Talk:Rouran Khaganate

Untitled
Ktsquare, why did you remove (柔然) from the article? -- Zestauferov

It was a mistake, fixed now. kt2 15:34, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The article states that 'the derogatory term Juan Juan (wg) or Ruan Ruan (py) (蠕蠕 lit. meaning "Wriggling insects") and Ru Ru (茹茹 lit. meaning "Fodder") remained in modern usage despite being derived by Emperor Taiwu of Northern Wei who waged war against and intended to intimidate the confederacy.'

Is there any need to retain 'Juan Juan' as the location of the main article? Would it not be preferable to move the main article to 'Rouran (柔然)', which appears to be closer to the name they used for themselves -- with redirects, of course. I don't know how acceptable this would be to historians who are attached to familiar terms, but in a modern age where derogatory names for any race are frowned upon, surely it is better to show a little respect for a group of bygone people!

Bathrobe


 * moved. I.H.S.V. (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Evidence
This article makes some odd claims. For instance,

"(Pinyin: 蠕蠕 lit. meaning "Wriggling insects")"

It is trivial, but strictly speaking it does not. No big deal because it is close enough.

"one of their member tribes, the Hua (who they placed, at the head of the Uighurs in 460), later appeared in Europe as the Eurasian Avars, the gross oversimplification that they were synonymous with the Avars has become widespread."

But this is a problem. What is the evidence that (a) the Hua were one of their member tribes, that (b) they were placed at the head of the Uyghurs, and (c) that the Hua and Hua alone formed the Avars? Of course the Turks claimed that the Avars were their slaves so it is one of the few documented links between China and Europe.

"Some scholars claim that the Korean pronunciation Yuyon is a more archaic form and hence closer to the original pronunciation."

Can anyone name a scholar who makes this claim? I'll accept anyone in English, Chinese, Korean, German or Japanese. I'll even struggle through some French if need be.

"Little is known of their ruling elite, which the Weishu cited as an offshoot of the Xianbei."

Actually it doesn't. It says they are an offshoot of the Donghu (the Xianbei also being an offshoot of the Donghu, the difference is not big).

"Though they admitted the Asena into their federation,"

Evidence of this claim? Anyone? As above. Lao Wai 13:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I recommend you to ask User:Zestauferov, who added quite a lot of the Hua information. I.H.S.V. (talk) 05:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I know some answers. The Encyclopaedia Britanica 1951 edition entry under "Turk" mentions that the Asena disliking the rule of the Wei sought protection under the Juan Juan Federation in 433 until 545. Kaz 01:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh! Also I know that Modern Chinese pronunciation is not a trustworthy guide to the sounds used long ago, but that a reconstruction technique looking at dialects like Amoy, and the fossilizations in Hiragana and Hangeul are the best guides to reconstructiong the earliest possible sounds in proto-sinitic used by Liu Qiyu. Hiragana reflects the sounds of the Chinese Characters in the 5th century, and Hangeul reflect their sounds in the 15th century. I learned all this from different articles on Wikipedia.Kaz 01:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. If you want to help in the Avar-Turk-Uighur-Rouran-Hua problem then please join in below. So far I have not been able to find any reference that the Uighur even existed until some time after the Rouran, so Mr Lao if you have some knowledge please share below. Kaz 01:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll take a shot. (1) Rouran means "wise rulers" in old Mongolian.  Juan-Juan might be said "Tantan" but it's a pretty funny joke by the Chinese.  I mean these barbarians were attacking everybody.

(2) Avar means "brave hunter" in Old Turkic. Given how they are described - light cavalry with smart leaders - and how petulant the Gokturks were about them - I bet they stole a lot of gear before taking off. The description their triumph letter gives is pretty vague but as they'd taken 140,000 captives from the Gaoche/Tujue - and as the Avars were quite good at winning allies I'm certain they'd have a thumb out for anyone who could ride. Rouran, Hephthalite, Xionite, Chunni, Var. (3) Uyghur I've never heard linked to Hua or Uar. I have a dumb theory on their name - they used to be called the Moon Clan when they spoke Yuezhi and in Turkish that would be Aygur. (4) the Korean term for Rouran - Yuyon - is a karaoke version. Korea did ally with them. Maybe they have something to do with the Yilou or Jianzhou. (They used to call the Xiongnu "Guns"). (5) lastly, have there ever been two empires with uglier names than Hephthalite (strong men? seven tribes?  a Greek word for fortress?  and Rouran.  Ashinas is a cool name though.  It means sky blue and recognized.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:F00:AACF:B515:6FE0:58A6:AE6 (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

more information including list of rulers
http://www.chinaknowledge.de/History/Altera/rouran.html

Hua - Link
First paragraph: "Because one of their member tribes, the Hua (who they placed at the head of the Uyghurs in 460) later appeared in Europe as the Eurasian Avars," The word 'Hua' was linked to the disambiguation page of 'Hua', where you can read:

"Hua is:

the self designation (endonymic ethnicon) used by the Hephthalites"

This is obviously a contradiction. Also the other points of the disambiguation page contain no reference to the Avars. The Hephtalites may have called themselves 'Hua', but that has nothing to do with the Avar-Hua of this 'Rouran' article. At least there is no explanation about a connection between Hephtalite-Hua, Avar-Hua and Rouran, and the link to the article about the Avar-Hua is lacking anyway.

I would advise to not just place links wildly, but instead to look up first, whereto the links would lead. Because of this contradiction I have deleted the link of the word 'Hua'. Somebody might clear this up and then relink the word. 15:54, 30 May 2006 62.178.78.205

Well, I know that the Uar were the ethnic majority of the Hephthalite confederacy, and Enoki identified these as the Hua, but as for the very confusing JuanJuan/Avars/Uighur/Hephthalite connections which are all over the internet, the sources for this are elusive. http://www.hostkingdom.net/siberia.html mentions Avar rulers names which look chinese, but none of them appear to be on the list. Maybe this man knows something?
 * A-na-kuei..........................................522-552
 * K'u-t'i............................................552-554
 * An-lo-ch'en........................................554- ? with ?, preceding ?

Can anyone work out what these names refer to? Anlushan led a rebellion in 755 AD so "An-lo-ch'en" can not be him. Kaz 22:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC) ---

Yes Where! 180.217.193.152 (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

KERMIKHIONS
Very interestingly... Religion "tengrizm" (!) ;-) And about Proto-Mongol/Syanbi language anything is not present. By the way, in Caucasian-Avarian language avarag "the prophet, the messenger" and Avaristan "land of Avars", avaral "the Avars (Caucasian Avars)"  means. See: Avarsko-Russkij slovar'//by red.M. Saidov. Moscow. 1967, p. 25.  And still... In the Byzantian sources are mentioned people Kermikhions, living among Avars. In Iranian languages kerm is "worm", and in language of Avesta (also in the Armenian language) karmir is "red". Red paint in olden time did of a special kind of worms, therefore here  is no contradiction,for example, in Russian cherv' (= cservy in transcription of Magyar language) - the worm, but chervonnyj (chervonniy) means "brightly red". In Caucasian-avarian language, khumur /plural. khurmal/ (this dialect word) is the "wolf" and a worm living in a body of the person (khomor, plural. khormal) means (see for "wolf" Avarsko-Russkij slovar'//by red.M. Saidov. Moscow. 1967, p.530; and for Khomor "a worm living in a body of the person", see: P.A. Saidova. Dialektologicheskij slovar' avarskogo jazyka. Moskva. "Nauka"., 2008, pp. 363, 382). And now compare: Mittel-Mongolian qoroqai, Mongolian written qor-qai, Baoan GorGei, Dagur χorugw, Mongor xorGui "a worm, an insect". In Kalmyk the basis xor "maggot of Horsefly". In Turkic languages it are related: Old-Turkic qurt, Turkmen Gurt, Turkish kurt, Khakass xurt, Chuvash xort "worm". (See Starostin S.A. Altajskaja problema i proishozhdenije japonskogo jazyka. Moskva. "Nauka", 1991, pp 54,186) And in Turkish, Turkmen and the some othwer Turkic languages there is an additional value "wolf". In Persian kerm "worm" (< indoeurupean *kur-mi-), Afghan (pashto) khamar "mythological snakes, a dragon". Also in Finn language is available (kurmu), but this probably Indo-Iranian loan. The ROURAN...De Groot the name of this people writes as Dsu-dsu (Dsut-dsut, Dsurdsut). Marquart specifies, that in «Sun-shu» same people is called "Da-Dan"or a "Dandan". In G. E. Grumm-Grzhimajlo's opinion, Rouran (Zhouzhan) it at all the name of the state, and a nickname, «on accord given by emperor Toba-Dao who wished to tell her, that as neighbours Ruan-Ruan are so unpleasant and restless, as insects Ruan-Ruan». (see: Grumm-Grzhimajlo G. Е. Zapadnaja Mongolija i Urjankhajskij kraj. Т.II. Leningrad, 1926, p. 27). The etnic Name "KHOR" were the general name of Proto-Mongols - Dung-hu (see: Gumilev L. N. «Hunnu». Sankt-Peterburg. "Tajm–aut kompas", 1993, p. 31). Also the mythological ancestor Khorin Buryats - is "KHORIDOY". Among Mongols were known also KHORCHIN (khor and probably mongolian chinuo/chino/chon "wolf" and CHAKHAR (from dzha "red" and khor). And at last the last... At Proto-Mongols Wuhuan (O-huan) a place dwellings of spirits of ancestors the RED MOUNTAIN (!) was considered. (see: Mify Narodov Mira. Т.I Мoskva. Sovetskaja enciklopedija. 1991,p.170) I shall remind, that the Afghani city of Kunduz is known as Wuhuan, and later as War-waliz, that means "City of Avars". The state symbol of the Caucasian Avars (Caucasian Avar Khanate) according to Georgian geographer Vakhushti Bagrationi "the wolf with a banner on a background of mountains" (17-18 centuries). (see: Vakhushti. Istorija Gruzii, pp. 553,641,653// Institut rukopisej imeni K. Kelidze. Akademija Nauk Gruzinskoj SSR. f. N., № 2079). Actually AVAR in Caucasian Avaristan it is KHUNZAKH which has no translation except for as "at Huns". --81.24.80.233 (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC) - Pay attention to a fragment from the Byzantian source: Turkic qaghan has become angry on Byzantines and has declared, that it is necessary not to cut this people (Avars, Uarkhonites) a sabre, but to tramble down as Ants (=INSECTS) by horses : "Bu gec kalisin sebebi, Gok Turkleri fiili savasa istirak icin tazyik eden Bizansin gonderdigi muteaddid elcilerden biri olan Valentinosu 576’da Aral Golu havalisindeki Turk bolgesinde karsilayan Turk prensi Bizans’i, Gok Turklerin af edilmez hasimlari olan Avarlari (Varhonitai = Uar-huni) himaye etmekle ve kilicla degil, atlarin ayaklari altinda karinca gibi ezilerek oldurulmegi hakeden bu kavme barinacak yer vermekle sucluyordu ki, bu dogru idi" (See: Kafesoglu, Ibrahim. Asya Turk devletleri // Turk Dunyasi El Kitabi. I cilt, Turk Kulturunu Arastirmalari Enstitusu. Ikinci Baski. Ankara. 1992. s.130). From this citation it is visible, that Tyurkyuts (Old-Turks) also named their insects, but itself so did not name. From here follows, that "Khor's", they are Proto-Mongols, but not Turks. To me it is not clear, why all time try to expose enemies of Avars as Avars. That is an origin of their enemies to write down to their victims. Avars were attacked by Old-Turks (Tukyu) and Tele tribes. Subsequently the part of Tele tribes began to name itself Uigurs (hueyhe/hueyhu).--81.24.80.233 (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

THE UGOR'S (UGRIC PEOPLES)
You here constantly write "Uigur", and actually this tribe Ugor/Ogor (the Finno-Ugor) as "zabender", "koczagir" and "tarniakh". In Caucasian-Avarian agaraw is "the relative close, making related", in Afghan-Pashto wageri "People" in other old languages ghur is "konfederation". Ghur - the Territory and city in Afghanistan, whence have intruded GHURDZHARS in India in structure of Hephthalites.--81.24.80.233 (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You are mixing things up. The similarity in name of the Turkic Uigur and the Uralic (Finno-Ugric) Ugrians is simply coincidental, and anyway they are entirely different peoples. Apart from that, what's your point?--Joostik (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Article badly needs MAJOR work and referencing
This article cites no sources and is obviously a mix of material from different sources. It needs major work to turn it into a reliable encyclopedia article. I will try to get back to it soon if I can find the time - but, maybe others could start checking information and finding reliable references for claims, please? John Hill (talk) 07:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Yujiulü Anluochen


The article Yujiulü Anluochen has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Everything in this article is in Rouran Khaganate, unreferenced article without unique content

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 13:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

historical time period
the artical states that this historical time period of this nation state was the early middle ages when in fact the majority of the time was late classical the country went from 330 to 555 ad and historians classify the year 500 as the begining of the middle ages so only 55 years of the countries history was early middle ages. 69.208.14.63 (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Modern Mongolian alternative name
Modern Mongolian alternative name is needless. Mongols appeared in 7th century. Shiwei was not in the Mongolian Plateau. This alternative name had no historical value. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 05:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Name

 * "Rouran Khaganate" -Llc ??? Probably original research. Takabeg (talk) 03:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Mongolia + Rouran -Llc minimum 87
 * Mongolia + "Juan-juan" -Llc minimum 370
 * Mongolia + "Jou-jan" -Llc minimum 109
 * Mongolia Ruanruan -Llc 58
 * Mongolia "Ruan-ruan" -Llc 14

Takabeg (talk) 11:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I think study of Mongolian history is continuing in Mongolia. In, 2000, used term Jou-jan, since 2005, use name Nirun. Nirun (in Modern Mongolian Нуруу) is means "human's back", because it is described in "Legend of the Ergune Khun" (Эргүнэ-Хуны домог).--MongolWiki (talk) 03:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Chinese character transcriptions such as Juan-juan, ruan-ruan don't represent truly names. Because they divide have two or three side one name. Example, How can people understand Meng-gu is Mongol, if they known chinese transcription?--MongolWiki (talk) 03:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But we are seeking for the common name in English language, not in Mongolia :) Takabeg (talk) 03:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Were They Mongolic?
I don't understand why are the Rouruans considered solely and undoubtly Mongolic in this article as if there exist a scientific consencus among scholars on this issue. They were, most probably, speakers of an extinct language unrelated to any of Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Samoyedic, Yeniseian etc. Please read those articles written by Alexander Vovin:

Once Again on the Ruan Ruan Language

Some Thoughts on The Origins of The Old Turkic 12-year Animal Cycle


 * One reason is because they were the first to use the title Khan 64.222.104.94 (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)John Dee

Chinese User:Ogress vandalised the article
This is old version. His massive deletion of useful contents must be reverted. One example of vandalism:. The title of article is "Rouran Khaganate"!. Shame for wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.160.3.227 (talk) 13:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Do not make personal attacks. I am not Chinese (I am also not a man.)


 * Its governance is a khanate; there's no difference between the two except that one is a redirect. Unreliable sources and a terrible lede needed simplification to make it legible. The "Mongolian reconstruction" had a completely tail-chasing cite that didn't appear to exist and appears to be obvious nationalistic OR. Everything else you complain about is me removing Wall of Blue, fixing wikilinks and grammar, and changing a not very good chart into a useful list. Ogress smash! 21:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Khanate is a small state. It is same with dukedom. (A duke...highest rank below the monarch). Khaganate is a larga state that governed by king. There is a big difference.
 * "Khagan or Qagan (Mongolian: хаан, Khaan;) is a title in the Mongolian language equal to the status of emperor and used to refer to someone who rules a khaganate or empire".
 * Khan (title) is an originally Mongol and subsequently Central Asian title for a sovereign or military ruler, widely used by medieval nomadic Mongol tribes".

Stop vandalising! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.160.5.31 (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The first line of Khanate is "Khanate, or Khaganate, is a Turko-Mongol word used to describe a political entity ruled by a Khan or Khagan." You are inventing a distinction where there isn't one, as the words are identical. A khan is a khagan; khagan is merely the archaic form, like imperator and emperor. If this is truly your only objection, how do you explain reverting all the edits I did over the last day? Ogress smash! 01:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

"Specifically Donghu"
This statement doesn't make any sense. All Xianbei are Donghu, who fled northeast after being defeated by Modu Chanyu. Saying that Tuoba were not Donghu would be groundbreaking research. I'm going to bet that the source was misinterpreted. For a source, how about any of these wikipedia pages or chinaknowledge.de 64.222.104.94 (talk) 15:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)John Dee
 * Also some contemporary historians studying the history of Northern Wei, like Kwok Kin Poon, proposed that the Rouran descended specifically from Xianbei of Donghu heritage.*

Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Asia and Oceania
See this and my reason. That book is too general for expert claims/theories written in this article. Plus who is the author "Barbara A. West"? Is she a historian? --Wario-Man (talk) 06:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right about West's book. About West's credentials: "Barbara A. West holds a Ph.D. in social anthropology from the University of Rochester in New York. A former associate professor of international studies and anthropology and managing editor of The Anthropology of East Europe Review." (About the Author, according to Google Books). She isn't a historian. Should we just remove West as a source? Erminwin (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course we should remove her stuff unless she cited some historians or experts' works for the content of her book. There are enough scholars in Eurasian history filed. We don't really need using and citing general encyclopedias or a book by a social anthropologist (non-historian, non-expert in the topic of this article). --Wario-Man (talk) 03:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Avars
Putting Avar dna here is confusing and misleading. Nothing more than fringy theory and an original research section. Beshogur (talk) 10:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , can you put your concerns, here, what's disruptive? Beshogur (talk) 10:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Beshogur, disruptive in my opinion is the removal of sourced content, that is directly related to an article, but without any support from another editors or real discussion on the talk page. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 10:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Removal of sourced content, a content which is pretty much original research and unrelated. The reason it has to be removed. Also I had other things to add, so your revert is unacceptable. Beshogur (talk) 10:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe that content can be removed into a specific new section called Alternative theories but not just deleted as non-existing or extremely fringe? Jingiby (talk) 10:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have re-added the text deleted by my mistake and pushed a tag about the disputed neutrality of the Genetic section to reflect this discussion. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 11:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added a brand new complex study confirming that it is doubtful whether a direct link between Rourans and Avars practically existed. Jingiby (talk) 11:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * With all respect, sorry but why would you put POV to your own content. Plus you said yourself it's dubious. Except that, I want my edit to be restored about Muqan Qaghan, there is nothing wrong there. And the "remainder fled to China... " is unsourced. Yes they fled, but nothing to do with Avars. The source I use says: "desperate resistance, military disaster, and cruel massacres makes it clear that the Rouran/Avars cannot have migrated to Europe in any sufficient strength to establish themselves there." Beshogur (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The content I have restored was here and was not added by me anyway, i.e. it is not mine. The POV tag was added by me, just because you have disputed this section on the talk page. I do not dispute it and insist also it must be kept as neutral content. If you want to add another sourced content I have any objections of course. But please, do not delete sourced content, backed by reliable scientific peer-reviewed publications, only because you dislike it. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, sorry about "your" part. Beshogur (talk) 12:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

"First to use" contradicts "borrowed"
From the introduction: "The Rouran supreme rulers are noted for being the first to use the title of "khagan", having borrowed this popular title from the Xianbei." If they borrowed it from the Xianbei, the Xianbei necessarily used it first. IAmNitpicking (talk) 13:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Apology for the very late reply! The Xianbei were the first people in extent records who use the title "khagan"; however, in the context:
 * "樓喜拜曰：「處可寒. 」虜言「處可寒」，宋言「爾官家」也."
 * Translation:
 * "Lou [the envoy of the younger brother to T'u-yü-hun] was glad. He bowed and said: 'Chu k'o han 處可寒'. The barbarian words ch'u k'o han mean in the language of Song, 'Be it so, sire (爾官家)'."
 * one (e.g. me) cannot conclude whether the title "khagan" was used by the Xianbei to denote only the Xianbei's supreme leader, or just a title of a high-ranking leader. Meanwhile, the Rouran khagan was the supreme leader of the whole Rouran confederation. Hope this helps! Even so, I can revise The Rouran supreme rulers are noted for being the first to use the title of "khagan", having borrowed this popular title from the Xianbei. to The Rouran supreme rulers used the title of "khagan", a popular title already used by the Xianbei. Erminwin (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Yastanovog's edit
You said you can always expand the first paragraph which negates a Rouran connection using better sources, but summarily deleting all opposing viewpoints in favor of Turkic nationalism goes against the principle of balance. Less nationalism, more balance please. It doesn't makes sense because deleting your primary source about Avars, which doesn't even mention the Rouran isn't "nationalism". The other paragraph is literally unsourced original research also including fringe theories like Buyla inscription being Mongolic. Those have no place here. Beshogur (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The primary source doesn't need to mention the Rouran. How could Menander have directly known of the Rouran? Instead, Menander provides key indicators that through a process of elimination fairly convincingly brings us to the Rouran Khaganate, because there was no other equivalent hegemonic power on the Eastern Steppes. The other paragraph is not original research. It has been brought up by countless scholars that I felt do not need to be mentioned due to the sheer obviousness of the primary source. If you really feel the need for a source to the second paragraph then I can think of Emil Hersak (2002) who extensively quotes Menander (the exact parts which I quoted) and makes a connection to the Rouran, even balancing out the later assertions of Theophylact Simocatta who said the Avars were only Pseudo-Avars. Please be aware that the Avar-Rouran connection is not at all a controversial idea. There is a significant degree of scholarly consensus and the matter is still taken seriously. Regarding the Buyla inscription I only said that the Mongolic interpretation was one of many possible interpretations. So I would advise you not to delete it so quick. Instead, offer your own version and add it as a separate paragraph. I won't attack it as original research since I know that the Turkic theory also has a certain degree of backing. If necessary, I can rephrase the part about the Buyla inscription.--Yastanovog (talk) 02:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Instead, Menander provides key indicators that through a process of elimination fairly convincingly brings us to the Rouran Khaganate, because there was no other equivalent hegemonic power on the Eastern Steppes. another issue, primary source, plus your analysis, which is an original research as well. You say If you really feel the need for a source, thus you admit that you're doing WP:SYNTH. Perhaps add the sources and the quotes so we can see what it says. Regarding the Buyla inscription I only said that the Mongolic interpretation was one of many possible interpretations. So you admit again. So I would advise you not to delete it so quick. Instead, offer your own version and add it as a separate paragraph. I don't have "own version", I won't attack it as original research it is original research. Please read the rules before editing and reverting. Beshogur (talk) 09:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * stop accusing me of doing nationalistic editing. Your last edit doesn't makes sense either because it's not verifiable and still your synth text. Beside that, I still don't understand how Liao or Seljuks is relevant to the topic. Beshogur (talk) 10:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Source has been added based on your hostile insistence. How can I not see you as being overly nationalistic when you are so sensitive to anything that implies a Mongolic or Rouran connection? When you go out of your way to hop onto Mongolic articles and remove "sensitive" tidbits here and there? I don't want to do a deep dive on your edit history. I respect what you have done for your own Turkic history. Lots of good contributions. But don't launch into wordgames and WP back-and-forths over this Avar issue. I know exactly where I'm "admitting" and where I'm stating common knowledge. The Avar-Rouran connection is common knowledge and I'm not synthesizing anything new. It's common knowledge but not commonly agreed on. That's all. Wouldn't it be better for you to leave my vague paragraph in place and add your better paragraph above it, rather than have me launch a full scale "secondary source war" which you should know in the back of your mind that you may not win? To have a Turk of all people be this inimical to Mongols is highly disappointing. I'm starting to wonder whether I should have any dealings with Turks at all.--Yastanovog (talk) 11:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What "war" are you talking about and what do you mean with which you should know in the back of your mind that you may not win? I am not trying to "win" something. Your contribution simply violated wikipedia rules as I told several times. Your own synthesis based on primary sources has no place here. Beshogur (talk) 12:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me give you some quotations from secondary sources. Please tell me where I have "synthesized"? Read the following quotes and compare them to what I wrote. Walter Pohl (2018), page 46 summarizes a long discussion about the Rourans and Avars where Pohl also mentions Yu Taishan's claim that many Rourans were annihilated in China: "Individual members of the (Rouran) ruling clan may have survived the Turkish and Chinese attacks and legitimized the appropriation of the title khagan by the new Avars. In this way, they could attract a growing following of people from the former Rouran realm and beyond it. Given the numbers many steppe dynasties acquired in the course of generations, it is not unlikely that the Avar khagan Baian could claim descent from the ruling clan of the Rouran. Whatever his origin, what mattered was the title “khagan”; it remained so central to the legitimacy of the Avar polity that except for Baian, no other khagan’s name appears in the sources. No doubt it was this presumption that enraged the Turkish khagans so much against their “fugitive slaves”. Walter Pohl (2018), page 42 “However, its (the Hephthalite kingdom’s) destruction by the Turks cannot have been the reason for the Avar migration, for at that time the Avar envoys had already reached Constantinople.” Emil Heršak (2002), page 200 quotes Menander's statement the Avars called themselves "the greatest and strongest of nations". Emil Heršak (2002), page 201 "There is also a possibility that some Mongols were in the general crowd, as a result of previous Avar-Rouran connections." Emil Heršak (2002), page 201 "Their (the Avars') roots go back to Central and Inner Asia, include the Hephthalite tradition and the Rouran tradition, and there are traces leading to the Caucasus (Pohl, 1988: 31–37)." Emil Heršak (2002), page 201 "Theophylact (implies) that the boastful message that Candice gave to Justinian shortly afterwards was part of a general deception. On the other hand, according to Menander, shortly after the initial group of 20,000 people left Central Asia to flee from İštämi's Turks, the Turkish leader really called them Avars. Menander quotes İštämi's words: “Avars are not birds to fly through the air and avoid Turkish sabers; they are not fish to dive underwater and disappear in the depths of the sea"." So, Beshogur, please see that I'm not synthesizing anything, nor am I breaking the rules of Wikipedia regarding Primary Sources and Original Research. Like I said, I know what those rules are, the nuances behind them and I know the limits of what I wrote, including where they may be seen by someone else as original research. With a fully clear conscience and with full objectivity, I express to you that I only faithfully relayed what may be called the "standard theory of Avar-Rouran connection". I'm quite sure no one familiar with literature on this topic would be startled by what I wrote and see it as something new, because it simply is a summary of the centuries-old Avar-Rouran theory. If I had to phrase my paragraph exactly in the manner that the secondary sources wrote them the text would get disorganized and too big. So please understand that I look at the bigger picture and summarize the key points of the Avar-Rouran theory in a relatively brief format. I repeat this is NOT synthesis. There is nothing which I wrote which has not been stated a long time ago by scholars. And please don't take issue with the example of the Seljuks and the Liao. That is only a small factual footnote and nothing to get sensitive about. So the key thing is what do we do with this Avar-Rouran theory? Do we delete it simply because Yu Taishan said that according to Chinese sources the Rourans got annihilated (cruelly massacred) by the Turks and Chinese and that this means they could not have had the chance to migrate to Europe? Do we believe with Yu Taishan that the Avars were the Yueban who moved west in 450? What if Walter Pohl himself says on page 42 regarding the Yueban theory that "this doesn’t explain why the Turks were so angry about the flight of the Avars a hundred years later"? Let's not act like there is already a firm scholarly consensus on Yu Taishan. I'm 100% sure that as of 2021 the status quo of the Avar origin question is still "not sure". So what should scholars do then? See who can delete each others' theories the fastest? No. They allow the theories to be stated and enumerated side by side. No need to hastily delete each other. And this is the approach I also want you to take, Beshogur. Don't push to exclude the findings of the latest DNA studies. Let them just be there. Then later someone else can come and post some other results. Now is not the time to be jumping on it and calling it synthesis. It has already become common knowledge in the Avar-Rouran camp of scholars and it will remain common knowledge whether someone deletes it or not. Respect the other camp. Even on the linguistic question I ask that you exercise some patience. There is still no real consensus on the question. So please don't rush to delete. If a theory is false, it will fall eventually by itself. If the Mongolic position is false, it will fall by itself. No need to rush it and force it.--Yastanovog (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

East/West
Could that just be "Asia"? At its greatest extent, the Rouran Khaganate seems to have held territory in both eastern and central Asia. IAmNitpicking (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

OR removed
I removed a footnote due to OR. While the note contained some sources backing a few facts mentioned in it, the whole assumption that the Rouran ambassador was depicted in such way because of the actions of the Rouran Khagan is an idea of OP and so the whole thing is pure OR. For the same reason, the definition of the portrait as "caricatural" is also OR. Fries Montana (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Baumer's mistake?
Two sources:

(1) Pohl, Walter (2018). The Avars A Steppe Empire in Central Europe, 567–822. Cornell University Press. p. 31. ISBN 9781501729409. & 2. Baumer, Christoph (2018). History of Central Asia, The: 4-volume Set. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 90. ISBN 9781838608682.

are cited for this statement (let's called it S):

However, source (1) does not back up S at all; as Walter (2018:31) writes:

& in almost all likelihoods he means that the Chinese (including Sinicized Tuoba) distorted the Rouran' endonym Rouran into Ruanruan; not that Rouran is derived from Ruanruan.

Source (2) -Baumer (2018:90)- also does not back up S, as Baumer writes:

However, let's examine the primary sources:

"蠕蠕，東胡之苗裔也，姓郁久閭氏. 始神元之末，掠騎有得一奴，髮始齊眉，忘本姓名，其主字之曰木骨閭. 「木骨閭」者，首禿也. 木骨閭與郁久閭聲相近，故後子孫因以為氏. 木骨閭既壯，免奴為騎卒. 穆帝時，坐後期當斬，亡匿廣漠谿谷間，收合逋逃得百餘人，依紇突隣部. 木骨閭死，子車鹿會雄健，始有部眾，自號柔然，而役屬於國. 後世祖以其無知，狀類於蟲，故改其號為蠕蠕."

"蠕蠕姓鬱久閭氏. 始神元之末，掠騎有得一奴，發始齊眉，忘本姓名，其主字之曰木骨閭. 「木骨閭」者，首禿也. 「木骨閭」與「鬱久閭」聲相近，故後子孫因以為氏. 木骨閭既壯，免奴為騎卒. 穆帝時，坐後期當斬，亡匿廣漠谿穀間，收合逋逃，得百餘人，依純突鄰部. 木骨閭死，子車鹿會雄健，始有部眾，自號柔然. 後太武以其無知，狀類於蟲，故改其號為蠕蠕."

My rough translation:

"Rúrú / Ruánruán (蠕蠕), offspring of Dōnghú, surnamed Yùjiŭlǘ. At the beginning of the end of the Shényuán era, mounted raiders captured a slave: his hairline started at his eyebrow level; he had forgotten his original surname and name; so his master called him Mùgǔlǘ (木骨閭); as for Mùgǔlǘ (木骨閭), it means 'bald-headed'. Mùgǔlǘ (木骨閭) sounds similar to Yùjiŭlǘ (郁久閭), so his [Mùgǔlǘ's] descendants would use that as their surname. Mùgǔlǘ - because he was strong/was at least 30-year-old - was emancipated from slavery and became a cavalryman. During the reign of Emperor Mu, he [Mùgǔlǘ] tarried past the deadline and was sentence to death by beheading. He fled and hid among the vast desert's ravines and rivulets, then gathered a hundred or more other escapees; [they] then relied on the Hetulin (紇突隣) (WS) / Chuntulin (純突鄰) (BS) tribe. Mùgǔlǘ died, his son Chēlùhuì (車鹿會), who was virile and vigorous, began to gather the tribal multitude, [his / their] self-appellation Róurán (柔然); still he was a vassal / they were vassals of [our] state. Later on Emperor Shizu (WS) / Emperor Taiwu of Northern Wei (BS) found him/them to be ignorant and his/their appearance(s) similar to worms/insects; so he (Emperor Taiwu / Shizu) called him (Cheluhui) / them (the tribal multitude) Rúrú / Ruánruán (蠕蠕)."

The wording 子車鹿會雄健，始有部眾，自號柔然 is vague: one can interpret 柔然 (Rouran) as the self-appellation of either the chief 車鹿會 (Cheluhui) or the tribal multitude (部眾). Let's say Rouran 柔然 was the self-appellation of Cheluhui 車鹿會, who is in almost all likelihoods "the tribal father Ruru or Ruirui" mentioned in Baumer (2018:90). Notwithstanding the reconstructed Weishu, Beishi clearly states that the self-appellation was Rouran 柔然, not Rúrú (茹茹 in Beiqishu, Zhoushu, Suishu) nor Ruìruì (芮芮 Nanqishu, Liangshu, Songshu). So while Baumer is (1) mistaken about "the tribal father Ruru or Ruirui" (Cheluhui's self-appellation was Rouran) & (2) seemingly thinks that Ruru & Ruirui were just transcriptions instead of deliberate distortions of Rouran by other Chinese-speaking historiographers, Baumers asserts nothing interpretable as The endonym Rouran itself is derived from the Xianbei slur Ruru or Ruanruan, meaning something akin to "wriggling worms".

I think statement S The endonym Rouran itself is derived from the Xianbei slur Ruru or Ruanruan, meaning something akin to "wriggling worms". should be rewritten into The endonym Rouran (柔然) itself is distorted into Ruru or Ruanruan (蠕蠕), a Xianbei slur meaning something akin to "wriggling worms".

,, etc. What do you think? Erminwin (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I'll have to put on my OR hat for this, which had fallen behind the bed.I'd agree with Baumer 2018 that 茹茹 and 芮芮 are probably just competing transcriptions rather than deliberate distortions (judging from their occurrences, the first from a northern tradition and the second from a southern tradition, but that's just speculation). The Nanqishu is the oldest record of the lot, antedating the flurry of official histories produced by the early Tang historical bureau by a century or more.The History of the Northern Dynasties was the product of independent historians (and the chapter quoted here is the source for the quoted chapter of the Weishu, which User:Erminwin I know you're aware of, but for the benefit of other readers). Apparently the author's family had lived in the northern regions for generations and had closer experience with a lot of the goings-on therein described than the historical apparatus of the Tang court (according to zh:s:北史; not sure what their source is). It's clear from the co-occurrence of 蝚蠕 in Book of Jin (which had plenty of its own problems in composition) juan 125 that the term 柔然 is not spurious, but the bit about Emperor Taiwu of Northern Wei personally inventing the term 蠕蠕 might be speculative folk etymology. I'm not sure this passage can be used to support the article's claim "used in Tuoba-Xianbei sources such as orders given by Emperor Taiwu of Northern Wei"; "used in Tuoba–Xianbei sources" should suffice, although there's probably a secondary source that takes this at face value that could be cited instead to support the current wording.As to the ambiguity about who calls themselves 柔然, while the sentence itself can be read with some ambiguity, I think it's clear from context that "自號柔然" refers to the group as a whole. Between the bit about Taiwu coming up with 蠕蠕 and the next occurrence of the term 蠕蠕 in the Beishi text, there's nothing about the group taking on the self-appellation of its founder's son, but the next occurrence of 蠕蠕 is generations after Cheluhui's death, so it's clearly referring to the group by then. Footnote 3 in zh:s:魏書/卷103 (which comes from the editors of the modern standard Zhonghua Shuju edition of the Weishu, not zh-wikisource editors), specifically states 此族「自號柔然」, so clearly the Zhonghua Shuju editors read it as referring to the group. Stepping outside the text itself, it's unclear what cultural mechanism would lead to a circumstance where a group of people take on the surname referring to one individual, and then also adopt an endonym referring to his son. I acknowledge that this is possible.Pohl 2018 is inaccurate in using "translation" where "transliteration" is meant (how else would you write down a foreign word?), and it seems clear to me that 蝚蠕 and 蠕蠕 have their origins in some kind of racism or other cultural bias, because there's no good reason to bring the "insect" determinant into a demonym based on transliteration alone (footnote 3 in zh:s:魏書/卷103 agrees).I think the person who's mistaken here is Golden 2013, and I wonder if his claim is repeated in his book that followed his festschrift contribution we cite in the article. Although Grousset 1970 does specifically use the word "meaning" in describing 蠕蠕, it might be better to say "connoting the idea of" or something similar, since it is still a transliteration.User:Erminwin, what's Baumer 2018's source for note 50 on page 90? That might be helpful, unless it's one of the passages quoted above. Folly Mox (talk) 13:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I do not have access to Baumer 2018, so:
 * (1) I have no idea the source(s) was/were
 * (2) I'll have to obtain the book somehow.
 * I think that confusion shall potentially arise, because:
 * (3) Ruirui - in Baumer (2018) - is definitely Ruìruì (芮芮) in Nanqishu, Liangshu, Songshu; yet
 * (4) Ruru is interpretable as either (4a) Rúrú 茹茹 (in Beiqishu, Zhoushu, Suishu) or (4b) 蠕蠕 (in reconstructed Weishu & Beishi), which has two Mandarin readings Rúrú or Ruánruán.
 * Even so, I think this is what Baumer in almost all likelihood means:
 * Next up, let's say that Baumer (2018) was correct that "that 茹茹 and 芮芮 are probably just competing transcriptions rather than deliberate distortions" of 柔然, I still think that Baumer (2018) can not be used as source for the statement:
 * which I think should be rewritten into:
 * to reflect Baumer (2018).
 * Still, I won't revise it yet. Erminwin (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh I see. That sentence is in the #Khaganate subheading. I wasn't finding it in #Etymology and assumed it had already been reworded. I think my proposed wording might be The endonym Rouran (柔然) itself is distorted into Ruru or Ruanruan (蠕蠕), a Xianbei slur connoting something akin to "wriggling worms". Because it is still just a derogatory demonym, and as such the wormy bits are more connotative than definitional. Folly Mox (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Many heartfelt thanks! Two problematic statements have been revised! Erminwin (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * to reflect Baumer (2018).
 * Still, I won't revise it yet. Erminwin (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh I see. That sentence is in the #Khaganate subheading. I wasn't finding it in #Etymology and assumed it had already been reworded. I think my proposed wording might be The endonym Rouran (柔然) itself is distorted into Ruru or Ruanruan (蠕蠕), a Xianbei slur connoting something akin to "wriggling worms". Because it is still just a derogatory demonym, and as such the wormy bits are more connotative than definitional. Folly Mox (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Many heartfelt thanks! Two problematic statements have been revised! Erminwin (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Maps
,, can you two talk about this instead of edit warring the map situation back and forth? Folly Mox (talk) 17:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Iranian huns
The name of the Iranian Huns mentioned on this page is not mentioned in any historical article. While Huns is a general name given to nomadic peoples in the past, Iran is a geographical name and the geography of Iran has nothing to do with the Rouran government. For this reason, the word Iranian Huns should be deleted. I tried to delete it but I encountered illogical behavior of Iranian History account. Atrmiles (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Atrmiles What does this has to do with anything IlyaSurkhayovic (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @IlyaSurkhayovic oh no, I wrote this stuff for another discussion. thank you about warning. Atrmiles (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)