Post-Hunnic Steppe Kingdoms in Europe: the Avars, the Bulgars and their relationship to the Huns

[Charerg]

Since learning more of the history of the so-called "Dark Ages", I've grown rather fascinated with the various steppe kingdoms that emerged in Eastern Europe after the period of Hunnic supremacy. Of particular interest is the question of what connection these new realms had to the prior Hunnic Confederacy? Were peoples such as the Avars and the Bulgars formerly part of the Hunnic Confederacy (in which case the later kingdoms could be viewed as Hunnic successor states), or was their "core" formed by new arrivals to the region?

The ethnic identity of the steppe Bulgars has been discussed previously (without any clear conclusions), but I'd like to discuss the subject on a larger scale, rather than focus on the Bulgars exclusively. So, to get started here are some important dates I managed to gather from wikipedia:

- c. 463: Priscus the Rhetor recounts that representives of the Šaragurs, Onogurs and Ogurs were driven from their lands by the Sabirs, who had in turn been attacked by the Avars.

This passage by Priscus opens the discussion with a mystery. Who were the three aforementioned tribes (Saragur, Onogur and Ogur) and what was their relation to the Huns and the later Avar and Bulgar kingdoms? Wikipedia considers the etymology of the tribal names to be Oghur Turkic, with Onogur meaning "ten tribes" and Saragur "White Oghur", citing Peter Golden's "Studies on the People and Cultures of the Eurasian Steppes [1]".

The picture is further muddied by the presence of the tribes known as the Kutrigurs and the Utigurs. Once again, Golden considers the tribal names Oghur Turkic [1]. Perhaps the more interesting question is whether these were truly different tribal entities from the aforementioned three "Onogur tribes", or actually just different names for the same people.

Of the Byzantine authors Procopius (writing circa 530-560) uses the terms Kutrigur and Utigur. Agathias (c. 579-582) offers the following quote:

...all of them are called in general Scythians and Huns in particular according to their nation. Thus, some are Koutrigours or Outigours and yet others are Oultizurs and Bourougounds... the Oultizurs and Bourougounds were known up to the time of the Emperor Leo (457–474) and the Romans of that time and appeared to have been strong. We, however, in this day, neither know them, nor, I think, will we. Perhaps, they have perished or perhaps they have moved off to very far place

The quote is from wikipedia, citing Peter Golden's "An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples [2]".

According to the Byzantine authors (Procopius, Agathias and Menander) Emperor Justinian (ruled 527-565) managed to incite the Kutrigurs and the Utigurs into war with each other via diplomatic means (decimating both tribes). Which brings us to our next series of important dates:

- 557-562: The Avars send an embassy to Constantinople, offering to subjugate the "unruly gentes". They conquer the Kutrigurs and the Sabirs, and defeat the Antae. By 562 the Avars control the lower Danube basin and the steppes north of the Black Sea. Interestingly, the Utigurs came under the rule of the Western Turks (according to wikipedia, citing Golden [2]).

- 565 (and 568): Gokturk embassies reach Constantinople, according to Menander Protector. The Turks were angered with the Byzantines for making an alliance with the Avars, whom they saw as their subjects and slaves.

- 567: The Avars enter an alliance with the Langobardi, destroying the Gepid Kingdom in Pannonia. In 568-569, the Langobards migrate to northern Italy, leaving the Avars as the sole rulers of Pannonia.

- 599: The Byzantines defeat the Avars (and their Slavic allies/vassals) in the Battles of Viminacium.

- 626: The Avars and the Sassanids besiege Constantinople, but the siege ends up in failure.

- 635: Kubrat establishes the confederation of Old Great Bulgaria. According to Nikephoros I: "ruler of the Onoğundur–Bulğars, successfully revolted against the Avars and concluded a treaty with Heraclius". Wikipedia views the newly formed state as a union of the former Kutrigur and Utigur peoples.

Here it is important to note that there are several prior references to the Bulgars, particularly from the 5th century (too many to list here). Some authors refer to the Bulgars as "Huns" (namely Procopius), which may be a literary topos, or indicate that they were indeed a Hunnic successor state. By the middle of the 6th century, the Bulgars fade (momentarily) from the sources, and the aforementioned Kutrigurs and the Utigurs come to the front. The question here is whether the Bulgars, the Kutrigurs and the Utigurs were actually the same people, with perhaps "Bulgar" being more of a super-tribal term (similar to "Suebi" or "Lugii"), and the other names tribal entities that were all considered "Bulgars".

- 665-668: Kubrat dies, and Old Great Bulgaria disintegrates. Asparukh leads one group south, while Kotrag establishes Volga Bulgaria to the north. The former lands of the Bulgars are conquered by the Khazars.

- 680: Battle of Ongal, Asparukh defeats the Byzantines, leading to the foundation of the First Bulgarian Empire.

So, I think that establishes the general narrative. There are other related questions that are not covered here (like the identity of the Sabirs), but I think I managed to cover the most important ones. Based on this material, I think there is a strong possibility that the "Onogur tribes" were a major part of the Hunnic confederation, as they were apparently situated north of the Black Sea during the middle of the 5th century.

However, I'm not familiar enough with the sources to consider just how likely the possibility is that the Onogurs, the Bulgars, the Kutrigurs and the Utigurs were the same entity. Ideally one would have to compare the terminology the various authors use and find out if, for example, the Bulgars, the Kutrigurs and the Utigurs are considered separate entities by the authors, or is only one "set of names" used within a single source (which would indicate they were likely a single entity all along). Admittedly this is a very complicated subject, but since there are some posters on these forums with knowledge of this era, I have hopes that a discussion on the subject should be interesting!

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Dr. Kim in his two recent books on the Huns (The Huns, Rome, and the Birth of Europe, 2013 and The Huns, 2016) argues that the Kutrigur and Utigur Buulgars were the direct succesor states of the Hunnic Empire, as they were each established by one of Attila's sons and operated in a dualist system like the Hunnic Empire before Attila.

The Ultinzur (Oultizur) Huns were actually a council of 6 elders under the Hunnic high king (Attila, more or less).

The Saragurs, Onogurs, and Sabirs were a second wave of Hunnic peoples who fled in front of the Avars (Varkhionitai) i.e. a splinter group of the Hepthaltites (a non-Hunnic people known as the Hua who are called "White Huns" but were actually former vassals of the Rouran (True Avars in Mongolia) known as the Hua).

The Huns were formed out of two groups: the descendents of the Xiongnu known as the Huna, and then the absorbed Dingling or Tingling people who were Proto-Oghur Turkic, living in the Altai Mountains and on the River Ob. The first known Hunnic groups were actually just Oghur Turkic peoples spread out across Central Asia ahead of the reforming Hunnic Confederation: we have the "Borouguunds" who were an Oghur Turkic people (according to Maenchen-Helfen) who drifted West into the Crimea in the mid-3rd Century and were destroyed by the Goths. Under Constantine's time, we have the Alpilcur and Tongurs (with the Alanic Itimari and Boisci (Rhobasci)) living on the Volga, and under Dengzich's defeat in 468 theTongurs are listed as one of the peoples under him.

The Akatir Huns eventually overthrow the Saragurs who conquer them, and then get absorbed into the Kutrigur and Utigur Huns. The Sabir and Onogur Huns will eventually form the Khazars (the modern Chuvash are thought to be removed descendants of the Sabir Huns). The Kutrigurs and Utigurs get absorbed into the Avars and then into the True Bulgars in the 7th century.

The Bulgars were an Oghur Turkic-Iranic mix who emigrated out of Bactria in the 6th century and moved up into the Pontic region in the 7th century. It's possible their royal line is somewhat connected to Attila, probably via royal marriage, but there's no evidence of that.

[NikeBG]

However, I'm not familiar enough with the sources to consider just how likely the possibility is that the Onogurs, the Bulgars, the Kutrigurs and the Utigurs were the same entity.

The generally accepted theory is indeed that the Onogurs, Kutrigurs and Utigurs were some of the main branches of the Bulgar tribal union (or polyethnos, or supra-tribe, whatever you prefer). The Kutrigurs and Utigurs being the main two. F.e. Procopius tells a legendary story of their origin, namely this: "In olden times a large multitude of Huns, then called Cimmerians, inhabited the regions I just mentioned. They were all ruled by a single king. Once one of their kings had two sons: one was named Utigur and the other - Kutrigur. After their father died, they split the power between each other and gave their names to their subjects, so that even in our times ones are called Utigurs and the others - Kutrigurs. They all lived there, they had common customs in everything and didn't mix with the people beyond the lake..." (Then he tells the legend about how a deer showed them a way through the Kerch strait and how they thus crossed into the Crimean peninsula and chased the local Goths.) I think another source specifically claimed that king was Ernakh (Attila's third son), from whom Utigur and Kutrigur were born, though I'm not completely certain, as I don't have the time to check all sources atm.



Btw, in regards to your 567 event (the Avar conquest of Pannonia and the later migration of the Langobards to Italy), it's interesting that the Langobards moved to Italy along with several tribes which they picked up from Pannonia, one of them being some Bulgar leftovers probably from Hunnic times (which scholars define as the first Bulgar migration to Italy). It's also interesting that later on, during Avar times, the Kutrigur Bulgars (or Huno-Bulgars, or Kutrigur Huns) are still located in that area, among the last of them probably being Krum the Terrifying himself (since he was reportedly "from the Pannonian Bulgars").

[Charerg]

Re: MMFA

It's interesting that Dr. Kim considers the Bulgars to have migrated into the region in the 7th Century. From what I gather the major migration during the 6th century that the sources record is the arrival of the Avars (and the Gokturks). And since the Avars are stated to have destroyed the Sabirs, it would seem likely that the Sabirs were assimilated by the Avars ca. 560. Although it has been proposed that the term Sabir is the root for Sibir (Siberia), it does seem difficult to establish a connection between the modern Chuvash and the ancient Sabirs.

However, having read a portion of Golden's more recent book (Studies on the Peoples and Cultures of the Eurasian Steppes, 2011), he states that any mentions of the Bulgars "that place them as a significant force on the historical stage before 480" are undoubtedly anachronistic. Although he does note that later authors write that the Bulgars previously called themselves "Unogundur" (or some variation of the word), the earliest cited reference of the two terms used together being Agathon (early 8th century), who uses the term "Unnoguron Bulgaron". Golden considers that the Onogurs must have formed one of the core elements of the Bulgar Confederation that entered the Balkans.

Golden's view is that the "three Oghur tribes" (Onogur, Ogur and Saragur) migrated into the Ponto-Caspian region in 460-463. Golden also states that within a few years of their arrival, the Saragurs had attacked the Akatirs and other "Hunnic tribes" and raided the Sassanic holdings in Transcaucasia, but that their subsequent fate is unrecorded. He also regards the Kutrigurs and the Utigurs as separate entities, and presumes that they were part of the same migration as the other "Oghur tribes". It's also interesting to note that the primary source (Priscus) uses the term "Urogoi", which has been interpreted as Ogur. In any case, Golden seems to consider all five tribes as separate entities, and also entities that were not part of the "European Huns".

As to the Khazars, Golden views them as a successor state emerging from the splintering western Gokturk state during the 630-650 period (Magna Bulgaria [Old Great Bulgaria] being the other successor state emerging during this period). He notes that current evidence seems to indicate that the Khazars had a ruling elite of Inner Asian origin ruling over a mixed population. However, he also notes that the question of Khazar origins remains unresolved.

Edit:
I should also mention that the primary source detailing the "463 migration" does not specifically mention the Avars as the people who drove the Sabirs to attack the "Oghur tribes". Instead, Priscus states the Sabiroi had been forced to take flight by "the peoples inhabiting the coast of the ocean". The remark has been interpreted as an early reference to the Avars.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

He considers that the Onogurs must have formed one of the core elements of the Bulgar Confederation that entered the Balkans.

Instead, Priscus states the Sabiroi had been forced to take flight by "the peoples inhabiting the coast of the ocean". The remark has been interpreted as an early reference to the Avars.

IIRC there are two versions of this fragment of Priscus and both say that the Sabirs were turned to flight by the Avars who were turned to flight by people inhabiting the region near the great eastern ocean who were attacked by monsters.

It's interesting the Dr. Kim considers the Bulgars to have migrated into the region in the 7th Century. From what I gather the major migration during the 6th century that the sources record is the arrival of the Avars (and the Gokturks). And since the Avars are stated to have destroyed the Sabirs, it would seem likely that the Sabirs were assimilated by the Avars ca. 560. Although it has been proposed that the term Sabir is the root for Sibir (Siberia), it does seem difficult to establish a connection between the modern Chuvash and the ancient Sabirs.

The Sabirs were Huns, if you read about the Lazic Wars of 502 the Sabirs and Onogurs, both called Huns, were the main participants and they ravaged Transcaucasia.

Golden's view is that the "three Oghur tribes" (Onogur, Ogur and Saragur) migrated into the Ponto-Caspian region in 460-463. Golden also states that within a few years of their arrival, the Saragurs had attacked the Akatirs and other "Hunnic tribes" and raided the Sassanic holdings in Transcaucasia, but that their subsequent fate is unrecorded. He also regards the Kutrigurs and the Utigurs as separate entities, and presumes that they were part of the same migration as the other "Oghur tribes". It's also interesting to note that the primary source (Priscus) uses the term "Urogoi", which has been interpreted as Ogur. In any case, Golden seems to consider all five tribes as separate entities, and also entities that were not part of the "European Huns".

As to the Khazars, Golden views them as a successor state emerging from the splintering western Gokturk state during the 630-650 period (Magna Bulgaria [Old Great Bulgaria] being the other successor state emerging during this period). He notes that current evidence seems to indicate that the Khazars had a ruling elite of Inner Asian origin ruling over a mixed population. However, he also notes that the question of Khazar origins remains unresolved.

Golden is largely right, remember the steppe is fluid and elements of each tribe can be absorbed by different peoples. The Saragurs subdued the Akatir Huns, who later overthrew the Saragurs in the 6th century and became independent again (only to be destroyed later).

But the migration did not include the Kutrigurs and Utigurs. The primary source you mention does exist and is right Ernak founded the Utigurs and one of Attila's other sons founded the Kutrigurs. I have to actually go back and read Kim to tell you more detail than that.

owever, having read a portion of Golden's more recent book (Studies on the Peoples and Cultures of the Eurasian Steppes, 2011), he states that any mentions of the Bulgars "that place them as a significant force on the historical stage before 480" are undoubtedly anachronistic. Although he does note that later authors write that the Bulgars previously called themselves "Unogundur" (or some variation of the word), the earliest cited reference of the two terms used together being Agathon (early 8th century), who uses the term "Unnoguron Bulgaron". He considers that the Onogurs must have formed one of the core elements of the Bulgar Confederation that entered the Balkans.

I don't doubt that Onogur Huns formed part of the Bulgar confederation but the fact of the matter is that the leading theory is that the Bulgars were Iranic, not Oghur Turkic, and became Oghur Turkic during their time under the Kidarite Huns/Hepthaltite Hua and on the Eurasian Steppes in the 5th/6th Century. Just like the Huns were originally Altai/Yeniseian speakers but transitioned from being the Xiongnu to the Oghur Turkic-speaking Huns.

among the last of them probably being Krum the Terrifying himself (since he was reportedly "from the Pannonian Bulgars").

Anyone who makes a cup out of the skull of a Roman emperor is my kind of badass.

Khan Krum 2016

[Charerg]

IIRC there are two versions of this fragment of Priscus and both say that the Sabirs were turned to flight by the Avars who were turned to flight by people inhabiting the region near the great eastern ocean who were attacked by monsters.

Here's the direct quote (Golden, 2011):

...a series of migrations and tribal
displacements, ca. 463, that began in Inner Asia. According to this
account, the Σαράγουροι, *Ώγούροι (text. Οὒρωγοι) and Όνόγουροι
had been compelled to migrate to the North Caucasian and Pontic
steppes under pressure from the Σάβιροι. The latter, in turn, had been
forced to take flight by the peoples inhabiting the coast of the ocean.
The unnamed ocean peoples were themselves the victims of hostile
natural forces and man-eating griffins (the latter lifted from Herodotos.

I'm presuming Golden is drawing this straight from Priscus the Rhetor. So, I think it's fairly safe to say that there's no direct mention of the Avars (though they're the most likely candidate), unless you've actually read the primary source.

The Sabirs were Huns, if you read about the Lazic Wars of 502 the Sabirs and Onogurs, both called Huns, were the main participants and they ravaged Transcaucasia.

It's possible the Sabirs were Huns, which would indeed make it likely that the tribes that participated in the "463 migration" should also be considered Hunnic. That said, if the aforementioned tribes were truly new arrivals to the region, it's unlikely they played a significant role in the earlier Hunnic Confederation that terrorized the Romans.

Golden is largely right, remember the steppe is fluid and elements of each tribe can be absorbed by different peoples. The Saragurs subdued the Akatir Huns, who later overthrew the Saragurs in the 6th century and became independent again (only to be destroyed later).

But the migration did not include the Kutrigurs and Utigurs. The primary source you mention does exist and is right Ernak founded the Utigurs and one of Attila's other sons founded the Kutrigurs. I have to actually go back and read Kim to tell you more detail than that.

I'm actually a bit curious about the Akatirs. According to Golden, they were brought under Hunnic control in 445 or 447, and placed under the command of Attila's eldest son by his wife Κρέκα (Kreka, variant spelling Ήρεκαν (Irekan or Erekan)). The son in question was probably Ellac. He also remarks that one of the Akatir chieftains (Κουρίδαχος, or Kuridach) managed to retain his independence for a time yet. However, no further reference is made to the Akatirs, except in the mention that the Saragurs attacked them. I wonder if there is a later reference as Dr. Kim seems to think they overthrew the Saragurs?

I don't doubt that Onogur Huns formed part of the Bulgar confederation but the fact of the matter is that the leading theory is that the Bulgars were Iranic, not Oghur Turkic, and became Oghur Turkic during their time under the Kidarite Huns/Hepthaltite Hua and on the Eurasian Steppes in the 5th/6th Century. Just like the Huns were originally Altai/Yeniseian speakers but transitioned from being the Xiongnu to the Oghur Turkic-speaking Huns.

Well, it does not necessarily prevent the Bulgars from being Iranic if they emerged in the Pontic region, instead of the Transoxanian region. That said, I'm mostly curious that Dr. Kim considers any such migration to have taken place during the 7th century (from the Hepthalite state?). Remember that the Göktürks had already reached the Ponto-Caspian region in the 570s. Although the Turkic Khaganate split in two 584-593 (Göktürk civil war), I don't know if there are any accounts of a 7th century migration into the Ponto-Caspian area. And the already mentioned Nikephoros I (the Patriarch) did state that "Kubrat, ruler of the Onoğundur–Bulğars, successfully revolted against the Avars and concluded a treaty with Heraclius." This would certainly imply that Magna Bulgaria was formed by former vassals of the Avars and the Göktürks.

Also, the Armenian Geography (attributed to Movses Khorenatsi, actually compiled by Anania Shirakatsi, prior to 636 with later additions and interpolations) notes: “Asparhruk son of Xubraat who fled from the Khazars out of the Bulgarian mountains” (Marquart, Chronologie, pp. 88-89, alternatively translated as: “The son of Kubrat fled from the Hippic mountains” (Hewsen)). I have no idea which mountains are referred to, but Asparukh is considered to be directly descended from Kubrat.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

That said, if the aforementioned tribes were truly new arrivals to the region, it's unlikely they played a significant role in the earlier Hunnic Confederation that terrorized the Romans.

Exactly, this was a new group of Hunnic peoples. Not the Attillanic Huns.

I'm actually a bit curious about the Akatirs. According to Golden, they were brought under Hunnic control in 445 or 447, and placed under the command of Attila's eldest son by his wife Κρέκα (Kreka, variant spelling Ήρεκαν (Irekan or Erekan)). The son in question was probably Ellac. He also remarks that one of the Akatir chieftains (Κουρίδαχος, or Kuridach) managed to retain his independence for a time yet. However, no further reference is made to the Akatirs, except in the mention that the Saragurs attacked them. I wonder if there is a later reference as Dr. Kim seems to think they overthrew the Saragurs?

It comes from a 6th century source describing the geography of the region, if I recall correctly. They're listed as a major Steppe power at the time, indicating they overthrew the Saragurs at some point. But other than that they're only mentioned in Priscus (Greek: Akatziroi).

Well, it does not necessarily prevent the Bulgars from being Iranic if they emerged in the Pontic region, instead of the Transoxanian region. That said, I'm mostly curious that Dr. Kim considers any such migration to have taken place during the 7th century (from the Hepthalite state?). Remember that the Göktürks had already reached the Ponto-Caspian region in the 570s. Although the Turkic Khaganate split in two 584-593 (Göktürk civil war), I don't know if there are any accounts of a 7th century migration into the Ponto-Caspian area. And the already mentioned Nikephoros I (ruled 802-811) did state that "Kubrat, ruler of the Onoğundur–Bulğars, successfully revolted against the Avars and concluded a treaty with Heraclius." This would certainly imply that Magna Bulgaria was formed by former vassals of the Avars and the Göktürks.

I will reiterate: late 6th Century.

[FrozenmenSS]

the previous TWC thread that was on this Subject if you want to read more info about it. http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...nian-or-Turkic


The origin of the Bulgarians from before the 460s AD is a problem that still provokes discussions among the Historians and Scientists even to the present day. The Bulgarians were mentioned for the First time and entered the European History by the name Bulgarians in the Chronography of 354 AD, writen by an anonymous Latin Chronographer, created for a wealthy Roman Christian named Valentinus. The Supposed proto-Bulgarian ethnicity was formed somewhere in Central Asia (East Kazakhstan) between the Caspian Sea and the mountain Imeon (Pamirs, Tian Shan and Hindu Kush). Other possible areas proposed by the Modern Historians are the mountain Altai or Western Siberia, the Tarim basin, western Mongolia, southern Siberia and upper reaches of the river Irtysh. There were multiple migrations from Central Asia into the steppes just north of the Caucasus mountain probably as early from the 3rd,4th,5th, till the late 6th century AD by the Bulgarian Kutigurs, Utigurs, Onogondurians and other minor tribes.Since the late 16th century there have been offered various hypotheses, some of which attract with their whimsicality and stubbornness in defending them. Most authorities reject the concepts of aboriginal (or Thracian), Slavic, Tatar and Finno-Ugric origin of the Bulgarians. More popular, but also challenged are the Hunnic and the Oguric options of the Turanian hypothesis. Some scientific papers and amateur research in the late 20th century revived another hypothesis according to which the Bulgars were mixed Hunic-Iranian speaking Scytian population.The various theories about the origin of the Bulgarians can generally be assigned to two directions - first to the Altaic ethnogenesis and, secondly the Arian/Baktrian ethnogenesis. Third thesis advocates their mixed formation as a nation. Each of the first two theories does not exclude participation as influences, assimilation, etc. population determined to be dominant than the other direction. Actually, the difference between them is not only whether the dispute are Arians or Proto-Turkic-Mongols,but what is the primary source. In this sense, the most accurate to speak of is the mixed origin theory - who first formulated by some serious scientists as a distinct third theory, that dont denies or contradicts the other two mutually challenging theories. It focuses not on how started the process and the result of it - The ancient proto-Bulgarians.The term Bulgars is a term coined in the 19th century by the historical science at that time (just like the Term Byzantine empire) to distinguish the people founded and ruled the First Bulgarian Empire – from 681 AD onwards and before they merged with the Slavs and the,the remains of the ancient Thracians and Gothic population and the formation of the Modern Bulgarian nation. Today its often replaced by the term Proto–Bulgarians, old Bulgarians and even just Bulgarians.It was Documented by the Armenian Chronologists Mouses Khorentsi, Vardan the Great, Michael the Syrian and others that after the Fall of the Parthian Empire(198ad) in the third Century that the Bulgarians "Onoghontor-Blgar" led by a ''Burdjan Shah'' (Bulgarian king) migrated from the Gorges of Baktria/Balhara, the Pamir, Hundu-Kush and/or the Tien Shan Mountains into the Pontic Steppes just north of the Caucasus Mountains in Sarmatia Asiatica by passing the land of the Armenians peacefully and some even settled on the shores on the lake Van in Armenia.The Armenians by being neignbours of the Bulgars and the Alans just south of the Caucasus Mountains reported that the Bulgars formed their own States,had highly developed civilisation with walled cities made of stone (same said for the Alans as well,this statement is quite unique for nations that were mentioned as nomads in that epoch) Some of them were settled and others were migrating with their herlds. That the Bulgars were also allies with the Armenians when going to war.Also the Bulgarians helped the rebelled Armenians for its defense of their Christian faith against their masters - Zoroastrian Persia. After the Great battle of Avarayr in 451 AD between Armenia and Sassanid Persia 5000 Bulgarians Helped the Armenian cause under the Leadership of the Bulgarian Vanand. The fallen Bulgarians,who were on the Side of Armenians were canonized by the Armenian Church as declaring them as Great Marturs. The Armenians wrote also in the 370s AD with the arrival of the Huns in Eastern Europe, the Bulgarians were one of the first who joined the Hunnic Confederation ,with or without their own will is not known yet, but by the looking into the past - the Bulgarians then did the right choice and survived from the Hunnic wrath by being one of their most loyal allies till the Death of Attila in 453. In the 380s AD the Bulgars attacked the Crimean Goths by crossing the Kerch straith and also the Armenians in 395-8 AD with the Huns.Until the death of Attila the Bulgars were united,but after he died they formed 3 groups - the Onogondurians (the Inner Bulgars)the biggest mass of the bulgars and was the most peacefull but the most developed and forming a state living near the Caucasus Mountains ,the Utigurs (the outer Bulgars) living east of the Don river, and the Kutigurs(the few bulgars) the most warlike ones who were the most proud of the legacy of the European Huns living west of the Don river. The Bulgarians that Followed the Hunic Confederation since the 370s AD westwards migrating, went back to the eastern steppes near the northern Caucasus to their Relatives.The third son of Attila – Ernak after 454 AD as part of the disintegrating Hunnic Empire, unlike his brother Dengizich,he managed to come to peace terms with the Byzantine Empire and his domaign was known as Patria Onogunduria .Ernak is considered to have succeeded his brother Dengizich as king of from what was left of the Hunnic Empire in the Pontic Steppes. According to the Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans from the 8th century, where he is called Irnik, he lived the legendary 150 years ,while his father Avitohol - 300 years (153-453 AD),who is though to have been Attila Himself. In 479 AD the Roman Emperor Zeno paid the Bulgarian Kutigurs to attack Theoderic the Great, who was leading the Ostrogoths in the Balkans and by doing so he was forced to invade the Kingdom of Odoacker in Italy due to the Romans and their Roman Allies.After that from 493AD onwards the Kutigurian Bulgarians started raiding the Eastern Roman Empire across the Balkans each year for the next 50 years.The Kutigurs even started to settle in the Balkans as Foederati to the Romans and even helped the rebelious roman general Vitalian in Moesia.This process stopped only temporeraly when Justilian the Great started on one hand the civil wars between the Kutigurs and the Utigurs and the arival of the Avars from Central Asia and after them the Turkic Khaganate from Another.By 632ad the Bulgarians threw the Vassalage Yoke of their Avar and Turkic masters and formed Great old Bulgaria led by Kan Kubrat who helped even the Byzantine empire fighting the Muslim Arabs,but the main enemy were the Khazars. After the Fall of the eastern half of Great old Bulgaria with the death of Kubrat by the Khazars, smaller groups of Bulgarians Migrated in the middle Volga region,southern Italy,Armenia and Macedonia, but the biggest migrating group,where the governmental Institutions of Great old Bulgaria, led by Asparukh formed the First Bulgarian Empire in Modern northern Bulgaria in the Balkan in 680/1ad – the 3rd European Superpower after the Franks and the Romans with a cultural legacy shaping the Eastern Slavic world just as much as the Vikings up to the present day.

[Charerg]

Well, you know you really should split that wall of text into paragraphs. One thing I will mention about the Armenian authors:

Vardan Areveltsi lived 1198-1271 AD and Michael the Syrian 1126-1199. Using these two as primary sources for events dating to a 1000 years before their time is very problematic, as they're both so far removed from the era chronologically. Even the writings of Movses Khorenatsi (ca. 410-490s according to wikipedia) could be problematic. The oldest existing manuscript of Khorenatsi's writings date to the 14th century, and this was in itself based on a version dating to the seventh or eight century. In Golden, 2011, for example, Khorenatsi is dated to the early 8th century.

There is a bit of an academic debate as to which century Khorenatsi should be dated to. For example, from wikipedia:

Robert W. Thomson, the former holder of the chair in Armenian Studies at Harvard University and the translator of several classical Armenian works, claimed that Movses used sources not available in Armenian at that time, and referred to persons and places attested only in the sixth or seventh centuries. He recapitulated as follows the historical clues scattered in the History, some of which were previously noted by various scholars and which in his opinion enable to reject the fifth-century dating.

This does not necessarily mean that it's not an advantage to be familiar with the Armenian sources, but just like with any ancient source one must be careful with them. I'm also a bit curious about your mention that Kubrat helped the Byzantines to fight the Islamic (Rashidun) Caliphate, since I haven't heard of Magna Bulgaria playing any role in the Arab-Byzantine wars of Kubrat's time.

[FrozenmenSS]

Well, you know you really should split that wall of text into paragraphs. One thing I will mention about the Armenian authors:

Vardan Areveltsi lived 1198-1271 AD and Michael the Syrian 1126-1199. Using these two as primary sources for events dating to a 1000 years before their time is very problematic, as they're both so far removed from the era chronologically. Even the writings of Movses Khorenatsi (ca. 410-490s according to wikipedia) could be problematic. The oldest existing manuscript of Khorenatsi's writings date to the 14th century, and this was in itself based on a version dating to the seventh or eight century. In Golden, 2011, for example, Khorenatsi is dated to the early 8th century.

There is a bit of an academic debate as to which century Khorenatsi should be dated to. For example, from wikipedia:


This does not necessarily mean that it's not an advantage to be familiar with the Armenian sources, but just like with any ancient source one must be careful with them. I'm also a bit curious about your mention that Kubrat helped the Byzantines to fight the Islamic (Rashidun) Caliphate, since I haven't heard of Magna Bulgaria playing any role in the Arab-Byzantine wars of Kubrat's time.

They used older texts and written sources from older times that didnt make it to the present day. Those authors were quoting orther written texts.


The Second War of Kubrat was against the Arab Caliphate. During the years of the third caliph - Osman aka Uthman ibn Affan in 648 on an Arab army (around 20 thousand people) crossed the Derbent pass - the eastern part of the Caucasus and invaded the land of the Barsils , who at that time were part of a Great Old Bulgaria.The Arab army was defeated and the rest of the Arabs fleed south from the Caucasus.

[NikeBG]

And the already mentioned Nikephoros I (ruled 802-811) did state that "Kubrat, ruler of the Onoğundur–Bulğars, successfully revolted against the Avars and concluded a treaty with Heraclius." This would certainly imply that Magna Bulgaria was formed by former vassals of the Avars and the Göktürks.

This isn't too important, but I think you're confusing here the Emperor Nikephoros I Genikos (the one whose skull became a cup in 811) with the Patriarch Nikephoros I, who's one of the main sources on the matter (and who died a couple of decades later).

This does not necessarily mean that it's not an advantage to be familiar with the Armenian sources, but just like with any ancient source one must be careful with them. I'm also a bit curious about your mention that Kubrat helped the Byzantines to fight the Islamic (Rashidun) Caliphate, since I haven't heard of Magna Bulgaria playing any role in the Arab-Byzantine wars of Kubrat's time.

There's a circulating story that Kubrat was part of the Khazar forces allied to the Romans (during the time Kubrat was a "hostage" in Constantinople, before the creation of the OGB). On what ground (other than the vague possibility that some of the items in his "burial" might be loot from that campaign) - I don't know. It seems quite speculative, to say the least...

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

They used older texts and written sources from older times that didn't make it to the present day. Those authors were quoting orther written texts.

So was Jordanes, and he claimed the Huns were the spawn of Goths and Witches. The fact of the matter is that there's no way in hell a large group of people could migrate through the middle of Persia into Armenia without 1. being annihilated by the Sassanid-Arsacid civil war at the time and 2. Without Roman sources of the time taking notice.

[Dromikaites]

So was Jordanes, and he claimed the Huns were the spawn of Goths and Witches.

Which can be taken ad-literam and made fun of, or could be interpreted as him saying the Huns being the result of a group of Goths intermarrying with some shamanistic/non-Christian population. This second interpretation would be quite plausible.

It is just like when people ridicule Jordannes for saying the Goths fought in the Trojan War or saying they fought emperor Trajan. However if it was common knowledge among the 6th century Goths that they were the result of the intermarrying of Free Dacians and Goths then yes, their ancestors (from the Dacian side) did fight Trajan and by the same line of reasoning they could have been related to the Thracians who took part in the Trojan War.

The fact of the matter is that there's no way in hell a large group of people could migrate through the middle of Persia into Armenia without 1. being annihilated by the Sassanid-Arsacid civil war at the time and 2. Without Roman sources of the time taking notice.

They could travel without being annihilated precisely because of the civil war raging at the same time. A sizable group of armed people moving Anabasys-style ("we don't want any trouble, we're just passing through, please organize a market so we can buy what we need instead of looting it") like the Armenians say they behaved in Armenia can just as well cross through the whole Persia. Every local authority would try to avoid having yet another enemy while it has to worry about the civil-war enemy.

That sort of behavior would also explain why they get unnoticed in the Roman surviving Roman sources. They did noting "important" with regard to the political evolution of the Persian Empire, just like the Anabasys guys didn't (except for fighting at Cunaxa). After all, if the original Anabasys would have perished somewhere in the mountains, say annihilated by the Kurds, chances are we would not know today that they have survived Cunaxa.

[FrozenmenSS]

So was Jordanes, and he claimed the Huns were the spawn of Goths and Witches. The fact of the matter is that there's no way in hell a large group of people could migrate through the middle of Persia into Armenia without 1. being annihilated by the Sassanid-Arsacid civil war at the time and 2. Without Roman sources of the time taking notice.

You are forgetting that the Bulgarians back then were subjects of the Persian empire - Sassanid or Parthian ones. Why kill your own citizens when people start to internally migrate from 1 region to another that are in your empire??? It makes no sense. Im reading also in 198 there was mentioning from another armenian source about a war between Armenians and Bulgarians in the northern Caucasus.

The Bulgarians arent the only ones who came out of the Baktrian realm at that time. The Avars and the Khazars also came out from that region. And Lets not forget that there are still 2 million Hazara people that still lives to the present day in Afghanistan.

[Abdülmecid I]

You are forgetting that the Bulgarians back then were subjects of the Persian empire - Sassanid or Parthian ones. Why kill your own citizens when people start to internally migrate from 1 region to another that are in your empire??? It makes no sense. Im reading also in 198 there was mentioning from another armenian source about a war between Armenians and Bulgarians in the northern Caucasus.

Of course it makes sense. Migrations back then were not a very peaceful process. The migrating hordes would ruin the agricultural infrastructure, in order to feed themselves and their animals (horses, cattle), while they would also try to loot every available target. That means pretty much every non-walled settlement that was on their way. The reasons why the Iranians wouldn't attack them is if they were militarily too weak to confront them successfully, but I doubt this was the case. At least an opening engagement must have occurred and it is quite improbable that neither the Roman nor the Persian sources cared to describe such an event.

The Bulgarians arent the only ones who came out of the Baktrian realm at that time. The Avars and the Khazars also came out from that region. And Lets not forget that there are still 2 million Hazara people that still lives to the present day in Afghanistan.

An etymological similarity is not a sufficient evidence. The name of the Hazara people is documented for the first time in the 16th century, more than a millennium after the date the Khazars supposedly migrated from Bactria. Therefore, there is absolutely no continuity, despite the fact that the land of Afghanistan and the historical events that took place there during the late Sassanid and early Muslim eras are thoroughly documented. This theory has the same logical basis as the one that linked the Croats with Arachosia, which has been rejected by the scientific community. The most reasonable explanation is that their name is derived from the same root, the Persian word "hazara", but there's no connection between them.

[Charerg]

Re: Jordanes

If you've read the opening of Getica, Jordanes pretty much states that he's writing his book as a summary of an earlier work (Cassiodorus') that hasn't survived to the present day. However he also states that he is basing his account on memory, as he doesn't have the book at hand, and last read it a few years ago. Frankly stuff like Goths fighting in the Trojan War etc. are essentially nonsense, Jordanes was himself probably half a Goth and his work is full of praise for the deeds of the Goths. Regarding Getica as an objective source is probably not the best of ideas. But at least Jordanes was writing of events some 200 years before his time, not something that happened a millenia ago!

Re: the supposed "Bulgar migration" in the early 3rd century

Frankly I too consider it outright impossible that a migration occurred that was supposedly completely peaceful. The Bulgars would have had to first off penetrate the Caucasus, which has happened almost never on a migrational scale. There's a reason why the area has so many isolated languages and peoples...it's not an area that is easily conquered because of the rough terrain. Not to mention that the Caucasian states of the time were vassals of the Romans. And somehow the Romans were not informed that a massive migration had penetrated the mountains?

And even after penetrating the Caucasus they would have to necessarily displace the (warlike) Sarmatian tribes of the Ponto-Caspian region, but once again there are no records of the Alans being driven off by a migration from the Caucasus. And an entire people migrating and displacing an existing people in the Pontic is a very different thing than a group of mercenaries retreating into a friendly harbour and taking ship home, it's not comparable to the Anabasis. Plus, the Anabasis is actually recorded by contemporary sources, rather than sources a thousand years later...

Taking a source written a millenia after the event at face value would be like if I were to write an account of the First Crusade to a modern audience with no knowledge of the era. I would basically fill the text with anachronisms in order to make it understandable to a modern audience (with no real knowledge of the middle ages, just ast the medieval people had limited knowledge of antiquity).

It would be something like this: "And the chairman of NATO, Urban II, declared a campaign against the forces of ISIS with the objective of taking the city of Jerusalem." Maybe slightly exaggerated, but you get the idea.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

The Bulgarians arent the only ones who came out of the Baktrian realm at that time. The Avars and the Khazars also came out from that region. And Lets not forget that there are still 2 million Hazara people that still lives to the present day in Afghanistan.

The Avars (Varkhionitai) were a splinter group of the Hepthaltite Hua who had migrated to Bactria out of Mongolia. The Avars migrated over the Aral and Caspian seas and across the Volga into Europe.

The Khazars were a confederation formed out of former Huns and Gokturks and other peoples.

[FrozenmenSS]

The Khazars were until the 6th-7th century Scyto-Alanic-Iranian speaking nation. After the expansion of the Tang China into Central Europe huge mass of nomads from the Turkic Khaganate migrated west into the lands of the Khazars(who were on the left bank of the Volga river) and their army increased by at least 40 000 soldiers and when they invaded the eastern parts of Great old Bulgaria.And this is the reason why Khazars became highly Turkic in their culturte and why they took the Pontic steppes from Bulgaria and formed Khazaria.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

I'll have Kim's new book today, so I'll be reading that and giving an extensive response.

Also the Bulgar Migration by that 5th century Armenian guy (Movses something or other) is dated to the 2nd half of the 4th century.

Addressing some earlier statements:

If you've read the opening of Getica, Jordanes pretty much states that he's writing his book as a summary of an earlier work (Cassiodorus') that hasn't survived to the present day. However he also states that he is basing his account on memory, as he doesn't have the book at hand, and last read it a few years ago. Frankly stuff like Goths fighting in the Trojan War etc. are essentially nonsense, Jordanes was himself probably half a Goth and his work is full of praise for the deeds of the Goths. Regarding Getica as an objective source is probably not the best of ideas. But at least Jordanes was writing of events some 200 years before his time, not something that happened a millenia ago!

Walter Goffart's Narrators of Barbarian History pretty effectively distinguishes what parts are from Cassiodorus, what quotes from Priscus are genuine, and what parts of Jordanes are things he wrote or fabricated.

In large part: a lot of it is fabricated.

Kim also points out the Herodatean allusions in Jordanes, mostly around the Battle of Chalons, in his recent article here:

https://www.academia.edu/21670384/He...s_and_the_Huns

And Connor Whatley discusses the political statement of said battle:

https://www.academia.edu/9033139/_Jo...A9ment_8_65-78

You are forgetting that the Bulgarians back then were subjects of the Persian empire - Sassanid or Parthian ones. Why kill your own citizens when people start to internally migrate from 1 region to another that are in your empire???

I can think of several examples of genocides in ancient regimes, some in similar regards to this one. Most notably the legendary Exodus of the Bible, where virtually the entire Egyptian merchant class wanted to migrate out of the country.

Frankly I too consider it outright impossible that a migration occurred that was supposedly completely peaceful. The Bulgars would have had to first off penetrate the Caucasus, which has happened almost never on a migrational scale. There's a reason why the area has so many isolated languages and peoples...it's not an area that is easily conquered because of the rough terrain. Not to mention that the Caucasian states of the time were vassals of the Romans. And somehow the Romans were not informed that a massive migration had penetrated the mountains?

And even after penetrating the Caucasus they would have to necessarily displace the (warlike) Sarmatian tribes of the Ponto-Caspian region, but once again there are no records of the Alans being driven off by a migration from the Caucasus. And an entire people migrating and displacing an existing people in the Pontic is a very different thing than a group of mercenaries retreating into a friendly harbour and taking ship home, it's not comparable to the Anabasis. Plus, the Anabasis is actually recorded by contemporary sources, rather than sources a thousand years later...

100% this.

Which can be taken ad-literam and made fun of, or could be interpreted as him saying the Huns being the result of a group of Goths intermarrying with some shamanistic/non-Christian population. This second interpretation would be quite plausible.

Not in the slightest. Jordanes was a literary imbecile who twisted everything he said to glorify the Goths, much to the dismay of modern historians. The Herodotean allusions in Priscus follow the format but remain contemporary to his time: the ones in Jordanes are drastically changed and garbled to fit the format.

Btw, in regards to your 567 event (the Avar conquest of Pannonia and the later migration of the Langobards to Italy), it's interesting that the Langobards moved to Italy along with several tribes which they picked up from Pannonia, one of them being some Bulgar leftovers probably from Hunnic times (which scholars define as the first Bulgar migration to Italy). It's also interesting that later on, during Avar times, the Kutrigur Bulgars (or Huno-Bulgars, or Kutrigur Huns) are still located in that area, among the last of them probably being Krum the Terrifying himself (since he was reportedly "from the Pannonian Bulgars").

On a tangent: Kim posuits that Odoacer's Torcilingi were in fact a group of Huns, deriving from the "Tork" ethnonym which was in use at the time.

Taking a source written a millenia after the event at face value would be like if I were to write an account of the First Crusade to a modern audience with no knowledge of the era. I would basically fill the text with anachronisms in order to make it understandable to a modern audience (with no real knowledge of the middle ages, just ast the medieval people had limited knowledge of antiquity).

This is called hollywood.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

So here's a brief rundown of the events that led to the formation of the Post-Attila Kutrigur/Utigur Hunnic state:

In 453 AD, as we all know, Attila died due to Cirrhosis of the liver. Attila had gained his position as ruler of the Huns by assassinating the ruler of the Eastern (and dominate) half of the Hunnic realm: Bleda. This constituted a massive political upheaval and led to the rebellion of the Akatir Huns (Acatziri), the most powerful Hunnic group in the East which Attila suppressed before it could do any real damage.

Upon Attila's death his son Illak (Ellac) was the king of the Akatir Huns, which led to a succession dispute for the Hunnic realm: would the traditional method of rule reassert itself, or would the Western King remain dominant? The problem was that Attila had appointed many Huns, or Germanics, as princes over the various Germanic nations who had enjoyed the shift in Hunnic power. Chief amongst these was Ardaric (Ardareiks), whom Kim believes to be a Hun but is probably a Germanic appointed as a Hun prince. When Ellak brought the Akatir Hunnic army and the other Eastern Hunnic groups down into Hungary to assert dominance, this culminated in the Battle of Nedao where the Western Hunnic groups and the Germanics (Gepids, Amal Goths, Iazyges Sarmatians, Suebi, Scirii, Heruli, Rugii, etc) that supported continued Western Hunnic rule came into conflict. Unfortunately for Ellac, this culminated in his death and the weakening of Hunnic power in the Carpathian region.

However, the disputes between Hunnic princes and Attila's sons ultimately began to untangle the Western Hunnic state. The Ultzinzur* Huns, under Emnetzur and Ultzindur, on the right bank of the Danube in the region of Oescus, split off. The Goths of Valamir, formerly a Hunnic vassal, also broke off, and went to war with the Scirii. However, the Hunnic kingdom, now under Dengzich in the West and Ernak in the East, was called in by the Scirii against the Goths of Valamir.

The Huns were experiencing other problems at that time: when the Huns had in large part migrated out of Central Asia, they left behind many of their subjugated Dingling/Tingling peoples, i.e. the original Oghur-Turkic speaking tribes. These tribes would unite into the Tiele confederation, which included the Onoghurs (Ten Oghurs), Saraghurs (White [implying West] Oghurs), Oghurs (called Ourogs by Priscus... IIRC this depends on your translation of Priscus), Barsils, and other peoples. They were driven west by the Sabirs, who Kim suggests were the remnants of the collapsed Xianbei confederation and long-time enemies of the Huns, who were living in Western Mongolia bordering the Tiele Confederation in Kazakhstan (who bordered both the Yueban Huns and the Hepthaltite Var/Hua). The Sabirs were being driven West by the Rouran, i.e. the Central Asian Avars (not to be confused with the Eurasian Avars i.e. the Varkhionitai). This led to the overthrow of the Kidarite/Khionite ("Red Hun") Dynasty by the Hepthaltite ("White Hun") Dynasty, and pushed the Tiele Confederation past the Aral Sea, over the Volga, and into the Huns.

In 463 AD the Saraghurs defeated the largest of the Hunnic groups under Ernak, the Akatir Huns (Acatziri). Faced with Hunnic resistance, they would turn South and raid across Transcaucasia in 467/468. The Onoghurs would settle, according to Menander in the 6th century, along the Kuban and the lower Don just East of the Sea of Asov and the Roman/Gothic/Akatir Huns on and around the Crimea. This was a perfect position for them to raid into Lazica, which they would later do. The Barsils, it is believed, settled in the Volga delta, while it is known the Sabirs settled in the Dagestan/Derbent region.

With pressure from the East, Ernak did not provide support of the Eastern half of the Hunnic Empire to Dengzich, which would ultimately result in disaster. Dengzich marched South West and joined with the loyal Scirii of Odoacer (now back in Carpathia after an extended stay in Gaul), and with a surprise attack subjugated the Goths of Valamir, killing him and forcing Thuidimer and Vidimer to swear loyalty to him. The Ultzinzur Huns also quickly joined up under Dengzich. However, Dengzich had to rely heavily on his unreliable Gothic subjects, and the Bittugur Huns. In 466 Dengzich, at the height of his power, demanded a treaty and a market for the Romans and Huns to trade, along with other concessions they had previously given to Attila, but he was denied.

Anagast, son of Arnegisclus who was slain by Attila at the river Utus, was sent with the Thracian Army (or what little had been rebuilt of it probably) with generals Basiliscus, the Goth Ostryis, and the Hun Chelchal. The Romans laid siege to the forces of Dengzich's Goths in a valley, after separating them from the main army, and sent ambassadors to the Goths. The Hun Chelchal persuaded the Goths that the Emperor had come to a concession and had granted lands to the Huns with them, but not to the Goths of Thuidimer and Vidimer, who promptly slaughtered the Hunnic forces. However, they figured out they had been decieved and attacked the Roman Battle line. Although they broke through and escaped, they suffered heavy losses from the Romans. Anagast continued his campaign with a force of Bucellarii for another 2 years, eventually resulting in peace and settlement of the Goths.

The Romans came to a treaty with the Amal Goths and settled them in Thrace, but unsatisfied with their holdings the Goths attacked the Sadages (possibly a Hunnic people) who had allied themselves with Dengzich. Dengzich gathered the Angisciri (Sciri?), Bittugur Huns, Bardor Huns, and Ultinzur Huns with him and attacked the Goths at the Battle of Bassianae in Moesia, but was defeated and the Huns permanently crushed. Anagast, fittingly enough, was the one who defeated Dengzich (son of Attila who had killed his father) and brought his head to Constantinople and displayed it on a stake upon the great walls.

Ultimately this led to the utter collapse of the Hunnic Empire in the Carpathian region, leaving Ernak as the sole ruler in the Pontic region. According to the Bulgar Prince list, Ernak was the founding ruler of the "Bulgar" Huns. Ernak subdued many of the incoming Oghur peoples, and assimilated them due to their shared language (Oghur Turkic i.e. Hunnic). These peoples, after all, had formerly been members of the Hunnic Central Asian state prior to 370, or of the Yueban Hunnic state. Procopius and Menander both record that two sons named Kutrigur and Utigur were given power by a single ruler. The names were eponymous, where effectively he took the names of the states and applied them to two real Hunnic succesors of unknown name. But the names "Kutrigur" (9 Oghurs) and "Utigur" (30 Oghurs) both clearly indicate that there was a permanent Oghur turkic impact on the Hunnic people (Xiongnu/Hunyu/Huna/Yueban/Kidarite/Khionite/Chunni/etc. etc.). The Utigurs followed the tradition of precedence, being the Eastern tribe.

Procopius places the Kutrigurs in the "greater part of the plains" west of the Sea of Asov, while he places the Utigurs in the Kuban region East of said sea (with the Onoghur Huns). When Menander records that Sandilikh, king of the Utigurs, was contacted by the envoys of Justinian to encite him to war against the Kutrigurs, he replied that it would be "unholy" and "improper" to attack his fellow tribesmen. The Onogurs, also in the Kuban/Don region, were evidently also part of this Hunnic state, and finally the old Akatir Huns were its fourth component (presumably alongside the Onogurs as the subsidiary wings like in the old Xiongnu state). When Justinian recieves the Avar ambassador Targites, he also distinctifies that he will not pay the same tribute to the Avars as he did to the Huns before them, mentioning the Kutrigur and Utigur states by name alongside the term. These three peoples together seem to have adopted a new ethnic self-identification according to Kim, calling themselves "Bulgar", or that "Bulgar" was simply an alternative name for "Huns". Meanwhile Kutrigur, Utigur, and Onogur were not ethnic identifications but rather socio-military and socio-political organizations of these peoples (9, 30, and 10 tribes). The fact of the matter is that the term "Hun" did not begin usage as a generic term for steppe nomads until the 7th century theophylact Simocatta, who applies the name to both the Avars and Turks.

However, Roman subterfuge, by sending gifts only to Sandilikh and not to Zabergan of the Kutrigurs, and telling Sandilikh of the Kutrigur expedition against the Romans, eventually caused him to succumb and attack the Kutrigurs, resulting in a war that broke the power of both halves of the Pontic Hunnic state and resulted in their absorption by the incoming Avars.

Meanwhile the Onogur, Barsil, and other Caucasian Huns would have as much success against the Romans and Sassanids in Transcaucasia as the Kutrigurs and Utigurs did in Thrace. Part of the Caucasian huns would end up persisting for centuries, largely within the Khazar Khaganate (believed to be formed out of the Gokturks and Khwarzermian Var/Hepthaltites). Mentioned amongst the peoples of the Khazars, was a Hunnic hereditary state in the Sulak River basin.

However, the majority of the Pontic and Caucasian Huns were swallowed by the Avar Khaganate. In 557, the Barsil, Onogurs, and the Sabirs (possibly Huns, more likely Xianbei) submitted to Avar Hegemony. They then swallowed the feuding Kutrigur and Utigur Huns, and effectively completely re-established Attila's Empire reigning from the Pontic Steppes West of the Don to Hungary, and defeating the Franks of Sigibert, vassalizing the Gepids, adopting Oghur Turkic as their language, and a new Royal Dynasty (The Avar Dynasty, rather than the Attilid Dynasty, just like the Gokturk dynasty overcame the Hepthaltite dynasty which replaced the Kidarite/Chionite dynasty).** By 568 the Avars had ravaged as far south as Athens, and by 584 the Romans were paying a tribute of 80,000 solidi a year. In 626 AD, they even laid siege to Constantinople, although in an alliance with the Sassanid Persians, and they ultimately failed.

After the siege failed, the Avar empire split in half when the Attilids rose up against them. The Pontic steppes became Old Great Bulgaria under the Onogur Huns and Kutrigur Huns ruled by Kubrat, who in turn were crushed by the Khazars and formed Danubian Bulgaria and Volga Bulgaria (which included the Sabirs), neither of which would live up to the power of the Attilid or Avar dynasties before them. The Remnants of the Avars would be dismantled in 896 when the Finno Ugric Magyars under the Arpad dynasty would come into Hungary and create that nation. Danubian Bulgaria, another descendant of the true Hunnic state under the Attilids, would last until 1014 when the Roman Emperor Basil II Bulgaroktonos reconquered the Balkans.

So give or take some stuff, the Armenian source Movses Khorenats'i is right. His description of the migration of the Bulgars was in fact the migration of the Huns, but not through Central Iran and not at the time FrozenmenSS believes it to be.

This is the first mention, an event thought to be contemporary to the campaign of the Armenian ruler Varazdat:

"...named Basen by the ancients... and which were afterwards populated by immigrants of the vh' ndur Bulgar Vund, after whose name they (the lands) were named Vanand..."

The second mention is of the actual migration is thought to have been during Arshak III's reign:

"...great disturbances occurred in the range of the great Caucasus mountain, in the land of the Bulgars, many of whom migrated and came to our lands and settled south of Kokh..."

(Translations found in this piece: http://www.kroraina.com/p_bulgar/p_bulg1a.htm)

So he is describing the coming of the Attilid Huns, and the settlement of the Caucasian Huns. Many Huns would raid down into Persarmenia from roughly 395-531, and it's possible some would even settle there certainly. In the time he was writing (he lived from 410-490 AD), the Huns were given or would be given the ethnonym Bulgar in c. 480 AD.

This post largely de-garbles much of what I said earlier, so I do need to retract a few of my prior statements.

I highly recommend everyone here read this book, for free, online:

https://www.academia.edu/9609971/Stu...rasian_Steppes

*Not to be confused with the Altziagiri of Jordanes, who do not appear to be a hunnic group but simply a corruption of Ultzincur/Altzincur: the title of a member of the Hunnic council of Six lords.

**It should be noted that I am not suggesting this was a simple Dynastic change like when a new Emperor came to the throne in the Roman Empire. This was a violent subjugation of a rival nation and incorporation of its Dynasty into their own Steppe Empire. The overthrow of the Avars by the Attilids after 626 would be likewise comparable to the overthrow of the Arsacids by the Sassanids from 198-217 AD. Kubrat's Old Great Bulgaria, therefore, is not a direct continuation of the Hunnic Empire of Attila or his sons, unlike the Kutrigur/Utigur Bulgars, but could be considered a successor state.