Huns vs Vikings

[Kaspias]

I have Bronze Age genetic ancestry from Volga to Kazakstan. If the Huns came there their ancestry should be seen in Central Europe, but it is not present even in Hungary.

The reason is they retreated after the collapse, and simply died through the last of times of the state as they were constant manpower for wars. Their population replaced with their Germanic allies afterward. Moreover, it is not possible to see genetic footprints of them in aDNA, it is already absorbed. In terms of ancient samples, we have two legit samples who are Hunnic. (One cluster with Xiongnu and from Serbia, other clusters with Gokturks and from Germany)

[BarbarTurk]

Hungarians are slavo-germans, turks are half middle eastern half balkanite, neither are huns.

holy Tengri. this forum full of low iq white peoples.

[Davystayn]

In a big open field good for cavalry = huns, tight situation, trees etc = vikings win

[Lemminkäinen]

The reason is they retreated after the collapse, and simply died through the last of times of the state as they were constant manpower for wars. Their population replaced with their Germanic allies afterward. Moreover, it is not possible to see genetic footprints of them in aDNA, it is already absorbed. In terms of ancient samples, we have two legit samples who are Hunnic. (One cluster with Xiongnu and from Serbia, other clusters with Gokturks and from Germany)

Please give sample id's.

[Kaspias]

Please give sample id's.

A closer look to Huns

[PaleoEuropean]

This question and how it's phrased as well as your opinion that horse archers would be decisive shows ignorance of history and military theory.

1. Viking was an occupation not a singular or unified group of people, there were Slavic Vikings, Norse, Frisian, Celtic etc. Vikings were pirates/raiders.

2. Huns were confederations of tribes also not a singular people

3. Vikings were maritime guerrillas who used surprise hit and run tactics to obtain wealth as most of them were ex-slaves, exiles and fugitives. Most Vikings bands would only attack the Huns of they were camped out near a waterway and attack them when they were vulnerable, the Huns would be forced to retreat leaving food, gold, ammunition and weapons behind giving the Vikings exactly what their goal was.

4. The Huns were defeated by both Goths and Romans in Germany in pitched battles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle...launian_Plains
Although the Huns would return to the Italian peninsula later to raid, they ultimately left and never returned because they weren't an effective fighting force and didn't have the power to hold anything they took.

5. The Huns without Attila as a commander were divided and weak thus which is why after his death, they disbanded and faded into the Bulgars. The Bulgars were often raided by Slavo-Nordic Viking bands and the kingdom of Kievan Rus openly traded with the Bulgars, Khazar's and other Asiatics. The Kievan Nordo-Slavs weren't exactly Vikings but they had no problem defeating the Turkic Khazars who had more advanced horse archery tactics than the Huns who relied mostly on German infantry. Kievan Rus's expansion and the ethnogensis of the peoples of region were from defeating horse bound warriors and taking much of their land.

The myth of the horse archers effectiveness is based off psychological warfare not actual battlefield results. The Normans/Crusaders proved this again when they began training the Poles and other people to counter the Mongols tactics thus grinding down their raids and putting an end to Mongol influence in Europe (as with the tactics of the Mameluke's, more specifically Saif-u-dun Qutuz). The Huns and all other Asiatics relied on similar tactics to the Vikings but more often than not were easy to track (not hard to follow an army with a bunch of horses and men) than the Vikings who left no trace of their travels and would appear out of nowhere only to rapidly disappear again.

[Smeagol]

They obviously described Slavs. Definitely aliens for Romans. Mongoloid is a very present term invented by race ideologists.

I didn't mean they actually used the term Mongoloid, but from the descriptions, that's obviously what they were.

Attila for example was:
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 swarthy skin, showing evidence of his origin.

[PaleoEuropean]

I didn't mean they actually used the term Mongoloid, but from the descriptions, that's obviously what they were.

Attila for example was:
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 swarthy skin, showing evidence of his origin.

True but it's likely his paternal lineage was actually Germanic, the actual Asiatic Huns by his time were all but extinct in terms of being a separate people. The Roman accounts say Attila himself spoke a Gothic tongue and his burial was similar to that of Nordic peoples. He could have just been a part of a integrated culture and tribe etc. and have been Asiatic or some type of Komid-Finno group, one can only speculate.

[Lemminkäinen]

I didn't mean they actually used the term Mongoloid, but from the descriptions, that's obviously what they were.

Attila for example was:
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 swarthy skin, showing evidence of his origin.

https://oko.press/images/2016/05/z19...27-250x250.jpg

[Voskos]

fucking coronavirus.