03-27-2014, 02:41 AM
Most nomadic routes were located north of the area between Caspian and Aral Seas, as I mentioned previously the area between the two seas was a lot wetter and marshier than it is now. I shall post a map from the book The Palgrave Concise Historical Atlas of Central Asia to show main route. I agree with you that the area between the Aral Sea and the upper Ob was probably dominated by Western Altaic groups like the Wu-chieh who were probably ancestors to the Orghuz Turks, the Ko-k'un who were probably Kirghiz people & the strongest group the Ting-ling, ancestors of the Uighurs, but that was north of the Jaxartes (Syr Darya) river. Ptolemy in 150ad places Alanoi/Alanorsi on the southern boundary of this fringe area from T'ien Shan mountains to the lower Caspian Sea so this suggests the European/Black Huns may have clashed with the Alans & possibly forced some Alanic groups west but I don't think they ever occupied the Oxus delta system south of Aral Sea but possibly had interaction with them trading sheep, furs & cattle for salt & grain & assorted luxury goods and weapons, maybe even farming tools. To be honest all OMH has to connect the two areas are evidence of cranial deformation in graves and the use of similar types of sickles, Eastern Alans also practiced cranial deformation and tools and weapons can pass on to different cultures through trade and war. The area between the two rivers (Khwarezm) was mainly Indo-Iranic/Sogdian AFAIK but I am no expert. There must have been a long period of stability & peace between groups maybe 150 or more years before something happened, famine or drought causing decimation of herds either due to severe climate change or overuse of land, overgrazing, war, overpopulation or further invasions from the east caused friction between peoples. I understand that the Aral Sea was a lot bigger and marshier than today and it is still shrinking & become more accessible for raids from north as well as from Kidarite raids from east forcing Alans/K'ang-chu westwards. I honestly don't know. The Kidarites or Red Huns were the exception at this time as they managed to invade and dominate Sogdiana until they in turn were defeated & driven into India by Hephthalites, and disrupt trade routes so they were a bigger threat to Sassanid Persia than other nomadic groups. This changed later on though from sixth century onwards.
Just one question on your previous post where you stated that the proto-Huns were people who were just there, passed over & assimilated. What do you mean? If they were just there how did they come to dominate their neighbours? I for one don't wear the age old theory that with the Huns, that their savagery, their horsemanship & use of the Hunnic bow and lassos caused them to become super warriors giving them a superior technological edge as well as striking fear into the hearts of their opponents, while these things may have given them an advantage against Germanic & sedentary foes like farmers & Romans, they would not have these advantages over Alans, who lets face it didn't mind collecting heads and scalps of their enemies to display on their horse gear so they themselves were no shrinking violets or wimps, so reputed Hunnic savagery would not make them flinch at the sight of Huns or explain how they were overwhelmed & to a lesser extent Eastern Goth armies who were pretty sarmaticized by 4th century & themselves would have learnt a thing or two about savagery, these groups would have access to the same weapons, including bows armour & technology & equal horse riding skills & probably better horses than the Huns, more than likely they were a better equipped force with lancers as well as archers. The only difference must have been how the Huns organised their armies & leadership as well as a workable system of assimilation of conquered tribes & the use of diplomacy for a divide & conquer policy & reward systems for loyalty of former enemy leaders. The Huns were more sophisticated in their dealings with other tribes & nations than they are given credit for & maybe being able to organise & maintain permanent standing armies while incorporating their former enemies forces into their own armies helped. I am just curious as to your reasoning for saying that.
mile: :?
[attachment=9402]nomadicmovements.jpg[/attachment]
Just one question on your previous post where you stated that the proto-Huns were people who were just there, passed over & assimilated. What do you mean? If they were just there how did they come to dominate their neighbours? I for one don't wear the age old theory that with the Huns, that their savagery, their horsemanship & use of the Hunnic bow and lassos caused them to become super warriors giving them a superior technological edge as well as striking fear into the hearts of their opponents, while these things may have given them an advantage against Germanic & sedentary foes like farmers & Romans, they would not have these advantages over Alans, who lets face it didn't mind collecting heads and scalps of their enemies to display on their horse gear so they themselves were no shrinking violets or wimps, so reputed Hunnic savagery would not make them flinch at the sight of Huns or explain how they were overwhelmed & to a lesser extent Eastern Goth armies who were pretty sarmaticized by 4th century & themselves would have learnt a thing or two about savagery, these groups would have access to the same weapons, including bows armour & technology & equal horse riding skills & probably better horses than the Huns, more than likely they were a better equipped force with lancers as well as archers. The only difference must have been how the Huns organised their armies & leadership as well as a workable system of assimilation of conquered tribes & the use of diplomacy for a divide & conquer policy & reward systems for loyalty of former enemy leaders. The Huns were more sophisticated in their dealings with other tribes & nations than they are given credit for & maybe being able to organise & maintain permanent standing armies while incorporating their former enemies forces into their own armies helped. I am just curious as to your reasoning for saying that.
mile: :? [attachment=9402]nomadicmovements.jpg[/attachment]
Regards
Michael Kerr
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"
