03-12-2014, 04:41 PM
Hi Evan, sorry to have taken so long to reply but the history of the Huns is not something that can be covered in a few paragraphs. Even my reply can’t cover everything so reply is probably shorter than it should be.
While I agree with a lot of what you wrote in your earlier reply, there are a couple of points where we differ.
Firstly the Chunni, while there is a possibility of them being Daco-Germanic, they would have been thoroughly Sarmatized by then, but Kim writes in his book that these Chunni were hired by the Greuthungi king Vithimiris to aid in his fight against the Alans fighting alongside the Huns, invading his lands in about 376AD & these Chunni who may have included some elements of Turkic tribes such as Alpidzuri, Alcidzuri etc. were already living west of the Volga at the time of the main Hunnic invasion. However these so called Huns were independent tribes of Turkic speakers who had been living there since 2nd century AD.
As to the tribes, rather than being serf class as you say maybe these tribes such as Alipzuri, Alcidzuri, Itimari, Tuncassi and the Boisci lived peacefully amongst the Eastern Alans and in some cases probably acknowledged Alan leadership west of the Aral Sea, they would have been the Eastern neighbours of the Western Alans who lived between Caspian and Black Seas and lived peacefully and probably had family links and alliances with the Eastern Alans who ruled north and east of the Caspian Sea according to Sulimirski. But both groups of Alans over time were being pushed west by developments in the Siberian-Kazakhstan steppes, particularly the expansion of the Huns but as you suggested the effects of climate change (El Nino) and overgrazing which occurred regularly in pastoral economies which contributed to the ebb and flow of herd sizes and led to disputes over water and grazing land. Priscus mentions that the Huns subdued these tribes and then they subdued the Alans, who worn out by constant warfare with a race which was equal to them in war but unlike them in civilization, mode of life or appearance. So through conquest they had now become part of the Hunnic Empire & would be part of the later Hunnic attacks on the Goths.
But who were these Huns that posed such a threat to the status quo and where did they come from? It would appear that they were mainly Turkic speakers in a tongue which modern Chuvash probably descended from. I have read a lot of Peter Heather’s material like you suggested but to me he seems to underestimate the Huns saying that other than under the leadership of Attila and Bleda, the Huns were a disparate group of individual tribes that were not really a threat to Western Empire like the Visigoths, Vandals and other German tribes like Franks, Alamans and Burgundians. But the Huns were more than a disparate group of bloodthirsty tribes with no centralised leadership but to the contrary, a quite centralised empire with both pastoral and sedentary elements with a highly organised political and military setup based on the old nemesis of the Han Chinese, the Xiongnu who used a system of Dualism or a system of dual kings. And both empires were expert standover merchants who knew how to squeeze every last sesterces out of what to them were weak sedentary empires namely Han China and both Eastern and Western Empires of Rome. They needed all the riches they could get their hands on to keep all the tribes and leaders happy and things only went wrong for them when the sedentary empires said enough is enough.
Even the Alans to a certain degree seemed to practice a form of Dualism with the Eastern and Western Alans and even in 406AD before crossing the Rhine the minor Alan king Goar’s group broke with the main group led by Respendial and joined the Romans. I know you feel that any connections between the Huns of Attila and the Xiongnu have been discredited since the 1940s maybe you are right but I try to keep an open mind on this but when the Northern Xiongnu were defeated by the Han they disappeared from history while the Southern Xiongnu continued on for a few centuries after.
Kim argues in his book that although the leadership of the Huns may not be related to the Xiongnu the methods of the Xiongnu on how to form and hold an empire were passed on through till the 5th and 6th centuries and probably even to the time of the Mongols
Firstly a quick rundown on the political & military leadership system of the Xiongnu. Most of what we know about the Xiongnu is based on Chinese sources. But even these do not cover their origin. From these sources we know the names of three perhaps four royal aristocratic clans, the personal names of their supreme chief “Shanyu” or “Chanyu” and the titles of the top positions in their government. Hyun Jin Kim states “In that time despite their nomadism the Xiongnu managed to achieve an astonishing degree of centralization and pioneered the classic model of imperial rule for later steppe empires to imitate.”
In their organization the supreme power rested in the hands of Shanyu/Chanyu meaning Emperor who was assisted in his duties by the Gu-du. These were the kings of the Left (looking at it from a Northern aspect while the Chinese looked at the Xiongnu from a southern aspect), or the Eastern ruler(usually the main ruler or emperor) and the Right or the Western ruler who was subordinate to the king of the Left. then flanking these would be the four principal, regional governorships in the East and West called in the Hou Hanshu, “the four horns” or “angles” usually the Shanyu’s sons or brothers and these constituted the highest ranking aristocrats in the empire. Maybe around 97BC they gradually added six more aristocratic titles (the six horns or angles). Polygamy was normal amongst steppe rulers so there would be many sons and younger brothers. These were the kings of the Left and the Right.
Below these top-ranking nobles were the so-called twenty-four imperial leaders/ministers(each titled Ten Thousand Horsemen), who acted as Imperial governors for the major provinces of the empire most were probably close relatives of the Shanyu or members of the Xiongnu aristocracy. These princes were divided into Western and Eastern groups (dualism) and the successor to the throne was usually appointed the Wise king of the Left i.e. the ruler of the Eastern half of the empire. At the bottom of this administrative hierarchy was a large class of subordinate or vassal tribal leaders (sub-kings, prime ministers, chief commandants and household administrators all under the command of the twenty-four imperial governors but enjoying some level of local autonomy.
They had a non-decimal system of ranks used for the political administration of tribes and territory within the empire which included groups of different sizes. However a more rigid system of decimal ranks (thousands, hundreds, tens) was used in times of war when large armies were formed from different parts of their empire under a single command structure. (This sounds similar to what you were saying about Cunei organizations in the Huns.) But this system worked for over one hundred and fifty years till civil war split the Xiongnu. The Rouran followed a similar organization with a system of dual kings, East and West with the Eastern being the senior king but like Attila was to do with the Huns the western king overthrew the Eastern one.
In regard to the Western Huns having a similar organization to ancient Xiongnu, in the Alice Horton (1898) translation of the Song of the Nibelungs below. Adventure XXII-How Etzel espoused Kriemhilda ( quatrain 1342). I would not use a Germanic poem as proof of Huns having a similar hierarchy or court of 24 princes or high officials (Fursten), but it is an interesting aside. Maenchen-Helfen talks about Attila’s logades or his prominent or distinguished men.
https://archive.org/stream/laynibelungs0...earch/XXII (1342)
Just on Steppe or Central Asian societies, Kim says a lot of importance was placed in colours and heirachy and the importance of tribal groups, usually white signifying west, blue east, black north, red south. Blue and Black carried more connotations of greatness and superiority. White Huns (Hephthalites), Black Huns (Hara Huna), Red Huns (Kermichiones), Blue Huns (Gokturks being blue or celestial). Attila’s Huns were the northernmost Huns so black is probably right in regard to Attila’s huns as even Ammianus thinks they arrived from the north.
Is there evidence that the Hunnic empire existed as a political unit before Attila’s rule in the 5th century in our sources. The first mentioned Hunnic king was Uldin or Uldes who was probably the Western ruler or minor king, as he was called a regulus(minor or sub-king) who ruled from 390-411AD so there was probably an unknown eastern king although maybe Charaton was the Eastern or major king at that stage. Then there was Charaton (Karaton) This name is likely to have been a title rather than a personal name possibly meaning “Black people” (qara tun) who seems to have been the Eastern king and ruled from 410-422AD who is mentioned by Olympidorus of Thebes because the Western minor king Donatus who more than likely succeeded Uldin, was murdered by Roman agents. Charaton had to be soothed by gifts from the Romans. Then there is Octar and Ruga with Ruga probably the Eastern King while Octa was the Western King and Attila and Bleda with Bleda the Eastern King until he died or was murdered by Attila and Attila breaking tradition and obtaining sole leadership and trying to install his son as leader of the Acitziri who revolted after the death of Bleda with some Roman help. Priscus mentions that on the death of Ruga, Bleda and Attila demanded that the Romans hand over the sons of one of their uncles, but we don’t know who but probably the western king Octar. These boys were Mama and Atakam who must have escaped when the brothers took over or more than likely were hostages in Rome to guarantee good behaviour of the previous kings. They must have been converted to Christianity while hostages because they were immediately crucified when handed over by the Romans according to Priscus. As the Huns conquered the German tribes they placed Hunnic princes or nobles in charge of these tribes to bind them to the empire like Edeco who was put in charge of the Sciri and married a Sciri princess. This is just a quick rundown on events as I am already up to 1700 words but am interested in continuing topic later with more details if required. Tribal names, language and leaders’names etc. Maenchen-Helfen mentions that there was a possible revolt of some Alan and Germanic tribes and logades j(tribal chiefs) against Uldin including the Vandals, Suevi and Alans which crossed the Rhine in 406AD but details would take up too much space. This is mainly how the Huns were organised to take on Rome.
:-)
Regards
Michael Kerr
While I agree with a lot of what you wrote in your earlier reply, there are a couple of points where we differ.
Firstly the Chunni, while there is a possibility of them being Daco-Germanic, they would have been thoroughly Sarmatized by then, but Kim writes in his book that these Chunni were hired by the Greuthungi king Vithimiris to aid in his fight against the Alans fighting alongside the Huns, invading his lands in about 376AD & these Chunni who may have included some elements of Turkic tribes such as Alpidzuri, Alcidzuri etc. were already living west of the Volga at the time of the main Hunnic invasion. However these so called Huns were independent tribes of Turkic speakers who had been living there since 2nd century AD.
As to the tribes, rather than being serf class as you say maybe these tribes such as Alipzuri, Alcidzuri, Itimari, Tuncassi and the Boisci lived peacefully amongst the Eastern Alans and in some cases probably acknowledged Alan leadership west of the Aral Sea, they would have been the Eastern neighbours of the Western Alans who lived between Caspian and Black Seas and lived peacefully and probably had family links and alliances with the Eastern Alans who ruled north and east of the Caspian Sea according to Sulimirski. But both groups of Alans over time were being pushed west by developments in the Siberian-Kazakhstan steppes, particularly the expansion of the Huns but as you suggested the effects of climate change (El Nino) and overgrazing which occurred regularly in pastoral economies which contributed to the ebb and flow of herd sizes and led to disputes over water and grazing land. Priscus mentions that the Huns subdued these tribes and then they subdued the Alans, who worn out by constant warfare with a race which was equal to them in war but unlike them in civilization, mode of life or appearance. So through conquest they had now become part of the Hunnic Empire & would be part of the later Hunnic attacks on the Goths.
But who were these Huns that posed such a threat to the status quo and where did they come from? It would appear that they were mainly Turkic speakers in a tongue which modern Chuvash probably descended from. I have read a lot of Peter Heather’s material like you suggested but to me he seems to underestimate the Huns saying that other than under the leadership of Attila and Bleda, the Huns were a disparate group of individual tribes that were not really a threat to Western Empire like the Visigoths, Vandals and other German tribes like Franks, Alamans and Burgundians. But the Huns were more than a disparate group of bloodthirsty tribes with no centralised leadership but to the contrary, a quite centralised empire with both pastoral and sedentary elements with a highly organised political and military setup based on the old nemesis of the Han Chinese, the Xiongnu who used a system of Dualism or a system of dual kings. And both empires were expert standover merchants who knew how to squeeze every last sesterces out of what to them were weak sedentary empires namely Han China and both Eastern and Western Empires of Rome. They needed all the riches they could get their hands on to keep all the tribes and leaders happy and things only went wrong for them when the sedentary empires said enough is enough.
Even the Alans to a certain degree seemed to practice a form of Dualism with the Eastern and Western Alans and even in 406AD before crossing the Rhine the minor Alan king Goar’s group broke with the main group led by Respendial and joined the Romans. I know you feel that any connections between the Huns of Attila and the Xiongnu have been discredited since the 1940s maybe you are right but I try to keep an open mind on this but when the Northern Xiongnu were defeated by the Han they disappeared from history while the Southern Xiongnu continued on for a few centuries after.
Kim argues in his book that although the leadership of the Huns may not be related to the Xiongnu the methods of the Xiongnu on how to form and hold an empire were passed on through till the 5th and 6th centuries and probably even to the time of the Mongols
Firstly a quick rundown on the political & military leadership system of the Xiongnu. Most of what we know about the Xiongnu is based on Chinese sources. But even these do not cover their origin. From these sources we know the names of three perhaps four royal aristocratic clans, the personal names of their supreme chief “Shanyu” or “Chanyu” and the titles of the top positions in their government. Hyun Jin Kim states “In that time despite their nomadism the Xiongnu managed to achieve an astonishing degree of centralization and pioneered the classic model of imperial rule for later steppe empires to imitate.”
In their organization the supreme power rested in the hands of Shanyu/Chanyu meaning Emperor who was assisted in his duties by the Gu-du. These were the kings of the Left (looking at it from a Northern aspect while the Chinese looked at the Xiongnu from a southern aspect), or the Eastern ruler(usually the main ruler or emperor) and the Right or the Western ruler who was subordinate to the king of the Left. then flanking these would be the four principal, regional governorships in the East and West called in the Hou Hanshu, “the four horns” or “angles” usually the Shanyu’s sons or brothers and these constituted the highest ranking aristocrats in the empire. Maybe around 97BC they gradually added six more aristocratic titles (the six horns or angles). Polygamy was normal amongst steppe rulers so there would be many sons and younger brothers. These were the kings of the Left and the Right.
Below these top-ranking nobles were the so-called twenty-four imperial leaders/ministers(each titled Ten Thousand Horsemen), who acted as Imperial governors for the major provinces of the empire most were probably close relatives of the Shanyu or members of the Xiongnu aristocracy. These princes were divided into Western and Eastern groups (dualism) and the successor to the throne was usually appointed the Wise king of the Left i.e. the ruler of the Eastern half of the empire. At the bottom of this administrative hierarchy was a large class of subordinate or vassal tribal leaders (sub-kings, prime ministers, chief commandants and household administrators all under the command of the twenty-four imperial governors but enjoying some level of local autonomy.
They had a non-decimal system of ranks used for the political administration of tribes and territory within the empire which included groups of different sizes. However a more rigid system of decimal ranks (thousands, hundreds, tens) was used in times of war when large armies were formed from different parts of their empire under a single command structure. (This sounds similar to what you were saying about Cunei organizations in the Huns.) But this system worked for over one hundred and fifty years till civil war split the Xiongnu. The Rouran followed a similar organization with a system of dual kings, East and West with the Eastern being the senior king but like Attila was to do with the Huns the western king overthrew the Eastern one.
In regard to the Western Huns having a similar organization to ancient Xiongnu, in the Alice Horton (1898) translation of the Song of the Nibelungs below. Adventure XXII-How Etzel espoused Kriemhilda ( quatrain 1342). I would not use a Germanic poem as proof of Huns having a similar hierarchy or court of 24 princes or high officials (Fursten), but it is an interesting aside. Maenchen-Helfen talks about Attila’s logades or his prominent or distinguished men.
https://archive.org/stream/laynibelungs0...earch/XXII (1342)
Just on Steppe or Central Asian societies, Kim says a lot of importance was placed in colours and heirachy and the importance of tribal groups, usually white signifying west, blue east, black north, red south. Blue and Black carried more connotations of greatness and superiority. White Huns (Hephthalites), Black Huns (Hara Huna), Red Huns (Kermichiones), Blue Huns (Gokturks being blue or celestial). Attila’s Huns were the northernmost Huns so black is probably right in regard to Attila’s huns as even Ammianus thinks they arrived from the north.
Is there evidence that the Hunnic empire existed as a political unit before Attila’s rule in the 5th century in our sources. The first mentioned Hunnic king was Uldin or Uldes who was probably the Western ruler or minor king, as he was called a regulus(minor or sub-king) who ruled from 390-411AD so there was probably an unknown eastern king although maybe Charaton was the Eastern or major king at that stage. Then there was Charaton (Karaton) This name is likely to have been a title rather than a personal name possibly meaning “Black people” (qara tun) who seems to have been the Eastern king and ruled from 410-422AD who is mentioned by Olympidorus of Thebes because the Western minor king Donatus who more than likely succeeded Uldin, was murdered by Roman agents. Charaton had to be soothed by gifts from the Romans. Then there is Octar and Ruga with Ruga probably the Eastern King while Octa was the Western King and Attila and Bleda with Bleda the Eastern King until he died or was murdered by Attila and Attila breaking tradition and obtaining sole leadership and trying to install his son as leader of the Acitziri who revolted after the death of Bleda with some Roman help. Priscus mentions that on the death of Ruga, Bleda and Attila demanded that the Romans hand over the sons of one of their uncles, but we don’t know who but probably the western king Octar. These boys were Mama and Atakam who must have escaped when the brothers took over or more than likely were hostages in Rome to guarantee good behaviour of the previous kings. They must have been converted to Christianity while hostages because they were immediately crucified when handed over by the Romans according to Priscus. As the Huns conquered the German tribes they placed Hunnic princes or nobles in charge of these tribes to bind them to the empire like Edeco who was put in charge of the Sciri and married a Sciri princess. This is just a quick rundown on events as I am already up to 1700 words but am interested in continuing topic later with more details if required. Tribal names, language and leaders’names etc. Maenchen-Helfen mentions that there was a possible revolt of some Alan and Germanic tribes and logades j(tribal chiefs) against Uldin including the Vandals, Suevi and Alans which crossed the Rhine in 406AD but details would take up too much space. This is mainly how the Huns were organised to take on Rome.
:-) Regards
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
