing the name of the Xiongnu, and there are many Chinese scholars such as Wang Shiping Lin Gan, and Wang Zu (including some Mongolian professors such as Professor Uchiratu) who believe the Hungarians are the descendants of the Huns.

Hungary could also be Hun Oghur, or "Hun tribes", rather than "ten tribes", since after all, Hungary has an H, while Onoghur doesn't.--Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously the Huns in history that destroyed the Roman empire have nothing to do with the turks and that is for sure! the Turks first appeared in Chinese history book at about 600AD, when the turks build their first empire, and that is the time 100 years after the Huns disappeared! I do believe the Huns language belong to Altai language family but that doesn't mean turks are similar with Huns. Turks are turks and turks can't even communicate with one other famous altai language Mongolian! besides that, Huns appeared much earlier than the Islam. I have no idea about the north american indigenos, and I can also claim that chinese history entered the north america too because we are also mongoloids, that just sounds nonsense! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.117.228.62 (talk) 12:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

20th-century use in reference to Germans
Here's another 20th century use of "Huns" to mean Germans. In 1909, The US President (Taft?) sent troops to Nicaragua, ostensibly to protect from the Huns. This was because Nicaragua's President (Zelaya?) was opening up trade with Europe, starting with Germany. I don't have a reference right now, but I think the article should mention this. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Huns are basically Mongolians
How often there is historical revisionism and claim that Huns are "Germanic" people, it still cannot remove the truth that Huns (the leaders at least) originated fully in Mongolia. People need to look at this in terms of history. In history there was no borders. It was just land, people come and go. There are Hun genes in Germany and throughout Europe. That is a fact because they overrun Europe regardless of borders. Huns are Mongols. If you want to know Hun, Xiongnu history and lifestyle, read more on the Mongols. That will give you plenty of info into Hun and Xiongnu period. Main reason was, Xiongnu was devastated by China during Sino-Xiongnu War and they left west. 184.96.104.50 (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

There's little historical or linguistic evidence to show that "Huns" are Mongolian. HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan

Turkic language thesis
I cannot find "it was a Turkic language" in Frucht, Richard C., Eastern Europe, (ABC-CLIO, 2005), 744. This book said Huns, a Turkic people from Asia..... Is this book without quotation Identifying reliable sources about this issue? Maybe we can use Otto Maenchen-Helfen, The World of the Huns for this thesis. Takabeg (talk) 10:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Without much reliable source I am inclined to think that Huns were a mixture of Middle Asian people. But one thing about their name must be noted. Kun in proto Turkic meant sheep (modern Turkish Koyun) and sheep was very important in the life of all nomads. In later centuries there were empires named after sheep (i.e., White Sheep Turcomans Ak koyunlu). Well it proves nothing. But the name Hun may somehow be related to proto Turkic. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)08:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Hun" means person in Mongolian language. "Ter hun" = "that person." Click on Xiongnu Russian and Mongolian language wikipedia Xiongnu. Xiongnu is pronounced "Hsuing-nu," and coupled with Mongolian "hun" and possibly pronounced differently by others became "Hun" pronounced "Hoan"/Haon" in English or "huin" in "Mongolian. It is pronounced with "u" in the Mongolian language like "Hiun" or "Huin" or "Huinui." All Altaic languages in history probably sounded similar. I'm not trying to claim that these were Mongolians, they could also be Turkic because of the same Altaic language. Just a thought. Strategically and generally speaking, the Altaic warriors in general followed the same style of warfare. For instance, the Mongol Empire leaders were basically Mongolians and their subjects were different people. This probably could apply to the Huns. Their leaders usually didn't die in warfare because they observed from afar. When the soldiers died, they needed more troops and they absorbed people as they went along. That was certainly the case for Golden Horde. That is why there is great doubt and confusion about the identity of the Huns in general. Mongol Empire was a Mongol and Turkic empire. It wasn't all Mongols, probably same applies to Huns. I can't think of single similar word "Attila" to any Mongolian language word, because these people absorbed and changed as they went along. Their earlier ancestors might have had names that might sound similar to Mongolian languages. Just a thought. "Sheep" is called "honi" in Mongolian language also, so it is similar to Turkic version. In Middle Mongolian it might've been "koni" but now it is just "honi". 07:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)65.102.206.39 (talk) 07:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

"simply have no idea"
The sentence is a pure comment. The guy who wrote it may have no idea, but science has. Etienne de la Vaissiere cites a number of archeological evidences. --CenkX (talk) 08:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for removing the sentence, which I agree is an un-necessary elaboration of what the source said. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ptolemy
The translation of the Greek "Χουνι", in which Ptolemy wrote, to english or latin, is Huni, not Chuni! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.166.99.192 (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Origin
My perspective is not a nationalist's perspective. Because I'm not a nationalist. So, please don't be offensive.

I do think that Huns were a Turkic confederation of tribes with a few Persian, Mongolian and Gothic (and maybe Slavic) tribes and those tribes had already dissolved amongst Hunnic people. Their language was the Z-branch of the old Turkic which means it was not a part of R-branch-(especially Chuvash Turkic). Check out Talat Tekin's (U. of Cali., Berkeley) and Németh's (Hungarian academician) works. Have a nice day.F.Mehmet (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think so it was a blend. The same question is what language did Golden Horde Mongols/Turkics spoke. Did they spoke Middle Mongolian, Turkish language, mixed borrowed words language, etc. They settled in their respective regions and their dialects and words and everything was absorbed, moved, deleted, fused, etc. 67.177.203.207 (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

the Hungars
I believe there is a problem with this word in English. I've never seen it. If anything it ought to refer to the Hungarians, but I've never seen it used of them either. It comes up because apparently Hungars redirects to this article. It isn't mentioned in the article. There is a place in Virginia of this name. I can't see how you would confuse Hungars with Huns. Editor, would you shed some light on this please? Otherwise I propose we just remove the hatnote and redirect Hungars to the place in Virginia.Dave (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Link with Xiongnu
I have removed the following comment: "A link with the Xiongnu is based on an implausible name link, and two groups separated by chronological gap of three centuries. No historical documents actually link the Huns with the Xiongnu.

Arguements in favour of a link with the Xiongnu, a central-Asian, and an "ethnically" Turkic origin based on linguistic affinity are problematic. The attribution of Hunnic to Turkic is based on only fragmentaory evidence of Hunnic language, mostly reliant on proper nouns, a method often criticized by linguists. Even if Hunnic does truly represent a Turkic language, then its appearance to the Eurasian steppe need not have been brought to the west Eurasian steppe specifically by the Huns, as language spread is not solely the result of migratory movements. What is certain is that East Gothic was the spoken idiom amongst the various groups of the pax.

Based on a Xiongnu origin, the Huns are given a pre-history which did not exist. The Huns which feature in Late Antiquity Europe formed in the steppes of eastern Europe, not central Asia."

I'm not saying that I disagree with any of this, but we do need reliable sources. For all of it, but in particular for the "implausibility" of the name link. Whatever I think of it, plenty of people have found it very plausible. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

HUNS were 100% MONGOLIANS for sure
Hun in the Mongolian language means human and there are leftovers for the descendants (Mongolians) which is written down in UIGURJIN which is old Mongolian Script. There is no doubt about Huns. Mongolians also calls their great Ancestors HUNNU one of the leader who fled to Europe was Attilla khaan and still the main Huns were at the origin (Mongolia) their leader were Modune Shaniu and his son Tumen Shaniu. Tumen in the Mongolian language means many, thousands of. Folks who are saying or connecting Huns to China might paid by Chinese govt. because China is doing everything to say that Mongolians were their province. Mongolians were never part of Chinese ever since the times of Hunnu, Sumbe, Tureg. Once upon a time China was province of Mongolia eventhough Mongolians had fewer mans. There is a record that 10.000 mongolian soldiers Beat 400.000 men chinese army. China got our traditional throughsong KHUUMII from Unesco as their traditional thing. But it were never chinese. They might be knowing it from 10 years ago. But we had it since Huns. Every Mongolians hate chinese. Now China's trying to steal our traditional Morin Khuur as their own whats wrong with them some say that China is in a process of taking over Mongolia for 1000 year. Chiniese call this idea as a Black box idea of taking over Mongolia. Once Upon a time we had taken over whole known land which is Europe and asia we had been to india 40 years before first European reach. Everyone must know about blue dot which is called Mongolian blue dot which appears on the ass. It appears on Hungarians, koreans, and in few more country telling they are wholly mixed with Mongolian blood. Some Russians say themselves we are nothing if we hadn't Mongolian blood. For sure Mongolia is biggest spread nation in the world. estimately half of the people of the earth had mixed with Mongolian blood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.170.81.210 (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Utterly ridiculous. Seek psycho-therapy. HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan

if huns are mongolians ,then greeks, bulgarians and germans are mongolians too since both bulgaria and byzantine become a mongolian state under Gengis khan. not to forget that Huns were older than mongolians and they were never lived under mongollian rule.we are talking about real history right here.not some made up mytology nations by european empires. Huns are older than mongolian nation. please check out anav culture in asia and turkemenistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.31.38 (talk) 11:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Language of the Huns
continuing from archive 3. from the quote:        "I agree in that it is a little simplified but in the wikipedia article it says completely the opposite saying that the names and words in Turkish were very small but if the whole Otto Maenchen-Helfen's study is analysed even in the conclusion it is possible to observe that the number of names in Turkish is greater than the names in other languages in addition to the tribal names. ..." - 190.26.88.84 (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The main problem with that and all the similar things, that they are mere speculations, and so without any evidence, their scientific value is near to zero. Even that is possible that all those names, considered and written as Turkish by Maenchen-Helfen or others, were absolute not that, but from a completely different langauge. Similarly, the conclusion on the tribal names also seems to be almost absurd, when saying they are Turkic, because four tribal names contain the Ugor word. That's nice, but to me those would suggest that they were exactly that: Ugors, i.e. proto-Hungarians, not Turks. Dzsoker (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think Hunnic language was blend of Mongolic and Turkic mixed to some extend with the other languages. The reason is if the Hunnic language was "Germanic" people would've figured that out by now. If the language was fully Turkish, people would've figured that out by now. Because of the remoteness of the Mongolian language, I think people get confused which language Huns spoke. I think Hunnic language was close to Middle Mongolian with varies words borrowed from others. There is some question of Xiongnu language and what it was because of lack of clear record, but if it wasn't Swedish, English, Turkish, it must've been a language that is not close to them. I think it was paleo-Mongolic, Xiongnu, Middle-Mongolian variety and changed throughout history and became morphed. 67.177.203.207 (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Our intro is a little too condensed and hence a bit confused. That's true some of the Goths were forced to ally with the Huns. So were many other peoples speaking many different languages. Thus the Battle of Chalons was as much European against European as it was Huns against anybody. But, I think accuracy would require that we distinguish between the original language of the Huns, spoken by Attila, and languages that came to be (briefly) in the pax of which the intro speaks. It did not last long. So, the issue really is, what was that original Hunnic language? When Attila gave orders to his most trusted men in the middle of Hungary, what was his native language? He must have had one, don't you think? Since the ruling aristocracy is responsible for the name of the Huns as well as the language, don't you think we may call this Hunnic? Perhaps you may wish to be a little more precise there. There was a Hunnic language and the problem is to identify it. I read Otto's book and that is the approach he takes. But, I am sure there is a lot more modern material. ThanksDave (talk) 16:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Would it not be simpler and more accurate to refer to Hunnic as Altaic?94.193.218.14 (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

--- Good questions. First of all, let me say that no one can really know what language Huns spoke until we see some actual and factual written words and then it is pretty easy to link it with like Mongolian language words. I read little about the Mongols and other nomadic confederations, and the following things basically apply to all Central Asian nomads (variations exists among certain ethnic groups): - Initial leaders in the 1-2 generations speak the original language and customs. That is if Huns are Mongolians, they spoke a "Mongolian language." These leaders will use translators to issue order to their soldiers or guides, but the core group of leaders are basically an original stock of people speaking their own language and eating their own food. After they finished raiding, they will settle and intermarry with the locals and produce children and those children will learn the local language and way of life, because if these children are different from the locals, it is hard for them to rule once their father/grandfather dies. So they blend in. Their original language will basically go away in a generation or two. For instance, in Golden Horde it is hard to pinpoint when the Mongol people went, because their children adopted Russian names and gradually disappeared. Their appearance will also change because of local marriage. - I think the Mongolian region for centuries have produced a lot of raiders. For instance Avars are thought to be Rourans that went west. There is thinking that Xiongnu split into 2 major groups and one going to the west. There has always been tendency of tribes/people going from east to west for a long time. There is no consensus on what Xiongnu spoke, because there is almost no written records, but Middle Mongolian is pretty close and understandable to a person that speaks Mongolian. Little variations, but can figure it out if people pay little attention while listening.

I'm not really informed on Huns warfare in Europe per se, but I can give little info on their origin, movement, habitat and thinking. These are just my opinions. 67.177.203.207 (talk) 12:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC) ---

Thanks Botteville, I hope my recent edit answers your comment. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The debate is somewhat academic and irrelevant. Because, it has been said, there is not enough evidence to show exactly what language the "Huns" spoke. And the fact of the matter is that, whatever Huns we know from clear historical evidence suggests that East Gothic was spoken during the Hun Empire Hxseek (talk) 11:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC).


 * Priscus does also mention a "Hunnic" language, not Gothic, and presumably one was identifiable at the time. The debate is indeed somewhat irrelevant, because we really don't have enough information to decide what it was or what it was related to. But it's an interesting academic exercise. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

True Hxseek (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Why the Huns cannot be Mongols

 * The Huns' language may have been related to Turkish. Possibly. Or not. One of the main troubles with this page is that nationalist claims about the Huns have been made without good evidence. We really should avoid making such claims and we should stick to scholarly consensus. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You might be also right, but there are reliable sources which mention Huns "Turkic people". For example, Brian Glyn Williams, a professor at the Department of History in the University of Massachusetts, asserts that the Huns were Turkic people, explaining in his book (The Crimean Tatars, Brill, 2001, p.16, Online Edition) I quoted the following sentence from his book: The Huns were, according to most theories, a predominately Turkic people and, from the time of their greatest military leader, Attila (first half of 5th century), until the 19th century, Turkic nomads were to dominate the broad swaths of the Eurasian plain. Williams also give a reputable resource from "the World of the Huns" of J.Otto Maenchen-Helfen (University of California Press, 1973, p. 441). Furthermore, the linguistics also indicates that their language originates from Turkic language family. In the meantime, Mongols, having lived in the far north-eastern parts of Central Asia at that time, flourished after the massive migration of Turkic tribes from Central Asia. BozokluAdam (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with you Richard but the main problem here is that its just impossible to claim the Huns as Mongols since the Mongols were not around during that era, the chance that the Huns were Turkic is very high in this case. Redman19 (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

They are related with the Category:History of the Turkic people, not Category:Turkic peoples itself. Takabeg (talk) 06:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Whats the difference actually? I suggest you should not remove categories until there is solid proof. Redman19 (talk) 09:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I removed it for now, I hope you can provide me sources stating the opposite thing, since there are many sources that are backboning my edits. Redman19 (talk) 09:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

redman19 your intentions are good but i think takabeg is right, huns are ancient people, there many sources stating they are turkic thats correct but they just dont fit in the turkic peoples category because they were ancient people. the turkic people article already mentions huns so there is no need to mention them here also as turkic. 188.202.146.57 (talk) 11:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point, the mongols came much later than the hun. This is another 'lying' article on wikipedia. The hunnic empire was established in russia way before 400 bce when the romans created rome. Simply put the huns are the direct caucasian ancestors of the Sumerians whom than created the Greek race to harrass mankind. Jesus and teh jews (note: jews are hybrids of huns and the unknown, possibly why people consider as alien or divine because of 'human-like' appearance) are simply hunnic settlers from the ancient past, however they settled in israel a long time ago as hermits because Darius (another direct decadent) invaded the middle-east and spread the contaminated hindu indian caucas germ or gene. Hence hun=hungarian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.65.79.114 (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Massive citation cleanup
2010 Jan 16-17, I have improved the formatting of footnotes and bibliography — they were in an atrocious state. Some of the principles used are antiquated. Aside from that, they were carelessly done: information omitted (e.g., publisher; year), entire publication citations repeated from one footnote to another. The omission of page numbers in footnotes — of which I found close to two dozen examples, it seems — is an academically irresponsible practice; and it provokes the suspicion that many of these sources were not really consulted, or that much of the article text has been copied from other publications.
 * For example, there was a putative "second author" named only "Verlag"; "Verlag" is just German for "publisher".
 * There were several examples of substituting URL's for genuine publication information.
 * There was a case in which the long name of the research institution of the authors was given — which is an improper thing to do in bibliographies or footnotes — but the names of the authors themselves were not given!
 * I have deleted one cited source for being unfeasible to trace. It apparently is an article in a collective volume published in Hungarian, and even Google Scholar doesn't have the article. The citation used the article author and the volume title — the article title and the volume editors were missing. I have found the volume title and editors, but there is no table of contents on the Web (Őseink nyomában : a vándorló, honszerző és kalandozó magyarok képes krónikája. Author: István Fodor; György Diószegi; László Legeza. Publisher: [Budapest] : Magyar Könyvklub : Helikon, [1996]). As for the article author, András Róna-Tas, while he is a prominent specialist in Hungarian linguistics and history with possibly hundreds of articles, I couldn't ascertain whether any of them was published in the year of the collective volume and bears on Huns; i.e., which would be consistent with the abortive citation in the Wikipedia article.

It is extremely contradictory to Wikipedia practice, and to common professional practice, to put multiple citations into a single footnote (it used to be standard practice, a generation ago, and some Luddites in philosophy and literature still do it). Give each citation its own footnote.

At least one source is a blog. I have moved in out of the bibliography and into External Links. Hurmata (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As for the Hungarian book that may contain relevant information, information which in turn may have been authored by A. Róna-Tas: I may have spoken too soon. I now find there are several recent books sharing the phrase, Őseink nyomában, approx. "on the trail of our ancestors" as the opening two words of the title. Another is Érdelyi István, 2004, Őseink nyomában: A magyar őstörténet Kutatása a XX. században (20th century research on Hungarian ancient history). And maybe the three authors of the above cited 1996 work really are coauthors, and not editors, and maybe it's not a collective volume (now that I notice it's a képes krónika, "illustrated chronicle"). But then, where would a book or article by A. Róna-Tas come in? Hurmata (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to go through this. I'm not sure I entirely agree with switching to that specific style of citation though.  Readers have to now scroll down and look at the bibliography whereas before they could just roll their mouse over and see the source information, thereby capitalizing upon the electronic/hyperlinked medium Wikipedia is utilizing. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.123.31.144 (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it can be included here as well. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC).

The Tengrism article does indeed need significant reform, but as I know almost nothing on the subject I'll leave that to others. I have removed an unreferenced statement about the religion of the Huns (absolutely nothing is known of the religion of the Huns) from there and suggest that we avoid repeating speculation, especially speculation with nationalist overtones. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Update: I have recently addressed this on the Tengrism article, and a user there has recognized the problem as being on their end and removed the parts pertaining to the Huns. If there is no reason to think that there is evidence supporting the connection, it seems that the issue has been solved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.17.55.148 (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Huns were longer in Europe than Wiki states
Wikipedia & Huns Dear Wikipedia, Wiki does not mention the traces of Huns in Denmark and the rest of Scandina-via. Since middle of 1990´s Danes have been digging in the Gudmekomplex, i.- e. SE Fynen, Denmark. Lotte Hedaeger, professor and boss at the Archaeological department of University of Oslo has written about it in "Iron Age Myth and Materiality. An Archaeology of Scandinavia AD 400 – 1000."11:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)217.210.11.66 (talk) Routledge, London and New York. 2011.

Here she penetrates the Hunnic influence in Scandinavia during a long time, es-pecially in the ruling families. She also discusses Niels Lukmans dissertation “ ” Copenhagen 1943, and consider it unfair that it has not been thoroughly discussed. It was far too good to be met by silence. Lukman has done a masterly presentation, she says, of Scandinavian history AD 1 – 800. There you have two books, good science both, and Wiki has not even mentioned the topic.

Besides this there are interesting dating-questions too. Every time you mention the Huns you say that they arrived in Europe 300 + something. The halls at Gudme were first built 100 – 200 and the extraordinary temple at Uppåkra in very south of Sweden was built AD 100+. Both Gudme and Uppåkra are in Eu-rope.

Evidently they first turned north towards Scandinavia, established themselves, consolidated and built a center at Fynen before Uldin attacked in the south. He failed, but so what? They attacked again, won, and moved the center to Hunga-ry. And there is a lot of supporting evidence.

It is a too good a story to treat it as you do.

Wilhelm Otto wilhelm.otto@telia.com

Image Near East, 500 AD NE_500AD
The numbered legend in the bottom right of the map is cut, only numbers 1 to 5 are fully legible, and numbers 21 to 25 in part. Is somebody in the condition of providing a full image of this map? Thanks. Salut †--Jgrosay (talk) 13:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Bold text== Merge Proposal ==

Header
I propose the merging of the contents in the Hunnic Empire into the Huns article. The main reason for this is that the two subjects are closely related to each other and overlap on another in a timeline. The Hunnic Empire is also a relatively small article and provides no information that the Huns page couldn't. Please vote with your reason for supporting or opposing the merge. Khazar (talk) 04:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support merging any useful extra contents of Hunnic Empire into this article, and deleting Hunnic Empire. The extra article covers, at most, exactly the same subject area. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Effectively a duplicate article with little unique content that can easily be absorbed as long as it gets a mention in a subject heading in the revised article. I suggest 2.3 becomes "2.3 Unified Hunnic Empire under Attila", redirect from "Hunnic Empire" should point to this section. ► Philg88 ◄ star.png 15:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

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


 * That is interesting information, but please learn how to edit Wikipedia before you add new content:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction_2 Kortoso (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

After the merger
Now that the two articles have been merged, there is an enormous amount of repetition, with timelines moving backwards and forwards, creating an extremely confusing article. A complete rewrite of the history section is required to produce a narrative that makes any sense to the reader. Skinsmoke (talk) 08:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I have done my best. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I sincerely apologize. My primary objective was to remove the Hunnic empire article. Therefore, I just copy/pasted all the content and waited for other editors to delete and fix the redundancy since I've been absent for a few days. Khazar (talk) 05:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It was a good use of your time, it worked, and you have absolutely nothing to apologize for! Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Well said Richard, and thanks for your excellent work on the article.► Philg88 ◄ star.png 09:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

the Huns were Turkic peoples.It is really weird that the author avoids that fact.There are a lot of evidence that they were Turks.Such evidence is clear in the chinese chronicles as well as roman and byzantine chronicles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.245.223.136 (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Physical features of Huns described by Roman historians
http://books.google.com/books?id=hL8PAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA231&dq=procopius+Atilla+small+eyes&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7Q60U_f8NoSHqgaBl4HADQ&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=procopius%20Atilla%20small%20eyes&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=mYULAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA163&dq=procopius+Huns+small+eyes&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FQ-0U_jXH4WZqAbMwYKgDg&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=procopius%20Huns%20small%20eyes&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=yW-GfElbafQC&pg=PA46&dq=Jordanes+Attila+eyes&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0w-0U_biA8aOqAbZ2YC4CQ&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Jordanes%20Attila%20eyes&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=yW-GfElbafQC&pg=PA46&dq=Jordanes+Attila+small+eyes&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8w-0U6DzLtCWqAbevILgCw&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Jordanes%20Attila%20small%20eyes&f=falsee

http://books.google.com/books?id=M0qGAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA374&dq=attila+was+short+of+stature,++broad+chest,+large+head,++small+eyes,+with+thin+beard,++by+gray,+with+flat+nose,+with+hideous+complexion&hl=en&sa=X&ei=In60U4a1IsaNqAaDsICYCA&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=attila%20was%20short%20of%20stature%2C%20%20broad%20chest%2C%20large%20head%2C%20%20small%20eyes%2C%20with%20thin%20beard%2C%20%20by%20gray%2C%20with%20flat%20nose%2C%20with%20hideous%20complexion&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=mOjFAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA102&dq=attila+was+short+of+stature,++broad+chest,+large+head,++small+eyes,+with+thin+beard,++by+gray,+with+flat+nose,+with+hideous+complexion&hl=en&sa=X&ei=In60U4a1IsaNqAaDsICYCA&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=attila%20was%20short%20of%20stature%2C%20%20broad%20chest%2C%20large%20head%2C%20%20small%20eyes%2C%20with%20thin%20beard%2C%20%20by%20gray%2C%20with%20flat%20nose%2C%20with%20hideous%20complexion&f=false

http://www.romansonline.com/Src_Frame.asp?DocID=Gth_Goth_35

Rajmaan (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

To be a little more exact, a second-hand physical description of Attila himself, by a Roman Goth who thought he could remember every bit of one Roman historian. Not very good but it's what we have. We use it appropriately in Attila, rather than here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Origin
Any thought to placing the "Origin" section last rather than first? I think it's standard encyclopedic practice to lead with what you know, and discuss controversies later. Remember the audience. Kortoso (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)