View Poll Results: Who was Attila and the Huns?

Voters
65. You may not vote on this poll
  • A Turkic or Altaic Asiatic Overlord of many

    48 73.85%
  • A Slav

    4 6.15%
  • A Germanic-Ostrogoth type

    6 9.23%
  • Other (please explain)

    7 10.77%
Page 1 of 53 123451151 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 526

Thread: Who was Attila and the Huns?

  1. #1
    Veteran Member RussiaPrussia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Last Online
    08-22-2015 @ 08:28 AM
    Location
    EUSSR
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Finno-Slavic, Germanic
    Ethnicity
    Swiss-German, Russian
    Country
    Russia
    Politics
    Anti America, Anti Islam, Anti EU, Sovereign democracy, Globalism, Russian Patriotism
    Religion
    Russia
    Gender
    Posts
    10,927
    Blog Entries
    3
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 3,683
    Given: 4,085

    1 Not allowed!

    Default Who was Attila and the Huns?

    Postscript : Attila the Ukrainian : History's famed barbarian may have been the head of a Slavic tribe based on the Dnieper River.

    KIEV, Ukraine — Attila the Hun is back. After resting peacefully in the history books for 1,500 years, the barbarian warlord, dubbed "the Scourge of God" after he plundered 5th-Century Europe, is again at the center of a battle.

    This time, the conflict is academic. The weapons are obscure citations in Byzantine texts. And the prize, if one could call him that, is Attila himself--and a new, prouder sense of Ukrainian identity.


    Attila the Hun commanded a tribe of fierce horsemen whose savagery and military prowess won them fame and fear throughout Europe. In 451, they attacked the frontier of the Roman Empire. And they might even have taken Rome itself had the Pope not interceded with Attila to spare it.

    Almost any encyclopedia will tell you that these barbarians who made the Romans shake in their sandals were Asian nomads who set out from Mongolia sometime in the 4th Century and, under Attila's rule, set up their capital in territory that eventually became Hungary.

    But now Hryhory Vasylenko, a historian at Kiev State University, has concluded that the encyclopedias are wrong. The Huns, he claims, were neither Asians nor nomads. They were a Slavic tribe called Polanians. And they were not based in Hungary, either. Byzantine accounts of diplomatic journeys to Attila's capital show that the king of the Huns built his city on the Dnieper River, in present-day Ukraine, according to Vasylenko.

    The search for Attila's pedigree is about a lot more than historiography. It's Ukrainian self-identity that's at issue.

    Ukrainian historians point out that during the 350 years that Ukraine was a Russian colony, it was not permitted to have a history of its own--a deprivation that today's independent Ukraine is determined to correct.

    That the Huns spent time in Ukraine, known then as "Scythia," is beyond question. With the Antes, a federation of Slavic tribes led by the Polanians, they chased the Goths out of Scythia in 376. Then, for good measure, they pillaged a few of the Greek city-states that dotted the Black Sea coast.

    But Vasylenko's implication that the Scourge of God's name should be changed to "Attila the Slav" is sure to raise eyebrows in academic circles, as will his theory that Attila was not just any Slav. Supposedly, he was Kij, the fabled Polanian prince who legend says founded Kiev in the 5th Century.

    What's more, Vasylenko believes that Attila-Kij was the victim of a bad historical rap, devised by Byzantine historians to disparage their enemy. Far from being a savage who drank from his slain enemies' skulls, Vasylenko's Attila was noble, fair and wise, a talented diplomat and one of Ukraine's first freedom fighters, waging war against the Roman Empire to avenge injustice against his people.

    Actually, Attila the Hun's rehabilitation is just one of the controversial historical assertions percolating through Ukrainian popular culture as scholars, enthusiastic amateurs and even a few crackpots search through the millennia for their past.

    The Tripillians, a neolithic agricultural society that flourished on the west bank of the Dnieper River 5,000 years ago, hold a special fascinationtoday.

    The Tripillians hold many claims to fame, including the world's first two-story houses and painted pottery that UCLA archeologist Marija Gimbutas praised for its "remarkable artistic maturity."


    But Ukrainian archeologist Yuri Shylov has more ambitious assertions. In direct challenge to the widely held view that writing was invented around 3100 BC in the Mesopotamian city-state of Sumer, Shylov claims that the Tripillians did it first. Unfortunately, he can't prove it.

    The evidence--clay tablets with cuneiform-type markings discovered in Tripillian excavations--disappeared from an archeological archive in the 1970s.

    While proof of Tripillian literacy would be an academic bombshell, some of the historical revisions coming out of independent Ukraine have potentially explosive political implications.

    "Russia stole Ukraine's history," charged Omejlan Pritsak, a retired Harvard University history professor now working in Kiev. Now that Ukraine is independent, it wants its history back.

    The history is that of Kievan Rus, the medieval empire centered in the capital founded by Vasylenko's Attila-Kij. At its zenith in the 10th and 11th centuries, Kiev was an international center of trade, scholarship and religion. It ruled a tribal federation that stretched from the Carpathian mountains to the Volga, and from the Black Sea to the Baltic.

    But in 1240, Mongols sacked the city and most of Kievan Rus fell under the Golden Horde.

    That much is not very controversial. What happened afterward is. Two hundred years later, a small principality called Muscovy (later Moscow) chased the Mongols out and proclaimed itself the successor to Kievan Rus. Only Muscovy did not even exist during Kiev's heyday, and the tribes that lived there were not Slavs. They were Finno-Ugric.

    To explain away that fact, Russian historians decided that the Slavic inhabitants of Kievan Rus all migrated north under pressure from the Mongols. They became the modern Russian nation. As for the Ukrainians, they came from somewhere else (no one bothered much to find out where) and settled on the territory around Kiev centuries later.

    According to Ukrainian historian Vitaly Shevchuk, Muscovy's claim to Rus created a pretext for expanding its empire by "gathering together the Rus lands" that had fragmented after the Mongol invasion. It also created the myth of the Russian "elder brother," whose prerogative was telling his Slavic "little brother" (Ukraine) what to do, Shevchuk said in an interview published by a Kiev newspaper.


    Thus, when Muscovy absorbed Ukraine in 1654, the Russians called the result a "reunion." Three hundred years later, the Soviets celebrated the occasion by building a giant "Arch of the Reunion" on the hills above the Dnieper. But now the Ukrainians are calling that so-called reunion "annexation," and while newspapers regularly publish schemes for demolishing the arch, scholars like Shevchuk and Pritsak are poking holes in Russia's version of history and its claim to Kievan Rus.

    Saying that Kievan Rus is a part of Russian history, argues Pritsak, would be like American historians "saying that Shakespeare was an American" because many colonists came from England.

    That view faces an uphill battle when every encyclopedia traces Russia's history back to Kiev. Nevertheless, Pritsak, who was instrumental in founding Harvard's Institute of Ukrainian Studies, believes that his Western colleagues will soon come to accept the Ukrainian version of history.

    But persuading Russians, most of whom remain convinced that Rus is synonymous with Russia, could be a matter of strategic significance.

    If reactionaries come to power in Moscow, Ukraine could again be the victim of a campaign to "gather together the Rus lands" that fragmented with the Soviet Union's collapse. Unless, of course, a new Attila-Kij appears to lead the anti-imperial battle.
    http://articles.latimes.com/1993-04-...nieper-river/2

  2. #2
    Veteran Member rashka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Online
    12-22-2013 @ 04:34 PM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    European
    Ethnicity
    Slavo-Illyrian Serb
    Gender
    Posts
    5,373
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 390
    Given: 272

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    It is quite possible that he was a slav or partly slav.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Online
    02-13-2018 @ 05:13 PM
    Ethnicity
    .
    Country
    Vatican-City
    Region
    Slavonija-Baranya
    Gender
    Posts
    9,072
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 5,569
    Given: 2,482

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    This is what happens when a new and fake "nation" starts writing it's history.

    First FYROM claiming Alexander.
    Now "Ukraine" claiming Attila the Hun. Whats up with these Slavs?
    Last edited by Szegedist; 03-03-2013 at 10:21 AM.

  4. #4
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Online
    04-04-2023 @ 05:19 AM
    Ethnicity
    -
    Country
    European Union
    Gender
    Posts
    2,121
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 957
    Given: 1,498

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Szegedist View Post
    Whats up with these Slavs?
    Didn't you read the text? It would seem you're now one of us, eastern neighbour!

    Time to take that Slavic tunic out of your dresser, I know you've been saving it for a special occasion

  5. #5
    AstroPlumber arcticwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Online
    09-21-2014 @ 12:30 AM
    Location
    Space
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Ugric
    Ethnicity
    Hun
    Country
    Hungary
    Politics
    CommonSense
    Religion
    Direct Reality
    Gender
    Posts
    8,893
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 4,197
    Given: 3,880

    1 Not allowed!

    Default

    We really don't need him as one of us. Really. He was a Hun. Let's leave it at that! We have Tschaikovsky and Tesla that's much better. Let's appreciate what we have got!

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Online
    11-20-2013 @ 03:18 PM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Turkic
    Ethnicity
    Anatolian Turkish
    Ancestry
    Turkish+some Circassian
    Country
    Vatican
    Religion
    Follower of Jesus Christ, our lord and savior, our light in the dark
    Gender
    Posts
    2,753
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 307
    Given: 87

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Slav? Don't you know that word comes from slave? How can you be Atilla the Hun. Even the words are not Slavic :/

    RussiaPrussia, your stupid post never amaze me.

    "The Turks emerge from among the Huns in the middle of [the] fifth century. They were living in Liang territory when it began to be overrun by the greater principality of Wei. Preferring to remain under the rule of their own kind, they moved westward into what is now the province of Kansu. This was the territory of kindred Huns, who were called the Rouran. The Turks were a small tribe of only five hundred families, and they became serfs to the Rouran, who used them as iron-workers. It is thought that the original meaning of "Turk" is "helmet", and that they may have taken this name because of the shape of one of the hills near which they worked. As their numbers and power grew, their chief made bold to ask for the hand of a Rouran princess in marriage. The demand was refused, and war followed. In 546, the iron-workers defeated their overlords."

  7. #7
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Online
    10-06-2018 @ 07:47 PM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Hunnic
    Ethnicity
    Turkish
    Ancestry
    Petrich, Ottoman Macedonia
    Country
    Turkey
    Politics
    Anti-globalist nationalism, Anti-fascist patriotism
    Religion
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Posts
    4,291
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 87
    Given: 0

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    This is one of the most stupid articles i have ever read. This would be same as if we Turks claim Roman heritage in Anatolia just because these are in present day Turkey.

    First of all, when Attila was alive, there was no such thing as "slavs". Also, Ukrainian nation is a recent invention, created after Russians destroyed the Crimean Khaganate. Most of the present day Ukranians are not even locals but settlers brought by Moscow from the northern side of Crimea after the total destruction of the Crimean Tatar cities.

    Ukrainians are living in the ancient Hunnic/Turkic territories for about 230+ years and they better don't try to revise it`s history ŕ la Soviet style.

  8. #8
    Veteran Member RussiaPrussia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Last Online
    08-22-2015 @ 08:28 AM
    Location
    EUSSR
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Finno-Slavic, Germanic
    Ethnicity
    Swiss-German, Russian
    Country
    Russia
    Politics
    Anti America, Anti Islam, Anti EU, Sovereign democracy, Globalism, Russian Patriotism
    Religion
    Russia
    Gender
    Posts
    10,927
    Blog Entries
    3
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 3,683
    Given: 4,085

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Onur View Post
    This is one of the most stupid articles i have ever read. This would be same as if we Turks claim Roman heritage in Anatolia just because these are in present day Turkey.

    First of all, when Attila was alive, there was no such thing as "slavs". Also, Ukrainian nation is a recent invention, created after Russians destroyed the Crimean Khaganate. Most of the present day Ukranians are not even locals but settlers brought by Moscow from the northern side of Crimea after the total destruction of the Crimean Tatar cities.

    Ukrainians are living in the ancient Hunnic/Turkic territories for about 230+ years and they better don't try to revise it`s history ŕ la Soviet style.
    hahaha so typical thats why we say to turk in german for lieng ''zu türken''

    Turkish logic in the same single post

    revision of turanic history = nonsense

    revision of slavic history = fact

  9. #9
    Hyperprogressive Legion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Online
    05-29-2014 @ 01:36 PM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Chordate
    Ethnicity
    Vertebrate
    Ancestry
    Precambrian Goo
    Country
    Vatican
    Gender
    Posts
    509
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 9
    Given: 0

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Türks always claim Attila, this is no less absurd.

  10. #10
    Lovecraftian in Design Vesuvian Sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Last Online
    06-08-2023 @ 11:48 AM
    Location
    Your Subconscious Fears
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Lovecraftian
    Ethnicity
    Great Old One
    Ancestry
    Oceanic
    Taxonomy
    Chtulhid
    Politics
    N/A
    Hero
    I fucking incinerate your heroes.
    Religion
    I am religion.
    Gender
    Posts
    3,391
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,687
    Given: 1,192

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Huns = demographically ambiguous "barbarian confederacy".

    Truthfully, it was probably multi-ethnic.

    And there were certainly Slavs present in this group since its well known one of Attila's warrior mentions celebrating "strava" - or having a feast, in which "strava" is Slavic for feast.

    As for who was Attila or who comprised the Hunnic ruling elite and who were they ethnically well that's problematic. This is what is known of Attila from description during his time by Jordanes:
    Short of stature, with a broad chest and a large head; his eyes were small, his beard thin and sprinkled with grey; and he had a flat nose and tanned skin, showing evidence of his origin.
    So hence, the conclusion he was some sort of Asiatic.

    Regarding his name, its been given Turkic derivation but linguists now aren't so sure and some actually suggest Germanic(!!!). But this is done since there were so many Ostrogoths fighting under the Huns that linguists now suspect the term was the Ostrogoth's title for their lord rather then actually Turkic or even some kind of Altaic.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zmey Gorynych View Post
    Turan is not a one day/night passion. Time can not change the hearts and minds of tr00 Turan followers because Turan is limitless in time and space. Turan is not merely a racial classification, Turan is a state of mind, it is the path of the righteous and the doom of the wicked.

Page 1 of 53 123451151 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Remembering Attila the Hun
    By Joe McCarthy in forum History
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 05-04-2017, 07:14 PM
  2. Classify Grandpierre Attila.
    By Cern in forum Taxonomy
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 05-11-2014, 07:03 PM
  3. Huns in a Swiss valley
    By Szegedist in forum Magyarország
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-30-2013, 10:41 PM
  4. Attila the Hun a Slav?
    By RussiaPrussia in forum History
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 03-03-2013, 11:09 AM
  5. In the court of Attila the Huns
    By Onur in forum History
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 02-06-2013, 08:05 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •