The Huns were a nomadic group of people who are known to have lived in

Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia between the 1st century AD and
the 7th century. They were first reported living east of the Volga River, in an area that
was part of Scythia at the time; the Huns' arrival is associated with the migration westward of
a Scythian people, the Alans.[1] They were first mentioned as Hunnoi by Tacitus. In 91 AD, the
Huns were said to be living near the Caspian Sea and by about 150 AD had migrated
southeast into the Caucasus.[2] By 370 AD, the Huns had established a vast, if short-lived,
dominion in Europe.

In the 18th century, the French scholar Joseph de Guignes became the first to propose a link
between the Huns and the Xiongnu people, who were northern neighbours of China in the 3rd
century BC.[3] Since Guignes' time, considerable scholarly effort has been devoted to
investigating such a connection. However, there is no scholarly consensus on a direct
connection between the dominant element of the Xiongnu and that of the Huns.[4] Priscus
mentions that the Huns had a language of their own; little of it has survived and its
relationships have been the subject of debate for centuries. Numerous other languages were
spoken within the Hun Empire, including Gothic (East Germanic). Their main military
technique was mounted archery.

The Huns may have stimulated the Great Migration, a contributing factor in the collapse of
the Western Roman Empire.[5] They formed a unified empire under Attila the Hun, who died
in 453 AD; their empire broke up the next year. Their descendants, or successors with similar
names, are recorded by neighbouring populations to the south, east and west as having
occupied parts of Eastern Europe and Central Asia approximately from the 4th century to the
6th century. Variants of the Hun name are recorded in the Caucasus until the early 8th century.

Contents
1 Origin

o 1.1 Modern ethnogenesis interpretation

o 1.2 Traditional Xiongnu theory

1.2.1 Evidence for the link with Xiongnu

1.2.2 Evidence against the link with Xiongnu

o 1.3 Other ancient theories

2 History

o 2.1 Before Attila

o 2.2 Under Attila and Bleda

o 2.3 Unified Empire under Attila

 o 2.4 After Attila

3 Successor realms

4 Appearance and customs

o 4.1 Society and culture

5 Language

6 Legends

o 6.1 Medieval retellings

o 6.2 Claims of Hunnic origins

7 20th century use in reference to Germans

8 See also

9 References

10 Further reading

11 External links

Origin
Since Joseph de Guignes in the 18th century, historians have associated the Huns who
appeared on the borders of Europe in the 4th century with the Xiongnu who migrated out of
the Mongolia region some three hundred years before. Due to the conflict with Han China, the
northern branch of the Xiongnu had retreated north-westward; their descendants may have
migrated through Eurasia and consequently they may have some degree of cultural and
genetic continuity with the Huns.[6] The evidence for continuity between Huns and Xiongnu
has not been definitive.[6] A school of modern scholarship instead uses an ethnogenetic, rather
than essentialist, approach in explaining the Huns' origin.

Modern ethnogenesis interpretation

Contemporary literary sources do not have a clear consensus of the Hun origins. The Huns
seem to "suddenly appear", first mentioned during an attack on the Walter Pohl, "is that the
name Huns, in late antiquity (4th century), described prestigious ruling groups of steppe
warriors."[8]

The name Hun was used to refer to groups over wide and often discontiguous geographic
regions, referred to by disparate sources (including Indic, Persian, Chinese, Byzantine,
Roman).[8][10][11][12][13] After the Hun era in Europe, Greek and Latin chroniclers continued to
use the term "Huns" when referring to tribal groups whom they placed in the Black Sea
region.

Traditional Xiongnu theory

Debate about the Asian origin of the Huns has been ongoing since the 18th century when
Joseph de Guignes first suggested that the Huns should be identified as the Xiongnu of
Chinese sources.[14] De Guignes focused on the genealogy of political entities and gave little
attention to whether the Huns were the physical descendants of the Xiongnu.[15] Yet his idea,
which emerged in the context of the ethnocentric and nationalistic scholarship of the late 18th
and 19th centuries,[16]:5254 gained traction and was modified over time to support Romantic
nationalism and Turanism.

Evidence for the link with Xiongnu

Chinese sources state that the Northern Chanyu (1st century) led his branch of the Xiongnu to
the Caspian sea around 91AD which is corroborated by Tacitus who made first mention of the
Hunnoi in the same year and area. which Xingn is the modern Mandarin Chinese
pronunciation, while it is pronounced as Hung-no in modern Cantonese. It was pronounced
/xuaw-n/ in Early Middle Chinese.[17] The Central Asian (Sogdian and Bactrian) sources of
the 4th C. translate Huns as Xiongnu, and Xiongnu as Huns. It was considered as a political
and cultural link between the Huns and the Xiongnu.[18] Apart from the similarity of the
names, evidence includes the transmission of grip laths for composite bows from Central Asia
to the west[19] and the similarity of Xiongnu and Hunnic cauldrons, which were buried on river
banks both in Hungary and in the Ordos.[20]:17

The ancient Sogdian letters from the 4th century mention Huns, while the Chinese sources
write Xiongnu, in the context of the sacking of Luoyang.[21][22] However, there is a historical
gap of 300 years between the Chinese and later sources. As Peter Heather writes, "The
ancestors of our [4th century European] Huns could even have been a part of the [1st century]
Xiongnu confederation, without being the 'real' Xiongnu. Even if we do make some sort of
connection between the 4th century Huns and the 1st century Xiongnu, an awful lot of water
has passed under an awful lot of bridges in the three hundred years' worth of lost
history."[12]:149
Evidence against the link with Xiongnu

The Huns practiced artificial cranial deformation, while there is no evidence of such practice
among the Xiongnu.[15] A specific passage in the Chinese Book of Wei (Wei Shu) is often cited
as definitive proof in identifying the Huns as the Xiongnu,[15] claiming that the Xiongnu
conquered the Sogdians (or Sute, ) an Iranian people, at around the same time as recorded
by Western sources. This theory hinges upon the identity of the Sogdiana as the Yancai (),
as claimed by the Wei Shu. Similar passages are also found in the History of the Northern
Dynasties (Bei Shi) and the Book of Zhou (Zhou Shu). Critical analysis of these Chinese texts
reveals that certain chapters in the Wei Shu had been copied from the Bei Shi by Song Dynasty
(9601279) editors, including the chapter on the Xiongnu. The Bei Shi author assembled his
text by making selections from earlier sources, the Zhou Shu among them. The latter does not
mention the Xiongnu in its version of the chapter in question. Additionally, the Book of the
Later Han (Hou Han Shu) treats the Sogdian and the Yancai as distinct nations. Lastly, the
Sute have been positively identified as the Sogdiana and the Yancai as the Hephthalites.[15]

Other ancient theories

Jordanes attributes their origins to the intercourse of Gothic witches and unclean spirits.[23]
Ammianus reported that they arrived from the north, near the 'ice bound ocean', prompting
suggestions of Finno-Ugrian roots.[24]

History
Before Attila

In the west, Hunnoi are first mentioned by Tacitus as being near the Caspian Sea in 91 AD. By
139 AD, the geographer Ptolemy writes that the "Chunoi" ( or , both plural) are
between the Bastarnae and the Roxolani in the Pontic area under the rule of Suni. He lists the
beginning of the 2nd century, although it is not known for certain if these people were the
Huns. It is possible that the similarity between the names "Huni" () and "Hunnoi"
() is only a coincidence considering that while the West Romans often wrote Chunni or
Chuni, the East Romans never used the guttural at the beginning of the name.[14]

The Huns first appeared in Europe in the 4th century. They show up north of the Black Sea
around 370. The Huns crossed the Volga river and attacked the Alans, whom they subjugated.
Jordanes reports that the Huns were led at this time by Balamber while modern historians
question his existence, seeing instead an invention by the Goths to explain who defeated
them.[14] Denis Sinor suggests if Balamber existed, he may have been a chief of a small faction
of Huns, since Vithimiris utilized Hun mercenaries against him, which suggests a lack of
unity among the Huns. Sinor also cites Ammianus' statement that the Huns "are subject to no
royal restraint," casting further doubt on Balamber's status as king.[25]

After the Huns defeated the Alans, the Huns and Alans started plundering Greuthungic
settlements.[14] The Greuthungic king, Ermanaric, committed suicide and his great-nephew,
Vithimiris, took over. Vithimiris was killed during a battle against the Alans and Huns in 376.
This resulted in the subjugation of most of the Ostrogoths.[14] Vithimiris' son, Viderichus, was
only a child so command of the remaining Ostrogothic refugee army fell to Alatheus and
Saphrax. The refugees streamed into Thervingic territory, west of the Dniester.

With a part of the Ostrogoths on the run, the Huns next came to the territory of the Visigoths,
led by Athanaric. Athanaric, not to be caught off guard, sent an expeditionary force beyond
the Dniester. The Huns avoided this small force and attacked Athanaric directly. The Goths
retreated into the Carpathians.[25]:180 Support for the Gothic chieftains diminished as refugees
headed into Thrace and towards the safety of the Roman garrisons.

After these invasions, the Huns begin to be noted as Foederati and mercenaries. As early as
380, a group of Huns was given Foederati status and allowed to settle in Pannonia. Hunnish
mercenaries were also seen on several occasions in the succession struggles of the Eastern and
Western Roman Empire during the late 4th century. However, it is most likely that these were
individual mercenary bands, not a Hunnish kingdom.[25]:181

In 395 the Huns began their first large-scale attack on the Eastern Roman Empire.[14] Huns
attacked in Thrace, overran Armenia, and pillaged Cappadocia. They entered parts of Syria,
threatened Antioch, and swarmed through the province of Euphratesia. The forces of Emperor
Theodosius were fully committed in the west so the Huns moved unopposed until the end of
398 when the eunuch Eutropius gathered together a force composed of Romans and Goths
and succeeded in restoring peace. It is uncertain though, whether or not Eutropius' forces
defeated the Huns or whether the Huns left on their own. There is no record of a notable
victory by Eutropius and there is evidence that the Hunnish forces were already leaving the
area by the time he gathered his forces.[25]:184

Whether put to flight by Eutropius, or leaving on their own, the Huns had left the Eastern
Roman Empire by 398. After this, the Huns invaded the Sassanid Empire. This invasion was
initially successful, coming close to the capital of the empire at Ctesiphon, however, they
were defeated badly during the Persian counter-attack and retreated toward the Caucasus
Mountains via the Derbend Pass.[25]:184
During their brief diversion from the Eastern Roman Empire, the Huns appear to have
threatened tribes further west, as evidenced by Radagaisus' entering Italy at the end of 405
and the crossing of the Rhine into Gaul by Vandals, Sueves, and Alans in 406.[14] The Huns do
not then appear to have been a single force with a single ruler. Many Huns were employed as
mercenaries by both East and West Romans and by the Goths. Uldin, the first Hun known by
name,[14] headed a group of Huns and Alans fighting against Radagaisus in defense of Italy.
Uldin was also known for defeating Gothic rebels giving trouble to the East Romans around
the Danube and beheading the Goth Gainas around 400-401. Gainas' head was given to the
East Romans for display in Constantinople in an apparent exchange of gifts.

The East Romans began to feel the pressure from Uldin's Huns again in 408. Uldin crossed
the Danube and captured a fortress in Moesia named Castra Martis, which was betrayed from
within. Uldin then proceeded to ransack Thrace. The East Romans tried to buy Uldin off, but
his sum was too high so they instead bought off Uldin's subordinates. This resulted in many
desertions from Uldin's group of Huns.

Alaric's brother-in-law, Athaulf, appears to have had Hun mercenaries in his employ south of
the Julian Alps in 409. These were countered by another small band of Huns hired by
Honorius' minister Olympius. Later in 409, the West Romans stationed ten thousand Huns in
Italy and Dalmatia to fend off Alaric, who then abandoned plans to march on Rome.

Under Attila and Bleda

Brothers Attila and Bleda ruled together, but each king had his own territory and people under
him. Never did two Hun kings rule the same territory. Attila and Bleda were as ambitious as
king Rugila. They forced the Eastern Roman Empire to sign the Treaty of Margus in 435,[26]
giving the Huns trade rights and an annual tribute from the Romans. The Romans also agreed
to give up Hunnic refugees (individuals who could have threatened the brothers' grip on
power) for execution. With their southern border protected by the terms of this treaty, the
Huns could turn their full attention to the further subjugation of tribes to the west.

The Huns breached the treaty in 440 when Attila and Bleda attacked Castra Constantias, a
Roman fortress and marketplace on the banks of the Danube.[27] The Eastern Romans stopped
delivery of the agreed tribute, and to honour other conditions of the Treaty of Margus. The
Hunnic kings turned their attention back to the Eastern Romans. Reports that the Bishop of
Margus had crossed into Hun lands and desecrated royal graves further angered the Hun
kings. War broke out between the two empires, and the Huns overcame a weak Roman army
to raze the cities of Margus, Singidunum and Viminacium. Although a truce was signed in
441, two years later Constantinople again failed to deliver the tribute and war resumed. In the
following campaign, Hun armies came alarmingly close to Constantinople, sacking Sardica,
Arcadiopolis and Philippopolis along the way. Suffering a complete defeat at the Battle of
Chersonesus, the Eastern Roman Emperor Theodosius II gave in to Hun demands and in
autumn 443 signed the Peace of Anatolius with the two Hun kings. The Huns returned to their
lands with a vast train full of plunder.

Unified Empire under Attila

Hunnic Empire

c. 420469

The Hunnic Empire at its peak under Attila

Capital Not specified

 Hunnic Gothic (lingua
franca)[28][29]
Languages Latin[30]
Greek[30]
Various tribal languages

Government Tribal Confederation

High King

-
c. 420-c.430 Octar and Rugila

-
c. 437-445 Attila and Bleda

-
445-453 Attila

-
?-469 Dengizich

History

Huns appear north-

-
west of the Caspian
Sea c. 370

Octar and Rugila

-
begin uniting the
Huns c. 420

Attila and Bleda

-
become co-rulers of
the united Huns 437

- Death of Bleda, 445

 Attila becomes sole
ruler

- Battle of the
Catalaunian Plains 451

- Invasion of northern
Italy 452

-
Battle of Nedao
454

- Dengizich, King of
the Huns, dies 469

Today part of Hungary

Ukraine

Moldova

Russia

Romania

Slovakia

Czech Republic

Poland

Germany

Belarus

Kazakhstan
 Serbia

Austria

Lithuania

Croatia

Bulgaria

Bleda died in 445, with some historians speculating that his death was at the hands of Attila.
With his brother gone, Attila was able to establish undisputed control over his subjects. In
447, Attila turned the Huns back toward the Eastern Roman Empire once more. His invasion
of the Balkans and Thrace was devastating. The Eastern Roman Empire was already beset by
internal problems, such as famine and plague, as well as riots and a series of earthquakes in
Constantinople itself. A last-minute rebuilding of its walls preserved Constantinople
unscathed. Victory over a Roman army left the Huns virtually unchallenged in Eastern Roman
lands and they raided as far south as Thermopylae. Only disease forced them to retreat, and
the war came to an end in 449 with an agreement in which the Romans agreed to pay Attila an
annual tribute of 2100 pounds of gold. Our only first-hand account of conditions among the
Huns and of Attila himself is by Priscus, an official in the peace embassy to Attila.

Throughout their raids on the Eastern Roman Empire, the Huns had maintained good relations
with the Western Empire, and in particular with Flavius Aetius, a powerful Roman general
(sometimes even referred to as the de facto ruler of the Western Empire) who in his youth had
spent time as a hostage with the Huns. However, this all changed in 450 when Honoria, sister
of the Western Roman Emperor Valentinian III, sent Attila a ring and requested his help to
escape her betrothal to a senator. Attila claimed her as his bride and half the Western Roman
Empire as dowry.[31] Additionally, a dispute arose between Attila and Aetius about the rightful
heir to a king of the Salian Franks. Finally, Attila's ability to distribute treasure to favoured
followers was an important support to his power, and the repeated extortion from the Eastern
Roman Empire had left it with little to plunder.

In 451, Attila's forces entered Gaul, accumulating contingents from the Franks, Goths and
Burgundian tribes en route. Once in Gaul, the Huns first attacked Metz, then his armies
continued westwards, passing both Paris and Troyes to lay siege to Orlans.

Aetius was given the duty of relieving Orlans by Emperor Valentinian III. Bolstered by
Frankish and Visigothic troops (under King Theodoric), Aetius' own Roman army met the
Huns at the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains. Although a tactical defeat for Attila, thwarting
his invasion of Gaul and forcing his retreat back to non-Roman lands, the macrohistorical
significance of the allied and Roman victory is a matter of debate.[32][33][34]
The following year, Attila renewed his claims to Honoria and territory in the Western Roman
Empire. Leading his horde across the Alps and into Northern Italy, he sacked and razed the
cities of Aquileia, Vicetia, Verona, Brixia, Bergamum and Milan. Hoping to avoid the sack of
Rome, Emperor Valentinian III sent three envoys, the high civilian officers Gennadius
Avienus and Trigetius, as well as Pope Leo I, who met Attila at Mincio in the vicinity of
Mantua, and obtained from him the promise that he would withdraw from Italy and negotiate
peace with the emperor. Prosper of Aquitaine describes the historic meeting, giving all the
credit of the successful negotiation to Leo. Priscus reports that superstitious fear of the fate of
Alaricwho died shortly after sacking Rome in 410gave him pause. More practically, Italy
had suffered from a terrible famine in 451 and her crops were faring little better in 452;
Attila's invasion of the plains of Northern Italy this year did not improve the harvest. To
advance on Rome would have required supplies which were not available in Italy, and taking
the city would not have improved Attila's supply situation. Secondly, an East Roman force
had crossed the Danube and defeated the Huns who had been left behind by Attila to
safeguard their home territories. Attila, hence, faced heavy human and natural pressures to
retire from Italy before moving south of the Po. Attila retreated without Honoria or her dowry.
[35]

The new Eastern Roman Emperor Marcian then halted tribute payments. From the Carpathian
Basin, Attila mobilised to attack Constantinople. However, in 453 he married a girl with the
Germanic name Ildico, and died of a haemorrhage on his wedding night.[36]

After Attila

After Attila's death, his son Ellac overcame his brothers Dengizich and Ernakh (Irnik) to
become king of the Huns. However, former subjects soon united under Ardaric, leader of the
Gepids, against the Huns at the Battle of Nedao in 454. This defeat and Ellac's death ended
the European supremacy of the Huns, and soon afterwards they disappear from contemporary
records. The Pannonian basin then was occupied by the Gepids, whilst various Gothic groups
remained in the Balkans also.

Successor realms
After the breakdown of their Empire, the Huns never regained their lost glory. One factor was
that the Huns never fully established the mechanisms of a state, such as bureaucracy and taxes
(unlike Bulgars, Magyars or the Avars after them, once the Hun political unity failed the
ethnos lacked a way to re-create it, especially because the Huns had become a multiethnic
empire even before Attila. The Hun Empire included, at least nominally, a great host of
diverse peoples, each of whom may be considered "successors" of the Huns. However, given
that the Huns were a political creation, and not a consolidated people, or nation, their defeat in
454 marked the end of that political creation. Newer polities which later arose might have
consisted of people formerly in the Hun confederacy, and carrying closely related steppe
cultures, but they represented new political creations.

Later historians provide brief hints of the dispersal and renaming of Attila's people. According
to tradition, after Ellac's defeat and death, his brothers ruled over two separate but closely
related hordes on the steppes north of the Black Sea. Dengizich is believed to have been king
(khan) of the Kutrigur Bulgars and Ernakh king (khan) of the Utigur Bulgars, whilst
Procopius claimed that Kutrigurs and Utigurs were named after, and led by two of the sons of
Ernakh. Such distinctions are uncertain and the situation is not likely to have been so clear-
cut. Some Huns remained in Pannonia for some time before the Goths slaughtered them.
Others took refuge within the Eastern Roman Empire, namely in Dacia Ripensis and Scythia
Minor. Other Huns and nomadic groups may have retreated to the steppe. Indeed,
subsequently, new confederations appear such as Kutrigur, Utigur, Onogur / (Onoghur),
Sarigur, etc., which were collectively called "Huns", "Bulgarian Huns", or "Bulgars".
Similarly, Procopius presented the 6th century Slavs as Hun groups.

However, it is likely that Graeco-Roman sources habitually equated new barbarian political
groupings with old tribes. This was partly due to the expectation that contemporary writers
emulate the "great writers" of preceding eras. Apart from exigencies in style was the belief
that barbarians from particular areas were all the same, no matter how they changed their
name.[37]

Appearance and customs

All surviving accounts were written by enemies of the Huns, and none describe the Huns as
attractive either morally or in appearance (the Huns were illiterate and thus kept no records).

Jordanes, a Goth writing in Italy in 551, a century after the collapse of the Hunnic Empire,
describes the Huns as a "savage race, which dwelt at first in the swamps, a stunted, foul and
puny tribe, scarcely human and having no language save one which bore but slight
resemblance to human speech."

"They made their foes flee in horror because their swarthy aspect was fearful, and they
had, if I may call it so, a sort of shapeless lump, not a head, with pin-holes rather than
eyes. Their hardihood is evident in their wild appearance, and they are beings who are
cruel to their children on the very day they are born. For they cut the cheeks of the
 males with a sword, so that before they receive the nourishment of milk they must
learn to endure wounds. Hence they grow old beardless and their young men are
without comeliness, because a face furrowed by the sword spoils by its scars the
natural beauty of a beard. They are short in stature, quick in bodily movement, alert
horsemen, broad shouldered, ready in the use of bow and arrow, and have firm-set
necks which are ever erect in pride. Though they live in the form of men, they have
the cruelty of wild beasts."[38]:1278

Jordanes also recounted how Priscus had described Attila the Hun, the Emperor of the Huns
from 434-453, as: "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."[39]

Artificial cranial deformation was practiced by the Huns and sometimes by tribes with whom
they influenced.[40][41][42][43] However, Ammianus may have been incorrect in saying that the
facial scars dated from infancy. Maenchen-Helfen writes: "Ammianus' description begins with
a strange misunderstanding ... This was repeated by Claudian and Sidonius and reinterpreted
by Cassiodorus. Ammianus' explanation of the thin beards is wrong. Like so many other
people, the Huns inflicted wounds on their live flesh as a sign of grief when their kinsmen
were dying."[44]

The description of Huns given by the Romans has prompted historians to believe they were of
East Asian origin. Denis Sinor, noting the paucity of anthropological evidence, wrote that
"there is no reason to question the basic accuracy of the western descriptions, and the absence
of massive supporting evidence by physical anthropology cannot weaken the point they so
tellingly make. It is the unusual that most attracts attention,.[45]

Society and culture

The Huns kept herds of cattle, horses, goats and sheep.[14] Their other sources of food
consisted of wild game and the roots of wild plants. For clothes they had pointed caps,
trousers or leggings made from ibex skin, and either linen or rodent skin tunics. Ammianus
reports that they wore these clothes until the clothes fell to pieces. Priscus describes Attila's
clothes as different from those of his men only in being clean.[46] Women would embroider the
edges of the garments and often stitch small colorful stone beads on them as well.

In warfare they used the bow and javelin.[47] Early writers such as Ammianus (followed by
Thompson) stated that they used primitive, bone-tipped arrowheads. Maenchen-Helfen
outright disputes this claim. He states: "Had the Huns been unable to forge their swords and
cast their arrow-heads, they never could have crossed the Don. The idea that the Hun
horsemen fought their way to the walls of Constantinople and to the Marne with bartered and
captured swords is absurd." (See: Maenchen-Helfen The World of the Huns p 12) They also
fought using iron swords and lassos in close combat. The Hun sword was a long, straight,
double-edged sword of early Sassanian style. These swords were hung from a belt using the
scabbard-slide method, which kept the weapon vertical. The Huns also employed a smaller
short sword or large dagger which was hung horizontally across the belly. A symbol of status
among the Huns was a gilded bow. Sword and dagger grips also were decorated with gold.

With the arrival of the Huns, a tradition of using more bone laths in composite bows arrived in
Europe. Bone laths had long been used in the Levantine and Roman tradition, two to stiffen
each of the two siyahs (the tips of the bow), for a total of four laths per bow. (The Scythian
and Sarmatian bows, used for centuries on the European steppes until the arrival of the Huns,
had no such laths.) A style that arrived in Europe with the Huns (after centuries of use on the
borders of China), was stiffened by two laths on each siyah, and additionally reinforced on the
grip by three laths, for a total of seven per bow.[19]

Language
A variety of languages were spoken within the Hun Empire.[48] Under Attila, Gothic was
widely understood by the Hunnic elite.[49][50] Roman sources, e.g. Priscus, recorded that Latin,
Gothic, "Hun" and other local 'Scythian" languages were spoken. Based on some
etymological interpretation of the words strava and medos, and subsequent historical
appearance, the other languages have been taken to include a form of pre-Slavic language.[8]

The ancient sources are clear that there was a Hunnic language, but there is no general
consensus on its exact origin or affinities. The literary sources, Priscus and Jordanes, preserve
only a few names, and three words, of the language of the Huns, which have been studied for
more than a century and a half. The sources themselves do not give the meaning of any of the
names, only of the three words. These words (medos, kamos, strava) do not seem to be
Turkic,[13] but probably from a satem Indo-European language similar to Slavic and Dacian.[51]

A group of authors suppose that it may have been a member of, or related to, the Turkic
language family.[52][53][54]

Traditionally notable studies include that of Pritsak 1982, "The Hunnic Language of the Attila
Clan",[55] who concluded, "It was not a Turkic language, but one between Turkic and
Mongolian, probably closer to the former than the latter. The language had strong ties to Old
Bulgarian and to modern Chuvash, but also had some important connections, especially
lexical and morphological, to Ottoman and Yakut ... The Turkic situation has no validity for
Hunnic, which belonged to a separate Altaic group." Others agree that Hunnic was related to
Turkic and Mongolian languages.[56] On the basis of the existing name records, a number of
scholars suggest that the Huns spoke a Turkic language of the Oghur branch, which also
includes Bulgar, Avar, Khazar and Chuvash languages.[57] English scholar Peter Heather
called the Huns "the first group of Turkic, as opposed to Iranian, nomads to have intruded into
Europe".[11]:5 Maenchen-Helfen held that many of the tribal names among the Huns were
Turkic.[13]

Nevertheless, some scholars still conclude that the Hunnic language cannot presently be
classified, and attempts to classify it as Turkic and Mongolic are speculative.[58][59][60]

Legends
Medieval retellings

Chroniclers writing centuries later often mentioned or alluded to Huns or their purported
descendants. These include:

Theophylact Simocatta
 Annales Fuldenses

Annales Alemannici

Annals of Salzburg

Liutprand of Cremona's Antapodosis

Regino of Prm's chronicle

Widukind of Corvey's Saxon Chronicle

Nestor the Chronicler's Primary Chronicle

Legends of Saints Cyril and Methodius

Aventinus's Chronicon Bavaria,

Constantine VII's De Administrando Imperio, and

Leo VI the Wise's Tactica.

Medieval Hungarians continued this tradition (see Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum,

Chronicon Pictum, Gesta Hungarorum).

Memory of the Hunnic conquest was transmitted orally among Germanic peoples and is an
important component in the Old Norse Vlsunga saga and Hervarar saga and in the Middle
High German Nibelungenlied. These stories all portray Migration Period events from a
millennium earlier.

In the Hervarar saga, the Goths make first contact with the bow-wielding Huns and meet them
in an epic battle on the plains of the Danube.

In the Nibelungenlied, Kriemhild marries Attila (Etzel in German) after her first husband
Siegfried was murdered by Hagen with the complicity of her brother, King Gunther. She then
uses her power as Etzel's wife to take a bloody revenge in which not only Hagen and Gunther
but all Burgundian knights find their death at festivities to which she and Etzel had invited
them.

In the Vlsunga saga, Attila (Atli in Norse) defeats the Frankish king Sigebert I (Sigurr or
Siegfried) and the Burgundian King Guntram (Gunnar or Gunther), but is later assassinated
by Queen Fredegund (Gudrun or Kriemhild), the sister of the latter and wife of the former.

In the German "Saga of Tidreck of Bern", its written versions beginning from the 13th
century, the Huns are called Frisians. Frisia was often called Hunaland in the Middle Ages.[61]
[62]

Claims of Hunnic origins

Many nations and ethnic groups have tried to assert themselves as ethnic, or cultural
successors to the Huns. For instance, the Nominalia of the Bulgarian Khans may indicate that
they believed that they descended from Attila. There are many similarities between Hunnic
and Bulgar cultures, such as the practice of artificial cranial deformation. This along with
other archaeological evidence suggest continuity between the two cultures. The most
characteristic weapons of the Huns and early Bulgars (a particular type of composite bow and
a long, straight, double edged sword of the Sassanid type, etc.) are virtually identical in
appearance.

The Magyars (Hungarians) in particular lay claim to Hunnic heritage. Although Magyar tribes
only began to settle in the geographical area of present-day Hungary in the very end of the 9th
century, some 450 years after the dissolution of the Hunnic tribal confederation, Hungarian
prehistory includes Magyar origin myths, which may have preserved some elements of
historical truth. The Huns who invaded Europe represented a loose coalition of various
peoples, so some Magyars might have been part of it, or may later have joined descendants of
Attila's men, who still claimed the name of Huns. The national anthem of Hungary describes
the Hungarians as "blood of Bendegz'" (the medieval and modern Hungarian version of
Mundzuk, Attila's father). Attila's brother Bleda is called Buda in modern Hungarian. Some
medieval chronicles and literary works derive the name of the city of Buda from him. There is
a legend among the Szkely people that says: "After the death of Attila, in the bloody Battle
of Krimhilda, 3000 Hun warriors managed to escape, to settle in a place called "Csigle-mez"
(today Transylvania) and they changed their name from Huns to Szekler (Szkely)."

When Magyars came to Pannonia in the 9th century, the Szeklers joined them, and together
they conquered Pannonia (today Hungary). There is also a lineage that follows five
generations rulers of the Huns and Magyars: Attila, his son Csaba, his son Ed, his son gyek,
his son Eld, his son lmos. lmos was the ruler of the Magyars. lmos son was rpd.
Taken from the ancient Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum ("The Deeds of the Huns and
Hungarians")
20th century use in reference to Germans
On 27 July 1900, during the Boxer Rebellion in China, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany gave
the order to act ruthlessly towards the rebels: "Mercy will not be shown, prisoners will not be
taken. Just as a thousand years ago, the Huns under Attila won a reputation of might that lives
on in legends, so may the name of Germany in China, such that no Chinese will even again
dare so much as to look askance at a German."[63]

The term "Hun" from this speech was later used for the Germans by British propaganda
during World War I. The comparison was helped by the spiked Pickelhaube helmet worn by
German forces until 1916, which would be reminiscent of images depicting ancient Hun
helmets. This usage, emphasising the idea that the Germans were barbarians, was reinforced
by Allied propaganda throughout the war. The French songwriter Theodore Botrel described
the Kaiser as "an Attila, without remorse", launching "cannibal hordes".[64]

The usage of the term "Hun" to describe Germans resurfaced during World War II. For
example Winston Churchill 1941 said in a broadcast speech: "There are less than 70,000,000
malignant Huns, some of whom are curable and others killable, most of whom are already
engaged in holding down Austrians, Czechs, Poles and the many other ancient races they now
bully and pillage."[65] Later that year Churchill referred to the invasion of the Soviet Union as
"the dull, drilled, docile brutish masses of the Hun soldiery, plodding on like a swarm of
crawling locusts."[66] During this time American President Franklin D. Roosevelt also referred
to the German people in this way, saying that an Allied invasion into Southern France would
surely "be successful and of great assistance to Eisenhower in driving the Huns from
France."[67] Nevertheless, its use was less widespread than in the previous war. British and
American World War II troops more often used the term "Jerry" or "Kraut" for their German
opponents.

See also
Attila

Hunnic language

List of Hunnic rulers

Nomadic empire

Xiongnu

Further reading
Attila und die Hunnen. Begleitbuch zur Ausstellung. Hrsg. vom Historischen Museum
der Pfalz, Speyer. (Stuttgart 2007).

Christopher Kelly, Attila The Hun: Barbarian Terror and the Fall of the Roman
Empire (London 2008)
 Rudi Paul Lindner, Nomadism, Horses and Huns, in: Past and Present 92, 1981, p. 3
19.

E. A. Thompson, A History of Attila and the Huns (1948).

Franz Altheim, Attila und die Hunnen (1951).

J. Werner, Beitrge zur Archologie des Attila-Reiches (1956).

W. M. McGovern, Early Empires of Central Asia (1939)

Frederick John Teggart, China and Rome (1969, repr. 1983);

Otto J. Maenchen-Helfen, The World of the Huns (1973).

External links
Dorn'eich, Chris M. 2008. Chinese sources on the History of the Niusi-Wusi-Asi(oi)-
Rishi(ka)-Arsi-Arshi-Ruzhi and their Kueishuang-Kushan Dynasty. Shiji 110/Hanshu
94A: The Xiongnu: Synopsis of Chinese original Text and several Western
Translations with Extant Annotations. A blog on Central Asian history.