Jump to content

Talk:Huns

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A reconstruction of Attila - image

[edit]

"A reconstruction of Attila by George S. Stuart, Museum of Ventura County." image shows Attila riding a horse with his foot in a stirrup.
The Huns didn't know the stirrup. It was invented by the Magyars. That George S. Stuart didn't know that, well... it's just an artifahrty picture. But using this false image in a supposedly scientific article reveals that the author doesn't have any knowledge of the subject either. From here on the article and it's author have lost all credibility and it become a cyber-rubbish in best case or an anti Hun/Magyar propaganda piece at worst.

Predecessors and Sucessors

[edit]

The huns formed a state, proto-state under Bleda and Attila. Thats the consensus (even if it was a "robbing state")

So, it should have their predecessors and sucessors¡

For predecessors:

-Since the xiong-Nu connection debate will rage for some time, no mention should be done.

-The Alans, conquered by huns

-The Greuthungi, conquered by huns

-The Thervingi, conquered in part by huns

-Roman Pannonia province: base under Attila

-Perhaps lombards, ruggi,sarmatian, and other conquered tribes

Successors:

-After Nedao:

-The kingdom of the Rugii

-The kingdom of the Gepids

-The kingdom of the Ostrogoths

-A suebian kingdom in the danube.

Bolghars, kutrigurs, utrigurs remain speculative, so no for the moment.

Comments?

[edit]

@Andrew Lancaster @Ermenrich you are most active two anti-vandal users in this article. so please look at this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Hungarian_sentiment&diff=prev&oldid=1233467944

User OrionNimrod has an agenda regarding the Huns, aiming to portray them as ancestors of the conquering Hungarians.

He claims that Serb, Slovak, and Romanian nationalists use the slur 'Mongol' against Hungarians due to their "Hun origin." His source does not mention anything about Huns and Hun ancestry.

Nations in Europe with Asian origins, such as the Finns and Turks, are also called 'Mongol' as a slur by foreigners. What evidence supports that Hungarians are descended from the Huns at this point? A medieval myth?

This article also denies any connection between Hungarians and the Huns. He tries to mislead users. 2A02:FF0:3316:5B87:C036:CAEA:45D1:7A01 (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, examples from “smart” Romanian nationalists who call Hungarians as “Mongol”:
lhttps://www.hungarianconservative.com/articles/current/romanian_football_fans_andorra_kosovo_anti_hungarian_mocking_greater_hungary_map_uefa_craiova/
Attacking a Hungarian military cemetery in Transylvania, 21 October 2023: https://media.szekelyhon.ro/pictures/0000001/0000095/nn_uzvolgye_2k23_ok_21_pnt_01.jpg “Barbarian Hungarians came from Mongolia and robbed our lands in 1290. After that, the Mongol-Hungarians also brought their families here.”
Asian Huns were in today Mongolia, Hungarian name including the Hun word and medieval documents claim Hungarian Hun connection. It does not matter is true or not in this case, but as we can see the ethnic slur come from this. Asia is very big, and slur for Hungarians is “Mongol” because of that and not “Chinese, Indonesian, Pakistanian, Afgan, Balinese…” OrionNimrod (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Such slurs may or may not give an indication of real history, but they are not a reliable source we can use. On WP we summarize what experts have published when writing carefully.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC) Note that my answer is written on the understanding that this question is about whether such slurs might be relevant to THIS article, which is about the real historical Huns.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The Hun empire fall apart after Attila's death around 450 AD.
The Magyars - as they call themselves - came into the Carpathian basin around 950 AD.
They DO NOT call themselves HUNs. So why does the west call them HUNgarians after some half-a-thousand years? Surely not because it's easy to identify that they are the same genetic stock with the same culture! Rather invent a confusing 'history' of an unknown nothing-here-move-on story of gobbledygook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.29.185 (talk) 03:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Call for comment on Odoacer. Huns were all short?

[edit]

In this article we have a longer discussion about the history of this generalization. On Odoacer I have called for comment about whether this generalization can simply be used (without such balancing). Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2024

[edit]

I only want to add Black Huns because at times they are referred to as so. Holyorthocracy (talk) 04:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

?—Ermenrich (talk) 11:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 13:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2024

[edit]

I only want to add after "Huns" I want to add "Also known as Attila's Huns and Black Huns". I want to add this because they are at times referred to as so. Holyorthocracy (talk) 04:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not by reliable sources.—-Ermenrich (talk) 11:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Charliehdb (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]