After Attila the Hun

[Kel'Thuzad]

So in short lines,under Attila the Huns formed a vast empire, subjecting other tribes,bringing terror to the Romans and Germanic tribes,and shortly after Attila's death the empire fell apart,the Hun armies were defeated at the battle of Nedao, and suddenly they disappear from history leaving little to no heritage at all. How is it possible for the people who held Europe under terror,to just disappear over night? We know very little about them even today (compared to what we know about other civilizations,that could be due to the fact that the Huns didn't fancy writing) ...They just came,created chaos and then left to the void...
Now if there is anyone who is interested in this topic,I would very much like a discussion about it.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Thats all they did was create chaos. Their empire, like the mongols, was held together by force and through a force of personality. The Romans knew all they had to do was wait for Attila to die and his empire would break apart. It was impossible to hold so many tribes together.

[KEA]

The "Hunnic Empire" should be seen rather as an alliance of warbands than a true state. The Huns themselves most likely were only few in numbers that far west, and the majority of the empire was Germanic. Insofar it not is surprisingly that this empire collapsed and disappeared without leaving much traces once the charismatic leader died and the ruling group lost its dominance in battle.

[Kel'Thuzad]

Thats all they did was create chaos. Their empire, like the mongols, was held together by force and through a force of personality. The Romans knew all they had to do was wait for Attila to die and his empire would break apart. It was impossible to hold so many tribes together.

The "Hunnic Empire" should be seen rather as an alliance of warbands than a true state. The Huns themselves most likely were only few in numbers that far west, and the majority of the empire was Germanic. Insofar it not is surprisingly that this empire collapsed and disappeared without leaving much traces once the charismatic leader died and the ruling group lost its dominance in battle.

I agree with you gentlemen,and I agree with the fact that their empire couldn't outlast it's founder,but the question here is rather,what happened to the people,even if in smaller numbers then their subjects,they couldn't simply disappear,we are probably not talking just about a handful of 1000 huns,when they arrived to Europe they were pretty much a force on their own,until they started conquering tribes like the Alans.

Even in the eastern parts of Europe and in western Asia,there is little to no trace of them,there are some names appearing in the Caucasus which are speculated hunnic,but nothing more,a whole group of people can't just vanish from history like that.

P.S. Also I wouldn't say they created chaos just for the sake of chaos,no matter how savage they were portrayed by Romans and Germans,they shouldn't be considered as some brutal horde who just enjoyed destruction.

[The Kybrothilian]

The Huns most likely were absorbed into the local nations, like Thuringii, Gepids and Avars. They just were not numerous and close located as a people to form an effective nation. In small groups, they merged into those who they lived near or amongst.

[saxdude]

Thats all they did was create chaos. Their empire, like the mongols, was held together by force and through a force of personality. The Romans knew all they had to do was wait for Attila to die and his empire would break apart. It was impossible to hold so many tribes together.

And yet the organized mongol empire survived through several generations of Khans.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Yes, that is true but the great empire of Genghis didnt. After Attila and the heirs fought with each other, leaving the empire divided. Leading to their defeat at the battle of Nedao by the Gepids and Ostrogoths.

The Huns never established a bureaucratic system, so once they were defeated they just melted away. Attilas capital was in the Pannonian basin I believe, after the Huns defeat the Gepids occupid the basin while the Ostrogoths settled in Pannonia, on the other side of the danube. The Huns themselves may have melted away back to modern day Ukraine, back to Sarmatian lands. Those who remained in Pannonia were slaughtered by the Goths. So the likely path would be to retreat to the Steppes.

Procopius states the brothers of the defeated king at Nedao ruled separate kingdoms in the steppes - the Kutrigur, Utigur, Onogur Bulgers.

[Mausolos of Caria]

In Hungary many people believe in the theory that the Huns, after the collapse of their empire, returned to the Steppes as their actual home. Generations later they returned to Europe as the Magyars. Most Western historians, however, have dismissed this theory and it is much more likely that they merged with the local population, like Herald of Omnisiah said. After all the same happened to ancient people whose regions were overrun by foreign peoples, like the Illyrians, the Pannonians or the Norici (to remain in this geographical area) who were also merged and lost their own distinctive identity.
Of course we can only speculate about this qiuestion anyway unless new extraordinary sources can be found.

[saxdude]

Yes, that is true but the great empire of Genghis didnt. After Attila and the heirs fought with each other, leaving the empire divided. Leading to their defeat at the battle of Nedao by the Gepids and Ostrogoths.

Genghis purposelly divided the empire into Khanates which continued to live on through various generations of Khans, under one great Khan, then, even after the civil war among 2 of the 4 khanates that occured about 50 years after Genghis Khans death, the states continued to exist independantly for several more centuries.
As opposed to the Huns, which after rampaging through europe either melded away or fled to the steps.

Mongols =/= Huns

[Admiral Piett]

The Magyars and some Bulgars have links connected identities to the Hunnic hordes. They didn't vanish totally. The Magyars and Bulgars even practiced cranial deformation as the Huns did. Right now the prevailing theory is that the Huns, like the Xiongnu as its turning out, where multiethnic. Xiongnu graves have been identified with Uralic peoples, Turks, and Iranic Sakas. The Xiongnu were not Mongolians in the sense we know them today. The Mongol people and language have more ties to the Donghu peoples living near Manchuria in those times. The term Khan originates from there. There is even evidence that a Saka (or Tocharian perhaps) tribe overran them at some point.

The majority of the Hunnic horde though were Eastern Germans.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Genghis purposelly divided the empire into Khanates which continued to live on through various generations of Khans, under one great Khan, then, even after the civil war among 2 of the 4 khanates that occured about 50 years after Genghis Khans death, the states continued to exist independantly for several more centuries.
As opposed to the Huns, which after rampaging through europe either melded away or fled to the steps.

Mongols =/= Huns

Prob for the simple fact that Genghis divided the empire. He set up a system. A bureaucracy. After Attila there was a clear successor (who would rule everything) but the brothers fought with each other leaving the empire divided.

[NikeBG]

Even in the eastern parts of Europe and in western Asia,there is little to no trace of them,there are some names appearing in the Caucasus which are speculated hunnic,but nothing more,a whole group of people can't just vanish from history like that.

As has been mentioned before, the Huns under Attila were a polyethnos, where the actual Huns were only a small part of the population, which consisted of Germanics, Scytho-Sarmatians, proto-Slavs etc. After Attila's death, some of those groups, especially the Germanics, broke off (battle of Nedao), so the actual Huns that were left in Pannonia would've been a small subjected population, which would eventually become assimilated among the other people in that area. And, IMO, it's quite possible that there would've been some such Hunnic remnants there, considering there certainly were such Bulgar ones (when the Langobards left the region towards Italy, they were accompanied by a host of various ethnicities which had been living in Pannonia together with them).

Anyway, another, possibly the larger part of the Huns, went back to the Pontic area. F.e. we know that Attila's third (I think) son, Ernakh, and his subjected population went to Scythia Minor (the north-western Pontic area), where he ruled over a mixed Huno-Bulgar population (probably the Kutrigurs) and often acted as a Byzantine ally against the Goths. Attila's second son, Dengizich, also went east to the Pontic area, but often raided the Byzantine lands where he met his death and his tribe went to Ernach as well. So, those Huns eventually fused together with the local Scytho-Sarmatian population and they are mentioned for quite some time in that region (the Caucasian "Kingdom of the Huns"). Eventually their name was replaced by that of the Bulgars (gradually the name Huns gives way to Huno-Bulgars and then only to Bulgars), which became the new polyethnos of the steppes (together with the Avars later on). Respectively, it's believed that the early Danube-Bulgar rulers of the Dulo clan considered themselves descendants of Attila and Ernach (Avitohol and Irnik in the Nominalia of the Bulgarian rulers). Thus, considering the Bulgars were also a polyethnos (i.e. they included actual Bulgars, Hunnic remnants, other Scytho-Sarmatians like the Alans etc), it is theoretically possible that the Magyars (who were also part of the Bulgar polyethnos at some time) could have some Hunnic trace as well (or that they were to a potentially large degree descendants of those Hunnic remnants), though that's obviously only a possibility.

In other words - the Huns in Pannonia more or less got assimilated without a trace, while the ones in the Pontic region possibly took part in the forming of the new powers in the area.

[Kel'Thuzad]

First of I appreciate how many of you responded to the topic,mostly people love to discuss history which they can back up with hard facts (which were chewed up and spit out a thousand times). We may all agree,I believe,that we can only guess,and come up with the various theories offered.
As some of you mentioned,the Hungarians and the Bulgarians often love to trace their origin to the Huns,this might be still a debate,some historians accept it some don't (being a Hungarian I heard so many stories about our "origin" that honestly I don't know what my people actually believe)
I believe that the most likely theory is that they simply melted in with other tribes,and over the coming generations they just lost their entity. Some might have fled back to the steppes,but the same faith could still found them. Perhaps,being a minority in the European part of their "empire" they suffered the faith of the Avars,being annihilated,in the civil wars and uprisings of their subjects.

[saxdude]

Prob for the simple fact that Genghis divided the empire. He set up a system. A bureaucracy. After Attila there was a clear successor (who would rule everything) but the brothers fought with each other leaving the empire divided.

Point being? His empire survived beyond his death, and later on continued as different states, legacy of his empire. The huns disbanded the moment Attila died, your point was that all the 2 did was create chaos and that they would disband the moment the leader died, this was clearly not the case making your point void.

[Timoleon of Korinthos]

Well, there is one last event of siginificance for the Hunns after the battle of Nedao, recorded in a fragment of Priscus' history.

In 467AD a mixed army of Huns and Ostrogoths under the leadership of Attila's son Dengizich corssed the Danube. They were penned up and blockaded by the Romans and, threatened with starvation, they sent envoys offering their surrender provided the emperor would grant them land. The Romans convinced them to divide their forces in as many camps as the Roman troops were organised, so that each general (Anagastes, Basiliscus, Ostrys and Aspar) could more easily supply them with provisions for as long as it would it take for the embassy to march to and return from Constantinople with the emperor's mandate. After some time a Hunnic lieutenant of Aspar, Chelchal, mislead the Gothic notables into believing that they would get the worst of the upcoming settlement, that the Huns alone would receive lands from the emperor, and reminded them of their old grievances against the Huns. Enraged the Goths fell upon their Hun allies and they started to butcher each other. When Asper realised what was going on he ordered an all-out assult against the barbarians, who after prolonged and heated fighting were wiped out. Dengizich's head was sent to Constantinople.


For a more detailed account see "The World of the Huns" pg 167-168, available on google books. I think that if Nedao broke the Hunnic hegemony in central Europe, this disaster marked the beginning of the end for the Huns as a distinct ethnic identity. Their remainders were later absorbed by the latest arrivals in the area (Gepids, Lombards, Avars)

[KEA]

P.S. Also I wouldn't say they created chaos just for the sake of chaos,no matter how savage they were portrayed by Romans and Germans,they shouldn't be considered as some brutal horde who just enjoyed destruction.

This (creating chaos, bloodshed and destrcution) is the core element of a warband like that and in fact both the only legitimation for its ruler and the only reason why it exists at all:

The leader has to provide his retinue either with cash or with (the opportunity to) plunder. This means, as long as he not is powerfull enough to simply blackmail the required gold out of the neighbouring lands, a proto-state like that is in a constant state of war with everyone around.

Additionally, a very successfull leader is able to attract a huge retinue and that way is able to plunder or blackmail even more gold from even more powerfull opponents. But it also means that once that leader, or his family or the leading group, lose the ability to make money that way the entire "state" quickly collapses. Different to the German peoples of the Migration, the Huns never developed beyond that.

[Kel'Thuzad]

This (creating chaos, bloodshed and destrcution) is the core element of a warband like that and in fact both the only legitimation for its ruler and the only reason why it exists at all:

The leader has to provide his retinue either with cash or with (the opportunity to) plunder. This means, as long as he not is powerfull enough to simply blackmail the required gold out of the neighbouring lands, a proto-state like that is in a constant state of war with everyone around.

Additionally, a very successfull leader is able to attract a huge retinue and that way is able to plunder or blackmail even more gold from even more powerfull opponents. But it also means that once that leader, or his family or the leading group, lose the ability to make money that way the entire "state" quickly collapses. Different to the German peoples of the Migration, the Huns never developed beyond that.

You can view it like that,but there can be another point to it,the Huns probably migrated as any nomadic tribe due to animal herds and other resources. Now where they came from life was totally different,in the steppe there were constant raids,like you said,but that does not mean that it was the only point...they were not constantly at war with everyone,that would be very illogical. The Huns just followed their ways,which were pretty much new to the Germans and Romans in every way (if we ignore their previous encounters with the Scythian tribes)so they were able to establish a hegemony over these tribes. This was Europe's first encounter with the ways of life across the steppes from the other side of Ural and of course it seemed brutal and chaotic,but that was everyday life for the Huns. Still that was not the core and the basis of their existence.

[KEA]

You can view it like that,but there can be another point to it,the Huns probably migrated as any nomadic tribe due to animal herds and other resources. Now where they came from life was totally different,in the steppe there were constant raids,like you said,but that does not mean that it was the only point...they were not constantly at war with everyone,that would be very illogical. The Huns just followed their ways,which were pretty much new to the Germans and Romans in every way (if we ignore their previous encounters with the Scythian tribes)so they were able to establish a hegemony over these tribes. This was Europe's first encounter with the ways of life across the steppes from the other side of Ural and of course it seemed brutal and chaotic,but that was everyday life for the Huns. Still that was not the core and the basis of their existence.

No, you misunderstood: that not was the way the Huns lived but the way those warbands functioned. So, that not was something new to the Germans or Romans when the Huns came, but something new to the Huns when they came to the west - add a "maybe" because we don't know enough about the orginial Hun people to tell how they lived before establishing contact with the Germans.

The (western) Huns we know from the sources are a much Germanized people, last but nor least because many of them were in fact Germans. The concept of "lord and armed retinue", i.e. that of a warband, was a core concept of the Ancient German society. We might even think of the Franks, Goths, Vandals, Saxons, Alemanns etc not as people on the move but as giant warbands searching for the promised plunder. So, even though the Hun leaders themselves were alien to the Germans, the concept of Hunnic rule was very familiar to them; and that would have been the reason how the Huns managed to establish rule over the Germans at all without having established something of a settled state before.

The reason why Franks, Saxons and the like were able to develop beyond that state and to establish true kingdoms was that the "warband Huns" did not exist long enough and also because the Huns did not settle themselves on developed Roman lands.

[megutlek]

Thus, considering the Bulgars were also a polyethnos (i.e. they included actual Bulgars, Hunnic remnants, other Scytho-Sarmatians like the Alans etc), it is theoretically possible that the Magyars (who were also part of the Bulgar polyethnos at some time) could have some Hunnic trace as well (or that they were to a potentially large degree descendants of those Hunnic remnants), though that's obviously only a possibility.

The Magyar leaders indeed claimed descent from Attila, but that could be just a myth. But the Aba family of Hungary likely has a rightful claim of descent from Attila. One of them, Samuel Aba, became king of Hungary for a short time. His ancestors, Ed and Edemen, are mentioned as the leaders of the "qun" or "hun" people who became subjects of the conquering Magyars after a fight for Kiev, according to hungarian chronicles. Coincidentally, antropologist Ery Kinga identified a subgroup of the conquering Magyars who were different from the other magyars but very much resembled in spots the autochtonus inhabitants of Hungary. Some think that these people are the huno-avars who fled east after the disintegration of the Avar kingdom, and they came back under the magyars as "qun". They are often mistaken for cumans.. Their etonym it's pretty much alive until today as várkony(uar-chunni at some byzantine writer).

Another group who supposed to have "hunnic" descent are the Szekelys(hungarians living today in the eastern Carpathians). While real "hunnic" heritage it's disputed, the hungarian chronicles place them in eastern Hungary at the arrival of the Magyars, so they easily can have some huno-avar heritage. At the least they was avar subjects. IMO, they and other survived avar subject peoples was who taught the Magyar elite the hungarian language, because every information about the Magyars shows that they were only a turkik speaking nomadic elite, not an agricultural finno-ugric people migrating in mass as they should have been.

In other words - the Huns in Pannonia more or less got assimilated without a trace, while the ones in the Pontic region possibly took part in the forming of the new powers in the area.

Afaik, after the battle of Nedao there was not much huns left to be assimilated because they was too few in the first place. Those still alive left to quench the revolt of the acatziri in the east. They and their german allies were just a military elite.

The Magyars and some Bulgars have links connected identities to the Hunnic hordes. They didn't vanish totally. The Magyars and Bulgars even practiced cranial deformation as the Huns did. Right now the prevailing theory is that the Huns, like the Xiongnu as its turning out, where multiethnic. Xiongnu graves have been identified with Uralic peoples, Turks, and Iranic Sakas. The Xiongnu were not Mongolians in the sense we know them today. The Mongol people and language have more ties to the Donghu peoples living near Manchuria in those times. The term Khan originates from there. There is even evidence that a Saka (or Tocharian perhaps) tribe overran them at some point.

The majority of the Hunnic horde though were Eastern Germans.

I don't know about artificial cranial deformation amongst the Magyars and Bulgars, but they had in common another very odd way of getting attention, and that is some kind of ritualic trepanation.

"In the graveyards of pre-Christian (Pagan) Magyars, archeologists found a surprisingly high frequency (12.5%) of skulls with trepanation.[11] The trepanation was performed on adults only, with similar frequencies for males and females, but increasing frequency with age and wealth. This custom suddenly disappears with the onset of Christian era."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trepann...-modern_Europe

They were pretty good at real chirurgical trepanations also, people survived after removal of huge portions of the skull, their rate of succes wasn't matched until the 20'th century.. The missing bones was replaced with metal pieces sewn in their hats.

That greenish color it's because of the metal piece used to replace the missing skull.

In some cases the metal also has been found, it looked like this:


Hungarian readers can find it here:
http://sirasok.blog.hu/2008/09/10/ag...foglalaskorban
http://sirasok.blog.hu/2008/10/02/ag...onyalekelesrol