Talk:Huns

The huns formed a state, proto-state under Bleda and Attila. Thats the consensus (even if it was a "robbing state")

So, it should have their predecessors and sucessors¡

For predecessors:

-Since the xiong-Nu connection debate will rage for some time, no mention should be done.

-The Alans, conquered by huns

-The Greuthungi, conquered by huns

-The Thervingi, conquered in part by huns

-Roman Pannonia province: base under Attila

-Perhaps lombards, ruggi,sarmatian, and other conquered tribes

Successors:

-After Nedao:

-The kingdom of the Rugii

-The kingdom of the Gepids

-The kingdom of the Ostrogoths

-A suebian kingdom in the danube.

Bolghars, kutrigurs, utrigurs remain speculative, so no for the moment.

Comments?

It seems to me that a section on what (we think) we know about Hunnic burial practices is in order. My question: does it belong in society and culture or material culture? It's clearly not actually an aspect of material culture, as it's a practice, but what we know about it is both how we derive our knowledge of Hunnic material culture and known through material culture. Thoughts?--Ermenrich (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I know this: The very typical feature of the Asian Hun and European Hun cemeteries is the partial horse burials, almost in all Hun graves there are only remain of horses. Outside the Huns, only the Hungarians used partial horse burials. This ancient tradition that went through centuries, it is easily identifiable in the Huns and Hungarians graves. OrionNimrod (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

to European tradition, they were first reported living east of the Volga River, in an area that was part of Scythia at the time;[1] the Huns' arrival in Europe is associated with the migration westward of an Iranian people, the Alans. No big issue but apart from wondering why this is not two sentences I am not sure readers will be able to understand the point about the Alans if they do not already know it. I suppose the intention is to mention that the Huns are seen as having caused other people to migrate? I am not really sure why this is in the lead. But it is an interesting point that they changed the demographic and political landscape in Eastern Europe, creating an ethnically diverse barbarian power centre on the Roman danubian frontier, but why only mention the Alans, and why tag this on the end of another sentence? Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure there was originally a reason for these things, but I don't remember what it was. Feel free to change as you see fit.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't decide on the best improvement: avoid the complication or spell the point out more. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

The clause about the Alans is cited to Sinor (pp. 179–180), who says:

There can be no quarrel with the statement that, before their coming into contact with the Roman world, the Huns lived east of the Azov Sea, on the south Russian steppe, or perhaps even further east in the not clearly circumscribed, measureless lands of "Scythia," whence all bad things come. The first to bear the brunt of a Hun attack were the Alans nomadizing along the Don (Tanais), a people whose way of life was in many ways similar to that of the Huns, but who were not filled with the fury of aggression. The paucity of available information does not allow the compilation of a precise account of the clashes between Huns and Alans but it is clear that the former were victorious and that the surviving Alans joined the victors in their further warlike undertakings. These events took place in the early 370s. Carlstak (talk) 04:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

"By 430, they had established a vast, but short-lived, on the Danubian frontier of the Roman empire in Europe"

There seems to be a word missing between "short-lived" and "on" here. I'm guessing it should be either realm, kingdom, confederation etc., but I'm not knowledgeable enough about Hunnic history to say for sure. Can someone with more info add the right word? Lamaredia (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. My guess is it was removed by mistake during recent edits.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Oops. That would be my fault indeed. Thanks Ermenrich.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

In the paragraph discussing cranial elongation, taking should be taken. “ with the argument that it was practiced by their nobility and then taking up by Germanic groups” HooterMcGavin (talk) 05:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, HooterMcGavin, well spotted.—Odysseus1479 06:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)