It is often mentioned that Han Wu Di forced the XiongNu to move westward. Thus, later, the XiongNu became known as the Huns in the west. How true was this?

Although not proven, this theory has been generally accepted by most scholars. The European Hun's genetic testing has high similarity with the Xiongnu.

A reconstruction of a Hunnish head from a skull found in Austria showed a strongly Mongoloid-looking face. This was featured in a recent documentary on Discovery.

Emperor Han Wudi launched 3 military campaign to attacks the XiongNu. I don't know if this was the reason why some of the XiongNu tribes move westwards towards central asia. But not only that, there was also several wars between eastern Han and the XiongNu. The XiongNu splitted into north Xiongnu and south Xiongnu in 48 AD. The South Xiongnu migrated towards China, while northern Xiongnu continued to battle the Han. It might be likely that northern Xiongnu had began migrating westwards towards Europe.

The direct relation of Huns in Europe to XiongNu is still under debate, but this theory might be proven if more achaeology founding is discovered.

Regarding the Xiong Nu I have read that they were what were known as the Huns in Europe. Is this so? If this is the case, what similarities (and differences) were there between the Xiong Nu in their wars against the Han, and the Huns who poured into eastern Europe during the so-called Dark Ages?
M.Lorimer

Hi Caocao74, we've discussed this question briefly before on this thread: http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=305

Many Western and Chinese sources simply state it as a given that the Xiongnu and the Huns are the same people, but this old theory has never been proven by anything more than circumstantial evidence (such as the vague similarity of the names and the fact that the Huns appeared in Europe in the mid-4th century, roughly about the time that the Xiongnu were wiped out in China).

This is David Nicolle's take on the issue in his "Attila and the Nomad Hordes":

The whole question of whether some Hsiung-Nu, perhaps mingling with nomads further west, eventually reappeared in eastern Europe as Huns remains unanswered. The Chinese described them as having almost Western features, while European chroniclers remark on the strong Asiatic appearance of the Huns. The Hsiung-Nu wore pigtails; the Huns did not but may have scarred their faces as warrior adornment. The Huns practised cranial deformation, making their skulls elongated, as did the Germans and Iranian Sarmatian nomads - but the Hsiung-Nu did not. The Huns, according to their foes, killed their own old folk, and lack of respect for the elderly characterized Indo-European peoples like the Germans and Alans but ran counter to east Asian tradition.

[Note: Nicolle's last point is based on a superficial reading of Chinese sources, which make it quite clear that the Xiongnu and other such nomadic peoples despised the elderly and glorified those who died young in battle.]

Thanks Yun
Sorry if I bring up questions that have already been approached previously. I have been on other forums for some years and I regularly see the same questions being brought up by new members, but now it's my turn. Thanks again anyways.
M.Lorimer

It was not until the 1970s did the renowned Chinese historian, Qi Si He (齐思和）remade through textual research the westward route the Xiongnu took. His essay was first translated and published in a U.S.S.R-based periodical.

Traditionally, Chinese historians believed the Xiongnu left no record in Chinese histories after 91 A.D.


http://depts.washington.edu/uwch/silkroad/...ngnu/essay.html

Thanks for that cniht, much appreciated.

That only applies to the northern Xiongnu. The southern Xiongnu remained important in Han history as border vassals who occasionally rebelled. Cao Cao reorganised them into several Sections (bu) and deposed their Chanyu, then resettled them in Shanxi to both control them more directly and employ them as military auxiliaries. There were Xiongnu rebellions in 271, 294, and most significantly in 304 - this last one succeeded in toppling the Western Jin dynasty, conquering north China, and ruling it as a state named the Han (later renamed Zhao) until 329. It was then destroyed by the Jie (Sogdian?) state of Later Zhao, and the Xiongnu aristocracy was massacred. However, the surviving Xiongnu remained prominent in the Ordos region, as rivals of the Tuoba Xianbei. In 407, a Xiongnu aristocrat named Liu Bobo (later Helian Bobo) founded the Xia state, which became quite strong and was only conquered by the Northern Wei in 431.

I have seen Qi Sihe's essay but have not yet studied it carefully. It is not generally recognised by Western scholars as authoritative, I suspect because of Qi's heavily Marxist inclinations. If anyone could summarise his argument here, both caocao and I would be very appreciative.

His argument involves much Chinese textual record. I have not much time for a summary now.
That essay does not contain much Marxist stuff. It is only traditional textual research in line with Chinese historians' conduct.

I'm not sure about that, according to McGovern's ancient empires of central asia, most historians accepted that theory.

Well, I'll try buying the collection of Qi Sihe's essays when I go to Shanghai later this month, and then post my further comments.

For interest's sake: Qi Sihe was a Harvard-trained historian who got his PhD and returned to China on the eve of the Communist victory, and chose to stay on. He had been trained in Chinese history, but the PRC government assigned him to teach world history because of his proficiency in English. From 1949 onwards, he produced little original work in either Chinese or world history, supposedly because he saw little chance of writing freely. His most significant activity was editing the first volume of a textbook on world history, dealing with ancient civilisations. He met an untimely death, like so many other scholars, in the Cultural Revolution.

There was thread in AE about this subject, some forumites also stated some archeological findings, I wounder where this thread is? Maybe Yhsan would know.

I also opened a thread on this issue in the SHF:

On the Xiongnu-Hun Issue

Hi Yihesan, long time no see. I can't register to AE, is there a problem with the system?

Xiong-Nu, or in classic Chinese pronounciation, Hun-Nu, or their old name, Hu.

There have been possitive links for the word Hu to Hun-Nu. It's a Han language feature where translating foreign words with extra sounds at the end without vowls are dropped, or added a vowl to sound it.

I don't really recall the Hun-Nu to "respect elderly".

I only remember that after the fater died, the son marries the mother.

I think the Hu and Xiong Nu belonged to different groups.

Actually, it's just a different label. The Hu people refer to a general mix of nomadic people such as XiongNu, Xianbei, Wuhuan etc.

Do refer to the thread for more info on Hu people:
http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=75

I think that is refering to the "Dong Hu". There must be a reason why they call a group Hu, and one group Dong Hu.

I belive Dong Hu at first was used to refer to the mix of nomads.

I've seen a theory that Donghu (the ancestors of the Xianbei, Wuhuan, Khitan, Shiwei etc.) was actually a transliteration of Tungus rather than literally meaning "Eastern Hu". How credible is that? After all, the Xianbei didn't speak a Tungusic language.

'Hu' in Chinese history has been used very vaguely to refer to anything from Xiongnu and Yuezhi (Kushans/Tocharians) to Tujue (Turkut) to Sogdians to Indians and Arabs. That's why I'm rather doubtful that it derived from the name of a particular group.

Dong in classic chinese sounds more like Dang (D-ah-ng) don't think it is the translation for Tungus. But who knows....

Zhu Xueyuan, in his "The Origins of China's Northern Ethnicities" 《中国北方诸族的源流》, proposed a new theory that the Huns were not Turkic or related to the Xiongnu, but were actually from the Tungus-Xianbei peoples. This is based on similarities between the Hun language and the Xianbei and Mongol languages.

There are no similarities between "Hunnic" and Xianbei-Mongol.

Zhu Xueyuan's supposed similarities between the Hunnic and Xianbei-Mongol languages are mostly based on names of tribes and individuals - which can be a rather unreliable methodology. Examples:

the Bulgar tribe - the Xianbei Pugu tribe

the Kurtrighur tribe - the Gaochegu/Gaoche (which, according to Zhu, was a Xianbei tribe assimilated by the Xiongnu)

Aigan, a Hun cavalry officer in Belisarius' army - 'Agan', the Xianbei word for brother

Anagai, an Utrighur chieftain - Anagui, the last Rouran kaghan

Attila - the Mongol names Adi and Atai

Souni-kas, name of a Hun converted to Christianity - Xianbei tribe Sunigu/Sunige

Zaber-gan, Kurtrighur chieftain - Zhebe, famous Mongol general

Zerkon, one of Attila's advisers - Zagaan/Chagaan, a common name that means 'white' in Mongol and Tungus.

LOL there are more Turkic names of Huns recorded by the Romans.

Hun Or Mongol ????

Hun. He's 'the Hun' no?

Mongols weren't a single tribe at that time!

cool pic btw..

Hun = Hungary ???

Most scholars no longer accept the linking of the name 'Hungary' with 'Hun'. The name may come from the Onogurs, who were one of the Hun tribes and ancestors of the Bulgars. But the people who founded the Hungarian kingdom were Magyars, who are of no direct relation to the Huns.

It is also still in dispute whether the Huns and Ephtalites (White Huns) were both descended from the Xiongnu. Some of the members here take it as a given, but I don't.

Huh? I had this idea that the nomads of the steppes were inter-related in the first place.

Just to clarify, are you saying you are not accepting (yet) that the Huns were related to the Xiongnu? Or just the Hephthalites/Ephthalites?

Perhaps it would be more precise to say the Huns and the Xiongnu descended from a single original Altaic tribe mentioned in Chinese legend of the Xia era instead of the Huns descending from Xiongnu?

I found the site http://www.hunmagyar.org/hungary/history/index.html to provide some interesting info.

BTW, the picture with the word Attila resembled more like something from a Conan comic rather than reflect any historical accuracy.

I tend to doubt both, and also to doubt whether the Huns and Hephthalites were even related. But others have done much more reading in this area than I have, so I should wait for them to join in.



Isn't the Chinese legend that the Xiongnu are descendants of their Sage-King Yu (who founded the Xia dynasty)?



Indeed. What's that naked woman in a wolfskin cap doing on his horse?

It's what the Xiongnu claimed, and I tend to think that it's a propaganda tool to justify their invasion of Han.

Timeline : Huns




* Mounted archers

* 200BC: Mao-tun unites the Huns (Xiongnu, Hsiung-nu) in Central Asia around Lake Bajkal and southeastern Mongolia, with capital in Longcheng (near Ulan Bator)

* 176BC: the Hsiung-nu attack eastern China (the Tocharians)

* 140BC: Han emperor Wu-ti conducts campaigns against the Hsiung-nu

* 121BC: China defeats the Hsiung-nu

* 51 BC: the Hsiung-nu split into two hordes, with the eastern (southern) horde subject to China

* 50 BC: the western Huns expand to the Volga

* 48 AD: the Hsiung-nu empire is defeated by the Han and dissolves

* 337AD: Constantine dies and the Roman empire is divided in eastern
(Costantinople) and western (Rome) empire

* 350AD: Hunnic invasion of South-eastern Europe

* 376AD: Huns, led by Uldin, reach the Black Sea and the Danube, conquering the eastern Goths

* 395AD: the Huns raid Armenia

* 408AD: Uldin crosses the Danube but is defeated by Rome

* 408AD: the Roman patrician Aetius is taken prisoner by the Huns

* 412AD: the new Hun leader Donatus is murdered by the Romans and is succeeded by Charato (Karaton), who unifies all Western Huns

* 425AD: Huns are hired by a western Roman general (Aetius) to fight in Italy during a political crisis

* 430AD: the new Hun leader Rugida (Rua) signs a peace treaty with the eastern Roman empire (annual salary in return for peace)

* 433AD: Rugida (Rua) signs a treaty with the western Roman empire that surrenders Pannonia to the Huns in exchange for military help

* 433AD: Aetius becomes the de-facto ruler of the western Roman empire

* 434AD: Rugida (Rua) dies and is succeeded by Attila (a friend of Aetius) and his brother Bleda

* 435AD: Aetius employs Huns to fight Vandals and Franks

* 436AD: Aetius and the Huns destroy the Burgundians

* 439AD: Attila helps Aetius

* 441AD: the Huns raid eastern Roman outposts along the Danube

* 441AD: the Huns sign a peace treaty with the eastern Roman empire

* 445AD: by murdering his brother, Attila becomes sole leader of the Huns, who are centered in Hungary (Pannonia)

* 447AD: the Huns and Valamer's Goths attack the eastern Roman empire in the Balkans and Attila reaches the walls of Constantinople

* 449AD: Attila signs a new treaty with the eastern Roman empire

* 450AD: the new emperor Marcian reneges on the Hun-Roman treaty

* 451AD: Huns travel from Pannonia and attack Gaul but are defeated by Aetius and the Visigoths

* 452AD: Huns cross the Alps but renounce attacking Italy for fear of the plague and Attila concludes peace with Pope Leo

* 453AD: Attila dies

* 454AD: Goths expel Huns from Pannonia

* 454AD: Aetius is murdered by his emperor

* 461AD: the Huns besiege Paris

* 469AD: the Hun king Dengizik dies and the Huns disappear



source : http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/barbars.html

Western scholars (the older ones) actually found artifacts linking the Huns with Xiongnu. Their combs and cauldrons are identical.

Also, in Otto von Maenchen's book, there are genetic descriptions of Hun bodies unearthed in Hungary. Some were even described as Sinitic (descendants of Chinese traitors or slaves who mixed with Xiongnu).

I am very convinced they were the same tribe.

I am also convinced that the Huns of Attila were a downgrade militarily compared to the Xiongnu who attacked Western Han Dynasty. The Xiongnu of the earlier shan-yu would have easily swallowed the Roman empire.

Also the Avars who later invaded Europe had also came from the northern steppes bordering China. Chinese referred to them as "Juan-Juan." It is entirely possible for nomadic groups to travel long and wide distances.

The more accurate term is Rouran - Ruanruan or Juanjuan is just a derogatory term given to them by the Tuoba Wei. The Rouran=Avar theory has also been around for a long time, but other than a correspondence between the fall of the Rouran to the Turkut, and the arrival of the Avars in Europe, I cannot see any other strong connection. Furthermore, why should the Rouran (after their final defeat in 555) have taken only 3 years to get to Europe, when the Xiongnu supposedly took 300 years to do the same?

Here is a Chinese article that assumes the Huns were the Xiongnu:

http://www.bfxb.cn/view.asp?NewsID=2685&classID=17

Here is one that argues that they weren't:

http://www.ynet.com/view.jsp?oid=5383120&pageno=3

More Chinese-language articles on this thread:

http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php...0&#entry4727271

but there are in chinese
Can't read them

Nomadic people are very mobile and can travel great distances at great speed. Jenghiz Khan and the later Kalmuk Dzungars proved it. The Russian and Central Asian steppes were essentially flat grasslands. There is nothing in their path.

I have read that Han Dynasty General Ban Chao did not massacre and annihilate all the northern Xiongnu. He only killed their fighting age men and let their old, women and children flee. Fled westward on into Russia. Ban Chao did not pursue them and went south to Iran instead, where Gan Ying made his voyages.

That still doesn't explain why the Rouran should be so fast when the Xiongnu were so slow.

If we take it as a establisehed fact that Ban Chao did crush the Xiong-Nu millitary power, it would have taken them at least a generation or more before they would be able to make much noice off themself. + it is not unlikely the Parthians by crushing the Saka's made a power wacuum were the the remains of the Xiong-Nu could establish themself, mingeling whit the remains of their Saka cousins and in that way createt the people we would later know as Huns.
It would by the way eksplain in a natural way some of the inconsistentsies as too were and how they came to be. We have to remember that tribes wether on plains, forest or mountains. don't suddenly grow up from the ground from nothing, in most cases (Shaka's Zulu's as an ekseption) it is a fairly slow process whit sudden burst of speed when a new tribe establishes themself and find their personality as a trbe/clan.

The Avar's or Rouran as you called them, were rather unlucky, they were simply not strong enough to supplant the plains tribes they encountert for long, the Eastern Alans pushed them away from the area around the Aral sea when they tried to establish themself there, they had to make peace whit the Kazars and their Bulgar subjekts to get premission to pass throu their area, in a way it is very understandable why they moved so fast, otherwise they would have been crushed. They finally entert the Hungarian Plain and made a nuisance of themself against amongst others Charlemange, to their grief he was one off the great statesmen and an ekseptionel leader of the time.

Ban Chao never crushed the Xiongnu, it was Dou Hien that did, but the xiongnu later reestalished their kingdom, the person that finally put an end to the Xiongnu for good was Tang Shi Huai, ruler of the Xianbei in rounghly 160 A.D.

The Sakas arenn't a group of power anymore since the 2nd century B.C., the Kang Gu entered Sogdiana, and the Yue Shi had the dominant influence there under the Kushans.

That's rather dismissive of the Avars. Before they were destroyed by Charles the Great (Charlemagne), they established an overlordship over the Bulgars and Slavs and made them serve as infantry in wars against the Byzantine Empire. They besieged Thessaloniki and Constantinople with advanced siege machinery, including perhaps the first traction trebuchets in Europe. They probably introduced stirrups to the Byzantines, and their armoured lancers with iron lamellar were a model for the later Byzantine cataphracts (although Avar horse armour apparently covered only the front part of the horse). If the Avars were indeed the Rouran, then Age of Fragmentation cataphract cavalry tactics from China influenced the development of the Byzantine cataphract.

It was not meant to be dismissive of the Avars, it was meant as a statement of fact that most of the steppe cultures like the Volga Bulgars, The Kazars and even the eastern Alans were still so very much a power that they didn't submit to the Avars also that they were unlucky in running headfirst into the greatest (and ruthless) statesman off his time (That the church and archaic inheritance laws would destroy his empire after his death is not important). In other words they were the wrong place at the wrong time. they ran into various cultures at the height of their powers, not a smart thing to do, but they really didn't have much choice. Which were the main reason for their speedy movement across the continent.

Btw, the Tujue later expanded into Europe and briefly subjugated the Kazhars, later it seem from Tujue pressure after its destruction in 659 groups of them fled westwards and pressured the Bulgars to make war on Byzantine.

I've checked some sources, the most importance primary source here should be Bei Shi.

First lets check the first entry of the Huns under Roman record. The first mention is when the King of Armenia used Hunnish mercenaries in 290 A.D. And roughly in 374 when they destroyed the Alani which dominates the territory between the Don river and the Aral Sea. Later when the Alanis submitted the Huns went further West and attackled the Goths under Hermanrick and destroyed his Gothic kingdom. Now that could ONLY mean the Huns came from Northeastern Turkestan.
As the northern Steppe is filled with lower organized societies without state organizations. And Sogdiana at the time was dominated by the KangGu which was deivided by that time. And it didn't seem that they had the ability to attack the Alanis.

Now the Chinese records was silent on the Northern frontiers since the fall of Han and internal situation restrict the mention of any thing regarding to the huns. But Bei Shi did mention the destruction of the Yen chi(Alani at the same time). Now lets look at Bei Shi again, it was explicitly told that all of the Xiongnu territory was taken by Tan Shi Huai's mounting Xianbei power probably around 170 A.D. and it further mention that the Yueban tribe stayed in Northwestern Zungaria, while the bravest and strongest of the Xiongnu migrated WESTWARDS which could only be the Western Khirgiz steppe and perhaps part of KangGu territory near Talas river. This occured probably in the 170s A.D.

Now between this 200 years of Hunnish conquest of Alani which probaly started a few decades before the actual conquest, and the westward migration of the Xiongnu, we do not know what occured, but the xiongnu was not under a centralized authority and thats probably why it never expanded as fast. I really don't see who else the huns could be if they attacked the Alani from the east. It might be another group of new people intermixed with the Xiongnu that fled, but in any case at least portions of the hun had a Xiongnu ancestry. And any invasion must have come from a territory that was originally under the Xiongnu empire.

The only people around the west were the Ding Ling and Hugie which Bei Shi said were merged and became the Gao Gu, nor were these two groups strong enough to migrate any sizable portion westward, so we can rule them out, then there is the Jien Kun, which is the later Khirgiz, and for the same reason above we can rule them out. Unless another group from Mongolia proper invaded, which is highly unlikely since Mongolian history is in the keen interest of Chinese records, I am quiet sure the invading huns were at least partly the Xiongnu.

Roman Cataphractii/Kataphraktoi were modeled from the Parthian and Sarmatian cataphracts much before the Avars even appeared.

Emperor Hadrian introduced cataphractarii, modelled after the Sarmatian cavalry, into the Roman army in the 2nd century. However, some scholars believe that these did not have armoured horses, only heavy body armour for the lancers.

Emperor Constantius (r. 337-361) is credited with introducing the Parthian/Persian-style cataphract, known as the clibanarius, into the Roman army. These probably had full horse armour, and ranked higher than the cataphractarii units.

However, the majority of Romano-Byzantine cavalrymen from the 5th century onwards were armoured horse-archers modelled on the main cavalry units of the Parthians/Persians, and perhaps also on the Huns. The clibanarii were a very small elite. I think the arrival of the Avars, who used heavy shock cavalry to a greater extent (and with stirrups), may have influenced the Byzantines to place more emphasis on heavy cavalry. On the other hand, the revival of clibanarii as the main striking arm of the army only took place in the 10th century under General Nicephorus Phocas, so the Avars may not have been so important an influence after all.

I am asking this for a research project of my friend's

It is apparent that Xiongnu does not sound like the English "Hun"

But, in Cantonese, "Xiongnu" is "Hung-no" Pretty similar to the Mongolian and Turkish pronunciation "Hunnu."

How about in other Chinese dialects?

Thank you.

in my dialect, it's also xiongnu. xiongnu匈奴=hu ren 胡人 maybe hun is from huren