Who was Attila and the Huns?

[Vesuvian Sky]

This thread is partly inspired by RussiaPrussia's thread on Huns in relation to Slavic origins.

Not all that much is really known about who Attila was and what exactly being a Hun meant. At University, the Huns were presented to me as an Asiatic based confederation that absorbed other ethno-linguistic groups along the way.

This is of coursed based on the traditional notion that the Huns can be tied to the Xiongnu. But was this really the case? Some things that call this into question:

1. The Gothic language appears to be the lingua Franca of the Huns.

2. There is evidence of Slavic being spoken among the Huns.

3. The term "Attila" is linguistically ambiguous and may actually be Gothic for "lord". So 'Attila the Hun' would have meant roughly among the Goths present, "Our lord the Hun".

There is ample evidence too that Xiongnu and Hun may be one in the same. Consider that Xiongnu would have actually been "Hunnu" in Classical Chinese. However I think this topic deserves some opinions and of course a poll.

Go!

[RussiaPrussia]

you forgot uralic as an option

[Vesuvian Sky]

you forgot uralic

Funny you should mention that, I was seriously considering adding a Uralic option but I know of no theory that argues for Attila being "Uralic".

[Onur]

Huns = demographically ambiguous "barbarian confederacy".

Truthfully, it was probably multi-ethnic.

Yes, it was a confederation of tribes and most likely there was "proto-slavs" among them just like Germanic peoples but we know the names of these tribes and these names are predominantly Turkic and Hungarian with some German ones.

Also, slavic peoples completely changed their culture after they have been converted to christianity and they totally alienated themselves from the Huns. Germanics also did this too and today, there is no one but Turks and Hungarians who can logically embrace Hunnic heritage.

[riverman]

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?

EDIT: not Russia but Attila..

Ah. And the real stupidity shows up. I knew you were a poser. Dude, stop talking about things you don't know about, you're not doing Hungarians any favors.

[archangel]

in his time there was no such as slavs, slavs apperead much later than his time.do not slavisied Türks

[riverman]

in his time there was no such as slavs, slavs apperead much later than his time.do not slavisied Türks

Doesn't matter, Hungarians aren't Turks, and "Slavs" is ambiguous anyway, it means a language group, modern Turks weren't around either lol.

[Hevo]

in his time there was no such as slavs, slavs apperead much later than his time.do not slavisied Türks

There were already Slavic tribes in Ukraine/Belarus/Poland before atilla the hun's time....

[riverman]

There we're already Slavic tribes in Ukraine/Belarus/Poland before atilla the hun's time....

Yes and they were an ethnic continuation of the same people who had always lived there, "Turanid" propaganda is spinning out of control and their version of the ancient world is looking more and more like Alice in Wonderland.

[Szegedist]

Ah. And the real stupidity shows up. I knew you were a poser. Dude, stop talking about things you don't know about, you're not doing Hungarians any favors.

Yank, I am no poser, and I know very well what I am talking about. And there is nothing stupid in my post. Nobody cares what an American thanks about Hungary, go and obey your Israeli masters.