Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
wowgetoffyourcellphone

NoMaDiC CiViLiZaTiOnS

Recommended Posts

An attacking eagle or falcon is maybe a bit exagerated, I don't think there is any account of this. But a scout unit, either a lonely bird or a horseman with a following bird, with huge vision and hunting bonus, it is justified from historical accounts.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Genava55 said:

An attacking eagle or falcon is maybe a bit exagerated, I don't think there is any account of this. But a scout unit, either a lonely bird or a horseman with a following bird, with huge vision and hunting bonus, it is justified from historical accounts.

But how can enemy units kill him? I don't think archers have the precision and the range to do it, but maybe I'm wrong

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Jofursloft said:

But how can enemy units kill him? I don't think archers have the precision and the range to do it, but maybe I'm wrong

I personnally think it is better to have a dependancy with a horseman. It is easier. You kill simply the horseman to get ride of the falcon. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2018 at 9:31 PM, Genava55 said:

https://www.docdroid.net/UAhXdak/xiongnu-combined.pdf

It seems that the Xiongnu did have some agricultural fields in the south-east border of their Empire where foreigners could settle. It wasn't really their own population but they were a kind of vassals the Xiongnu used to have enough food the winter, to have metals, textiles and others craftsmanship.

There is small walls even in pastoral fields and fortified small settlements probably to stock and protect food and goods.

The Xiongnu seems to have the same superior bow than the Huns.

Edit: to summary a bit what I see for the moment.

- The Scythians have a varied roster possible. From the Greek authors, there is mention of mounted javelinists and horse archers with the famous hit-and-retreat and ambush tactics. From archaeology, there is swords and pickaxes, spears, various squale armours and shields. The pickaxe is probably an answer against armours and must be an advantageous. The Sarmatians and the Eastern Scythians developed further heavy lancer cavalry and cataphracts. Normally each Scythians warriors, even armoured ones, have both bows and lances. Something to think about if the switching weapons is implemented one day. Crimean Scythians seem to be often separated from their northern Neighbors, having sometime a different king than the others Scythians. I suggest then for balance and historical reason to put the Crimean in a reform to be chosen with the further Sarmatian's development as an alternative. Since the Sarmatians destroyed the Crimean Scythians, it is logical that the player must chose between two different pathways.

- The Xiongnu is more obscur but several patterns seem to emerge and we can make reasonable assumptions. The Xiongnu built their empire on a multiethnic basis  with sedentarian populations in their border. They must have the possibility to built defensive fortifications and farms. Since the mod make the difference between civilian and militarian buildings, it should be possible to let sedentarian based units to build such civilian buildings. It would explain why sometimes the Xiongnu have a lot of infantry during the defense of their borders against the Han (although with a very mediocre efficiency). Contrary to others nomads cultures, the Xiongnu have inhabited on their territory for a very long time. The Xiongnu have superior "hunnic-like" bows, long double edged swords, spears and leather and iron squale armour. For their horses, it doesn't seem there is any cataphract, only padded linen and silk protection probably against the arrows can be guessed from archaeology. 

- The Huns are clearly the more mobiles and have clearly the best horse-archers. Not only because of their superior bows but also thanks to battle tactics. In the archaeology, the Huns seem similar to the Xiongnu but with indications they start using mail armour in Europe. They must be the best raiders. The possibility to hire Germanics units should give them better shock units both in cavalry and in infantry. There is not mention of any cataphract or any armoured horseman. The Avars (closely relatives to them) did have good lance cavalry. Attila was very good in siege warfare during his campaign against both eastern and western Romans.

Hierarchical classification, I suggest (to discuss):

Horse-archers - Huns > Xiongnu > Scythians

Close-combat cavalry - Scythians > Huns > Xiongnu

Armoured cavalry - Scythians with nomad reform > Xiongnu > Scythians with Crimean reform > Huns

Lancers cavalry - Scythians with nomad reform > Huns > Xiongnu > Scythians with Crimean reform

Combat infantry - Huns > Scythians with Crimean reform > Xiongnu >  Scythians with nomad reform

Archers infantry - Huns > Xiongnu > Scythians

Economy (self-production) - Xiongnu > Scythians > Huns

Economy (Raiding) - Huns > Xiongnu > Scythians

Siege abilities - Huns > Xiongnu > Scythians

Defensive structures - Xiongnu > Scythians with Crimean reform >> Scythians with nomad reform = Huns

 

This is clearly a matter of interpretation. 

Someone sent me an article I found interesting to complement my previous summary:

"Like a Certain Tornado of Peoples": Warfare of the European Huns in the Light of Graeco-Latin Literary Tradition

https://www.academia.edu/1264349/_Like_a_Certain_Tornado_of_Peoples_Warfare_of_the_European_Huns_in_the_Light_of_Graeco-Latin_Literary_Tradition

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ho boy,

So as an actual Hun Historian let's clear up a few things:

1. The Xiongnu and the Huns were the same people. The word has a Yeniseian and Old Turkic mixed origin as it relates to both the ruling dynasty of the Xiongnu (a Yeniseian people) and the Old Turkic name for the Ongi River in Mongolia. We don't know what it means other than that it was a dynastic name. Xiongnu is pronounced "Hongna" and was transmitted over the Himalayas or via sea trade to India and transliterated into Sanskrit, before coming up from India into Sogdian, and then spreading into Bactrian Greek as Ounna, where it became Ounnoi in Roman Greek (Romeika), and then Hunni in Latin.

2. The Huns themselves are directly related. Huns can be identified by the Haplogroup Q-M242. Some of you here might know that's weird because Q-M242 is Native American DNA. It's also Yeniseian DNA, with the Kettic people having the highest concentration at 99%, and high concentrations east into Beringia, where the Yeniseians and the Dene people separated about 18,000 years ago. However, the majority of the Huns that entered Europe were not Yeniseian although most had some percentage of Yeniseian DNA and ancestry. They also no longer spoke Yeniseian (Xiongnu), but now spoke Oghuric Turkic, with many Yeniseian loanwords, and this was the language the Romans identified as Hunnic and the people the Romans called Hunnic. They were the same identity as Xiongnu, but with many changes since the days of Modun Chanyu in the 3rd century BC.

3. If you're considering Steppe Nomad factions, then they should be:

Scythians (who are related to the Karluk people)

Sarmatians/Alans (Also Indo-Iranian nomads like the Scythians)

Xiongnu/Huns (The same people, effectively. The last of the Yeniseian nomads and the first of the Turkic-speaking nomads).

4. If you have questions I can probably answer any of them about the Huns and I know a lot about the Alans too (Scythian is a bit beyond my usual area but I know more than most). I haven't bothered to read all of this thread but feel free to ask.

Edited by Flavius Aetius
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Flavius Aetius Interesting... I'm curious about the Yuezhi and how they relate to the other steppe people. Also about the relation between the Xiongnu and the later Mongols. Have you seen the mod Terra Magna which already features a playable Xiongnu civ. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/23/2019 at 1:11 AM, Flavius Aetius said:

So as an actual Hun Historian let's clear up a few things

Hi! It is nice to have someone with experience on this subject. Thank you. 

On 1/23/2019 at 1:11 AM, Flavius Aetius said:

The Xiongnu and the Huns were the same people. The word has a Yeniseian and Old Turkic mixed origin as it relates to both the ruling dynasty of the Xiongnu (a Yeniseian people) and the Old Turkic name for the Ongi River in Mongolia. We don't know what it means other than that it was a dynastic name. Xiongnu is pronounced "Hongna" and was transmitted over the Himalayas or via sea trade to India and transliterated into Sanskrit, before coming up from India into Sogdian, and then spreading into Bactrian Greek as Ounna, where it became Ounnoi in Roman Greek (Romeika), and then Hunni in Latin.

Well, you are right on the relationship between both accounts. But the timespan and the geographical contexts are quite different, 3rd c. BC to 2nd c. AD for the Xiongnu empire and 3rd to 5th c. AD for the Huns in Europe. The Huns of Attila are not exactly the same than the Xiongnu faced by Han Wudi (Liu Che). The situation is similar for the Hepthalites Huns, there are some differences and cultural exchange. Especially in the case of multiethnic empire. I think it is why it was thought to make two factions. 

On 1/23/2019 at 1:11 AM, Flavius Aetius said:

Huns can be identified by the Haplogroup Q-M242.

The use of the haplogroup Q-M242 is a bit difficult in Europe because Germans are carrying a few percent of this haplogroup. As you pointed out, this haplogroup is a feature from the Palaeolithic and it has spread through the Arctic cultures as well. Thus in Scandinavia too. We find today from 2 to 4% in the Swedish and Norwegian population. But you are right, there is a signal of the Xiongnu in the genome of some burials in Tian Shian for the 3rd/4th century AD. Indicating a migration (and some mixing as well). 

On 1/23/2019 at 1:11 AM, Flavius Aetius said:

If you have questions I can probably answer any of them about the Huns and I know a lot about the Alans too

The Han records some battles against the Xiongnu where they used numerous infantrymen, for example the battle of Mobei. Do you have some information on the status and equipment of these men? Are they Han chineses? 

Zhao Xin is noted to have built a fortress, do you have any information on this building? 

Edited by Genava55

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/9/2018 at 4:46 AM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Huns, yeah, not much attesting to female warriors, while the Scythians and Xiongnu do. I think the Xiongnu could have some female actor variations, while the Scythians would have a couple of actual female unit templates. I could make the Scythian scout cavalry a female unit, maybe "Maiden Scout." And then maybe a "Headhunter" champion cav? "Royal Scythians" seem to have been their ruling class, so that could be a heavily armored mixed-gender champion melee cav?

For the Huns, it would be cool if they could use the lasso in some way as attested. Some kind of special attack which "stuns" the attacker and target in place, allowing for an allied unit to kill the target unmolested. But that requires a general "special attacks" feature.

The Hunnic "cavalry circle" maneuver would be a cool feature/formation. 

Right now, I simulate Parthian Tactics with a tech that gives their ranged cavalry the old "MinRange" kiting effect again, which is good enough for now. Works as intended to annoy the fug out of the enemy. lol

 

 Certainly noted, and would work nice for Terra Magna too.

 

Right. I think the Scythian "Great Settlement" option could unlock the Fortress and Stone Walls for them. Every civ really needs some kind of Wonder. I thought "Royal Kurgan" burial mound could be that. Perhaps the Hun wonder would be a fanciful, but interesting large horse warrior statue or something.

 

Xiongnu armor was quite elaborate as well. Scythian armor definitely had some cross influence with the Persians and Greeks. Some Scythians even wore Greek helmets. Persians adopted many Scythian fashions. We could just say that the Huns would generally have somewhat less impressive armor than the Scyths and Xions. Don't kill me, @Nescio, it was just a general observation. Though, their Gothic and Alan troops may be elaborately armored at the higher ranks. Alans essentially armored as cataphracts. 

 

Oh, certainly. Perhaps as a general bonus, plus some techs that can "level up" this effect. We really need Corrals to work as was originally intended, with animal capturing AOE-style, so we can have nomads riding in and stealing your cattle and sheeps. 

The catch with any Scythian build is that it ends up a clone of the AoE Huns which already has kurgans and a giant horse statue. What else could the wonder be?

How about a giant herd of horse and cattle in a truly huge royal corral? Builds empty add horses and cattle to it from normal corrals. Uses food but do not hunt them or your going backwards. Have grouped herds in it: 6 horses, 8 cattle, 4 horses and 4 cattle to reduce the unit spam. A chariot without the chariot as it were. [Errr "as it were" will not translate well will it. Sorry did too much Shakespeare as a kid.;)] When the herd number equals a target your wonder activates. This is a true wonder for nomad herdsmen. Kings are always bragging about herd numbers in the ancient world.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2019 at 8:04 PM, Sundiata said:

@Flavius Aetius Interesting... I'm curious about the Yuezhi and how they relate to the other steppe people. Also about the relation between the Xiongnu and the later Mongols. Have you seen the mod Terra Magna which already features a playable Xiongnu civ. 

The Yuezhi were Tocharian. The theory is that they were related to the Kushans. My understanding though is that there's very little evidence of Tocharian in the Kushan language which is a massive problem with that theory.

On 1/23/2019 at 3:58 AM, Genava55 said:

Hi! It is nice to have someone with experience on this subject. Thank you. 

Well, you are right on the relationship between both accounts. But the timespan and the geographical contexts are quite different, 3rd c. BC to 2nd c. AD for the Xiongnu empire and 3rd to 5th c. AD for the Huns in Europe. The Huns of Attila are not exactly the same than the Xiongnu faced by Han Wudi (Liu Che). The situation is similar for the Hepthalites Huns, there are some differences and cultural exchange. Especially in the case of multiethnic empire. I think it is why it was thought to make two factions. 

The use of the haplogroup Q-M242 is a bit difficult in Europe because Germans are carrying a few percent of this haplogroup. As you pointed out, this haplogroup is a feature from the Palaeolithic and it has spread through the Arctic cultures as well. Thus in Scandinavia too. We find today from 2 to 4% in the Swedish and Norwegian population. But you are right, there is a signal of the Xiongnu in the genome of some burials in Tian Shian for the 3rd/4th century AD. Indicating a migration (and some mixing as well). 

The Han records some battles against the Xiongnu where they used numerous infantrymen, for example the battle of Mobei. Do you have some information on the status and equipment of these men? Are they Han chineses? 

Zhao Xin is noted to have built a fortress, do you have any information on this building? 

So: Yes the Xiongnu and the Huns were also different in many ways. But the steppes were more about identity than ethnicity.

RE the Hepthaltites: They weren't Xiongnu, they were Hua, a vassal people of the Rouran. Or at least that's the best theory we have right now. They were definitely some sort of early Turkic nomad like the Huns, Oghurs, etc.

As for Haplogroup Q-M242... yes Y-Chromosomal haplogroups tend to spread really easily. The difference is that the Huns from sites such as Barkol, etc. have consistently expressed Q-M242 M25 L-712 thru L-715 which are consistent with Yeniseian peoples. The issue is that we have a rather limited sample size.

The Huns also used infantry. They were recruited from their vassal states, and the Xiongnu vassalized many principalities in Xinjiang (the Tarim Basin and surrounding area). There would obviously be a lot of variation from region to region but vassals from a wide area definitely supplemented the steppe nomads themselves, some coming from the Forest zone of South Siberia.

Chinese sources admittedly aren't my area, I deal with the European Huns mostly. That being said we know of several steppe nomad fortresses, namely Igdui-Kala in Kazakhstan, which dates to the 4th-5th centuries AD and is probably Hunnic. If you can provide me more info about said fortress and Zhao Xin, I can probably find more info on it for you.

On 1/23/2019 at 4:15 AM, Diatryma said:

you are the reenactor about Roman late era? 

Yes.

 

Edited by Flavius Aetius
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2019 at 9:13 AM, Flavius Aetius said:

The Yuezhi were Tocharian. The theory is that they were related to the Kushans. My understanding though is that there's very little evidence of Tocharian in the Kushan language which is a massive problem with that theory.

So: Yes the Xiongnu and the Huns were also different in many ways. But the steppes were more about identity than ethnicity.

RE the Hepthaltites: They weren't Xiongnu, they were Hua, a vassal people of the Rouran. Or at least that's the best theory we have right now. They were definitely some sort of early Turkic nomad like the Huns, Oghurs, etc.

As for Haplogroup Q-M242... yes Y-Chromosomal haplogroups tend to spread really easily. The difference is that the Huns from sites such as Barkol, etc. have consistently expressed Q-M242 M25 L-712 thru L-715 which are consistent with Yeniseian peoples. The issue is that we have a rather limited sample size.

The Huns also used infantry. They were recruited from their vassal states, and the Xiongnu vassalized many principalities in Xinjiang (the Tarim Basin and surrounding area). There would obviously be a lot of variation from region to region but vassals from a wide area definitely supplemented the steppe nomads themselves, some coming from the Forest zone of South Siberia.

Chinese sources admittedly aren't my area, I deal with the European Huns mostly. That being said we know of several steppe nomad fortresses, namely Igdui-Kala in Kazakhstan, which dates to the 4th-5th centuries AD and is probably Hunnic. If you can provide me more info about said fortress and Zhao Xin, I can probably find more info on it for you.

Yes.

 

you can be useful for the second part. I saw you in reddit and others forums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2019 at 9:13 AM, Flavius Aetius said:

The Yuezhi were Tocharian. The theory is that they were related to the Kushans. My understanding though is that there's very little evidence of Tocharian in the Kushan language which is a massive problem with that theory.

So: Yes the Xiongnu and the Huns were also different in many ways. But the steppes were more about identity than ethnicity.

RE the Hepthaltites: They weren't Xiongnu, they were Hua, a vassal people of the Rouran. Or at least that's the best theory we have right now. They were definitely some sort of early Turkic nomad like the Huns, Oghurs, etc.

As for Haplogroup Q-M242... yes Y-Chromosomal haplogroups tend to spread really easily. The difference is that the Huns from sites such as Barkol, etc. have consistently expressed Q-M242 M25 L-712 thru L-715 which are consistent with Yeniseian peoples. The issue is that we have a rather limited sample size.

The Huns also used infantry. They were recruited from their vassal states, and the Xiongnu vassalized many principalities in Xinjiang (the Tarim Basin and surrounding area). There would obviously be a lot of variation from region to region but vassals from a wide area definitely supplemented the steppe nomads themselves, some coming from the Forest zone of South Siberia.

Chinese sources admittedly aren't my area, I deal with the European Huns mostly. That being said we know of several steppe nomad fortresses, namely Igdui-Kala in Kazakhstan, which dates to the 4th-5th centuries AD and is probably Hunnic. If you can provide me more info about said fortress and Zhao Xin, I can probably find more info on it for you.

Yes.

 

you can help us with Roman Palmyra and Late Romans?

you made some maps to AoE(?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Xiongnu
  • Huns
  • Scythians

(Alans, Sarmatiansand Yuezhi will come later).

at some points they have settlements.

missing time , shepherd unit I think  that attract sheeps and cattle. limiting the farming....

we talk about defenses.  and Wagon formation.

being natural cowboys, they use the laso, they form their wagons as would the colonizers of the wild west, to defend themselves from imminent attacks, at least certain nomads already made it, the Goths to emigrate made it then Turkish peoples.

The Huns and Xiongnu worshipped Tengri.

Quote

Tengri was the national god of the Göktürks, described as the "god of the Turks" (Türük Tängrisi).[2] The Göktürk khans based their power on a mandate from Tengri. These rulers were generally accepted as the sons of Tengri who represented him on Earth. They wore titles such as tengrikut, kutluġ or kutalmysh, based on the belief that they attained the kut, the mighty spirit granted to these rulers by Tengri.[9]

Tengri was the chief deity worshipped by the ruling class of the Central Asian steppe peoples in 6th to 9th centuries (Turkic peoples, Mongols and Hungarians).[10] It lost its importance when the Uighuric kagans proclaimed Manichaeism the state religion in the 8th century.[11] The worship of Tengri was brought into Eastern Europe by the Huns and early Bulgars.

Tengri is considered to be the chief god who created all things. In addition to this celestial god, they also had minor divinities (Alps) that served the purposes of Tengri.[12] As Gök Tanrı, he was the father of the sun (Koyash) and moon (Ay Tanrı) and also Umay, Erlik, and sometimes Ülgen.

The oldest form of the name is recorded in Chinese annals from the 4th century BC, describing the beliefs of the Xiongnu. It takes the form 撑犁/Cheng-li, which is hypothesized to be a Chinese transcription of Tängri. (The Proto-Turkic form of the word has been reconstructed as *Teŋri or *Taŋrɨ.)[2] Alternatively, a reconstructed Altaic etymology from *T`aŋgiri ("oath" or "god") would emphasize the god's divinity rather than his domain over the sky.[3]

The Turkic form, Tengri, is attested in the 8th century Orkhon inscriptions as the Old Turkic form Teŋri. In modern Turkish, the derived word "Tanrı" is used as the generic word for "god", or for the Abrahamic God, and is used today by Turkish people to refer to any god. The supreme deity of the traditional religion of the Chuvash is Tură.[4]

Other reflexes of the name in modern languages include Mongolian: Тэнгэр ("sky"), Bulgarian: Тангра, Azerbaijani: Tanrı.

The Chinese word for "sky" 天 (Mandarin: tiān, Classical Chinese: thīn[5] and Japanese Han Dynasty loanword ten[5]) may also be related, possibly a loan from a prehistoric Central Asian language.[6]

However, this proposal conflicts with recent reconstructions of the Old Chinese pronunciation of the character "天" as "qhl'iin" (Zhengzhang)[7] or similar, with a lateral consonant (compare Wiktionary).

Linguist Stefan Georg has proposed that the Turkic word ultimately originates as a loanword from Proto-Yeniseian *tɨŋgVr- "high".

 

 

Quote

The Yuezhi

 
 
 
Dunhuang%2B%25281%2529.jpg
Yuezhi in Dunhuang/China


The Yuezhi were recorded by the Chinese during the period of Warring States (495-221 B. C.) as nomadic people living in the the lands of the Western Region,specifically around  Dunhuang and Guazhou. The Yuezhi had occupied Dunhuang district and became very strong nation in the Northwest China. Han Shu further records: " The Great Yuezhi was a nomadic horde. They moved about following their cattle, and had the same customs as those of the Xiongnu. As their soldiers numbered more than hundred thousand, they were strong and despised the Xiongnu. In the past, they lived in the region between Dunhuang and Qilian [Mountain](south of Hexi Corridor)" The Yuezhi was so powerful that the Xiongnu monarch Touman even sent his eldest son Modu as a hostage to the Yuezhi.The Yuezhi often attacked their neighbour the Wusun to acquire slaves and pasture lands. Wusun originally lived together with the Yuezhi in the region between Dunhuang and  Qilian Mountain. The Yuezhi attacked the Wusun, killed their monarch Nandoumi and took his territory. The son of Nandoumi, Kunmo fled to the Xiongnu and was brought up by the Xiongnu monarch.

 

 


Migrations of the Yuezhi Bulgars
Migrations of the Yuezhi

 

 

Gradually the Xiongnu grew stronger and war broke out between them and the Yuezhi. There were at least four wars between the Yuezhi and Xiongnu according to the Chinese accounts. The first war broke out during the reign of the Xiongnu monarch Touman (who died in 209 B.C) who suddenly attacked the Yuezhi. The Yuezhi wanted to kill Modu, the son of Touman kept as a hostage to them, but Modu stole a good horse from them and managed to escape to his country. It appears that the Xiongnu did not defeat the Yuezhi in this first war. The second war took place in the 7th year of Modu era (203 B.C.). From this war, a large area of the territory originally belonging to the Yuezhi was seized by the Xiongnu and the hegemony of the Yuezhi started to shake. The third war probably was at 176 BC (or shortly before that) and the Yuezhi were badly defeated. The forth war was during the the period of Xiongnu monarch Laoshang (174 BC-166 BC) and was a disaster for the Yuezhi, their king was killed and a drinking cup was made out of his skull. Probably around 165 BC the majority of the Yuezhi migrated from the Tarim basin westward to Fergana. They finally settled in Transoxiana and Bactria.[78][79]

http://hunnobulgars.blogspot.com/2016/04/origin-huns-bulgarians.html

driking cup made by skill look very common.

Quote

 

It is hard to say if the Yuezhi (Yue-Chi) should be included in any of the recognized divisions of Turanian tribes such as Turks or Huns. Nothing whatever is known of their original language. Judging by the physical type represented on the Kushan's coins the Yue-Chi type is Turkish rather than Mongol or Ugro-Finnic. Some authorities think that the name Turushka or Turukha sometimes applied to them by Indian writers is another evidence of the connexion with the Turks. But the national existence and name of the Turks seem to date from the 5th century A.D., so that it is an anachronism to speak of the Yue-Chi as a division of them. The Yue-Chi and Turks, however, may both represent parallel developments of similar or even originally identical tribes. Some authors consider that the Yue-Chi are the same as the Getae and that the original form of the name was Ytit or Get, which is also supposed to appear in the Indian Jat.

 

Spoiler

The chief piece of evidence connecting the Xiongnu to the other Hunnic groups is the apparent similarity of their names. These are recorded in Chinese as Xiōngnú, Greek Greek Οὖννοι (Ounnoi), Latin Hunni, Sogdian Xwn, Sanskrit Hūṇa, Middle Persian Ẋyon and Armenian Hon-k’.[23][24] The equivalence of meaning of Ẋyon to Hun is shown by Syriac use of Hūn to refer to the people called Ẋyon in Persian sources, while Zoroastrian texts in Persian use Ẋyon for the people called Hūṇa in Sanskrit.[25] Étienne de la Vaissière has shown that Xiōngnú and the Sogdian and Sanskrit terms Xwm and Hūṇawere used to refer to the same people.[26] The Alchon Huns, meanwhile, identify themselves as ALXONO on their coinage, with xono representing Hun: they were identified as Hūṇa in Indian sources.[27] The Hephthalites identify themselves as OIONO, likely a version of Hun, on their coinage,[28] and are called "White Huns" by the Greek historian Procopius and "White Hūṇa" (Śvēta Hūṇa) by Sanskrit authors.[29][30] The Chinese Wei shu attested a title Wēnnàshā for the Kidarite rulers of Bactria, which Christopher Atwood and Kazuo Ennoki interpret as a Chinese transcription of 'Onnashāh, meaning king of the Huns; the Byzantines also called these people Huns

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Huns

 

Quote

Roman historians Themistius (317-390), Claudian (370-404), and later Procopius (500-560) called the Huns Massagetae.[43] . The Huns were called Massagetae also by Ambrose (340-397), Ausonius (310-394), Synesius (373–414), Zacharias Rhetor (465-535), Belisarius (500-565), Evagrius Scholasticus (6th century) and others. However some historians mentioned Huns and Massagetae as distinct and different people who were cooperating during their raids, for example St Jerome tells us about the Great Hun raid of 395-6 into Armenia and Syria that " swarms of Huns and monstrous Massagetae filled the whole earth with slaughter".[44]

Counterargument

Quote

Referring to the Huns and the Xiongnu, Denis Sinor argued that it was merely "a fortuitous consonance of the two names" that had led to the identification.[32] Maenchen-Helfen regarded the Iranian Huns (the Chionites, Hephthalites, and Huna) as having had the same name, though he questioned the significance of this fact.[33] He argues that "Huns and Hsiung-Nu may have borne the same name, and still may have been as different as the Walloons from the Welsh or the Venetians from the Wends."[24] Richard Frye argued that the various Iranian Huns deliberately used the name Hun in order to frighten their enemies.[34] Scholars such as H.W. Bailey and Denis Sinor have argued that the name Hun may have been a generic name for steppe nomads, deriving from the Iranian word Ẋyon, meaning enemies.[35] De la Vaissière, Christopher Atwood, and Kim all reject this etymology, however.[36][37][38] Both de la Vaissière and Kim regard the apparent use of the same name by the European and Iranian Huns as "a clear indication that they regarded this link with the old steppe tradition of imperial grandeur as valuable and significant, a sign of their original identity and future ambitions no doubt"

Quote

There is a gap of about two hundred years between the conquest of the Xiongnu by the Xianbei and their disappearance from Chinese historical records and the appearance of the Huns in Greco-Roman sources.[48] According to the Book of the Later Han, the final known Xiongnu emperor either disappeared to the west or moved to the territory of the Wusun in modern Kazakhstan in 91 CE.[49] According to the Wei shu, they then moved further west to around modern Tashkent, where they were defeated by the Xianbei in 153 – after this, nothing further is recorded about them for two centuries.

I'm skipping some objetions to go the principal point to form an idea.

Quote

Another important historical document supporting the identification is the Wei shu. Scholar Friedrich Hirth (1909) believed that a passage in the Wei Shuidentified the Xiongnu as conquering the Alans and the Crimea, the first conquests of the European Huns. Otto Maenchen-Helfen was able to show that Hirth's identification of the people and land conquered as the Alans and the Crimea was untenable, however: the Wei Shu instead referred to a conquest of Sogdia by a group that Maenchen-Helfen identified with the Hephthalites, and much of the text was corrupted by later interpolations from other sources.[54] De la Vaissière, however, notes that a Chinese encyclopedia known as the Tongdian preserves parts of the original Wei Shu, including the passage discussed by Hirth and Maenchen-Helfen: he notes that it describes the conquest of Sogdia by the Xiongnu at around 367, the same time that Persian and Armenian sources describe the Persians fighting the Chionites.[55] Sinor explicitly denied any connection between the Chionites and the Huns, claiming the former to have been Turks, unlike the Huns.[56] However, writing in 2013, Hyun Jin Kim refers to a "general consensus among Historians that the Chionites and the Huns were one and the same".[57] A fifth-century Chinese geographical work, the Shi-san zhou ji by Gan Yi, notes that the Alans and Sogdians were under different rulers (the European Huns and the Chionites respectively), suggesting some believed that they had been conquered by the same people.

Hun_%C3%BCst%C3%B6k.jpg

Quote

The most significant potential archaeological link between the European Huns and the Xiongnu are the similar bronze cauldrons used by the Huns and the Xiongnu. The cauldrons used by the European Huns appear to be a further development of cauldrons that had been used the Xiongnu.[61][62] Kim argues that this shows that the European Huns preserved the Xiongnu cultural identity.[39] Toshio Hayashi has argued that one might be able to track the westward migration of the Huns/Xiongnu by following the finds of these cauldrons.[63] Ursula Brosseder, however, argues that there are no intermediate types between the forms of the cauldron known for the Xiongnu and those known for the European Huns.[64] She also notes that the cauldrons, as a single archaeological artifact, cannot prove a Xiongnu-Hun migration.[65] Nor can it be assumed, she argues, that the Huns and Xiongnu used their cauldrons in the same manner, as the Xiongnu cauldrons are usually deposited in graves, whereas the Hun cauldrons are found deposited alone near water.[66]

Heath 

Heather notes that both groups made use of similar weapons.[62] Maenchen-Helfen, however, argues that the arrowheads used by the various "Hunnic" groups are quite different from each other.[67]

Maenchen-Helfen argued in 1945 that there is no evidence that the Xiongnu ever performed artificial cranial deformation, whereas this is attested for the European Huns.[68] Artificial cranial deformation is attested for the Hephthalites, however, which Kim suggests shows a link.[69] More recent archaeological finds suggest that the first-century so-called "Kenkol group" from around the Syr Darya river performed artificial cranial deformation and might be associated with the Xiongnu.[70] The practice was extremely widespread in Central Eurasia from the first century onwards.[71]

220px-BeltBuckleOrdos3-1CenturyBCE1.JPG
 
A belt buckle produced by the Ordos culture, 3-1 Century BCE.

Maenchen-Helfen also argues that the Huns have been identified with finds of gold leaves with scale patterns, whereas nothing comparable has ever been found for the Xiongnu.[72] Objects of the Ordos culture, which Maenchen-Helfen connects to the Xiongnu, are similarly very different from anything found from the Huns, whose art lacks any of the Ordos animal motifs.[73] Writing in 2018, Ursula Brosseder argues that

despite major advances in recent decades in the archaeology of Mongolia, the Altai, Tuva, and southern Siberia, the basic fact has remained unchanged, that the material assemblages from these Inner Asian regions are distinct from those of the European Huns.[74]

Brosseder attributes individual objects of Hunnic of Xiongnu style found in either Inner Asia in the fourth and fifth centuries or on Ukrainian Steppe of the first and second centuries as signs of regional connectivity rather than as evidence of migration.[75] She nevertheless argues that archaeology is unlikely to prove or disprove any migration, as such movements often leave no trace in the archaeological record.

 

Quote

Heather further notes that while the Xiongnu had a unified state and a ruler named the chanyu, the European Huns seem to have arrived without any single leader.[62] Kim argues that the Huns actually did arrive in Europe under unified rule, but that this is not directly reflected in surviving sources.[80]

As a cultural similarity between the Huns and Xiongnu, Kim notes that both appear to have practised a sword cult (for the Xiongnu known as the kenglu, known in Western sources as the "Sword of Mars").[81]

Maenchen-Helfen argues that the Xiongnu appear to have spoken a Mongolic language, whereas he believes the Huns spoke a Turkic language and the Hephthalites spoke an Iranian language.[82] Elsewhere, Maenchen-Helfen speaks of the Hephthalites as "the only exception" to the fact that various Hunnic groups (excluding the Xiongnu) seem to have spoken the same language.[83] Peter Golden, however, argues that the Hephthalites may have spoken a form of Proto-Mongolic and later adopted an Iranian language from the sedentary population they ruled, saying "n this, their behavior was typical of nomads".[28] Hyun Jin Kim argues, on the basis of work by E. G. Pulleyblank and A. Vovin, that the Xiongnu likely spoke a Yeniseian language, but switched to being Turkic-speaking during their migrations westward

 

Nomadic Empire.

 there some vast example of these empires.

Quote

Nomadic empires, sometimes also called steppe empires, Central or Inner Asian empires, are the empires erected by the bow-wielding, horse-riding, nomadic peoples in the Eurasian steppe, from classical antiquity (Scythia) to the early modern era (Dzungars). They are the most prominent example of non-sedentary polities.

Some nomadic empires operated by establishing a capital city inside a conquered sedentary state, and then by exploiting the existing bureaucrats and commercial resources of that non-nomadic society. As the pattern is repeated, the originally nomadic dynasty becomes culturally assimilated to the culture of the occupied nation before it is ultimately overthrown.[1] Ibn Khaldun described a similar cycle on a smaller scale in his Asabiyyah theory. A term used for these polities in the early medieval period is khanate (after khan, the title of their rulers), and after the Mongolconquests also as orda (horde) as in Golden Horde.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomadic_empire

 

a new one.

Xianbei

Quote

The Xianbei state or Xianbei confederation was a nomadic empire which existed in modern-day Mongolia, Inner Mongolia, northern Xinjiang, Northeast China, Gansu, Buryatia, Zabaykalsky Krai, Irkutsk Oblast, Tuva, Altai Republic and eastern Kazakhstan from 156–234 AD. Like most ancient peoples known through Chinese historiography, the ethnic makeup of the Xianbei is unclear.[16] The Xianbei were a northern branch of the earlier Donghu and it is likely at least some were proto-Mongols. After it collapsed, the tribe immigrated to China and founded the Northern Wei Dynasty.

Mongolia_III.jpg

 

...

 

Quote

The Hephthalites, Ephthalites, Ye-tai, White Huns, or, in Sanskrit, the Sveta Huna, were a confederation of nomadic and settled[18] people in Central Asia who expanded their domain westward in the 5th century.[19] At the height of its power in the first half of the 6th century, the Hephthalite Empire controlled territory in present-day Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, India and China.

too take an account as mini faction.

@Genava55 talk about them before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugii

others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_nomads

Edited by Lion.Kanzen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8e442e5acce1ccbb8f40c442a654dbd2.jpg

  • now we have better idea. 
  • more Chinese like, look more from southeast  Yuezi/Kushan kingdom
  • very exotic mix of Scythian-Parthian mix with Indian and Chinese warrior, probably a multicultural faction.
  • 037d3c04c1f05a1dda8e6e11de5ed89d.thumb.jpg.d996d24d874eb9971ddac2991c21406e.jpgec4124954bb8bda324069f290a99d6d4.thumb.jpg.b2312b43bca0d162303726fb98f24f1f.jpg
  • MigracionesDeLosYueh-Chih.svg
    Quote

    The Yuezhi (Chinese: 月氏; pinyin: Yuèzhī; Wade–Giles: Yüeh4-chih1, [ɥê ʈʂɻ̩́]) were an ancient Indo-European[5][6][7][8] people first described in Chinese histories as nomadic pastoralists living in an arid grassland area in the western part of the modern Chinese province of Gansu, during the 1st millennium BC. After a major defeat by the Xiongnu in 176 BC, the Yuezhi split into two groups migrating in different directions: the Greater Yuezhi (Dà Yuèzhī 大月氏) and Lesser Yuezhi (Xiǎo Yuèzhī 小月氏).

    The Greater Yuezhi initially migrated northwest into the Ili Valley (on the modern borders of China and Kazakhstan), where they reportedly displaced elements of the Sakas. They were driven from the Ili Valley by the Wusun and migrated southward to Sogdia and later settled in Bactria, where they then defeated the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom. The Greater Yuezhi have consequently often been identified with Bactrian peoples mentioned in classical European sources, like the Tókharioi (Greek Τοχάριοι; Sanskrit Tukhāra) and Asii (or Asioi). During the 1st century BC, one of the five major Greater Yuezhi tribes in Bactria, the Kushanas (Chinese: 貴霜; pinyin: Guìshuāng), began to subsume the other tribes and neighbouring peoples. The subsequent Kushan Empire, at its peak in the 3rd century CE, stretched from Turfan in the Tarim Basin, in the north to Pataliputra on the Gangetic plain of India in the south. The Kushanas played an important role in the development of trade on the Silk Road and the introduction of Buddhism to China.

    The Lesser Yuezhi migrated southward to the edge of the Tibetan Plateau. Some are reported to have settled among the Qiang people in Qinghai, and to have been involved in the Liangzhou Rebellion (184–221 CE). Others are said to have founded the city state of Cumuḍa (now known as Kumul and Hami) in the eastern Tarim. A fourth group of Lesser Yuezhi may have become part of the Jie people of Shanxi, who established the 4th century AD Later Zhao state (although this remains controversial).

    Although some scholars have associated the Yuezhi with artifacts of extinct cultures in the Tarim Basin, such as the Tarim mummies and texts recording the Tocharian languages, the evidence for any such link is purely circumstantial.

410587ac0ea6882761467cb700d38768.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 The first belief of the Turks Tengrism:

"Öd tengri aysar, kişi oglı kop ölgeli törimiş"

In tenrism, "God" is nature itself.

The wolf is a symbolic and sacred animal in the Turks. In most Turkish motifs and mythologies, the Wolf figure is dominant.

 

When the Turks wanted something, they would hang their wishes on the trees they considered sacred.

Quote

akçam-agaci-23-620x375.jpg

 

880saman-gelenegi-1.jpg

Türklerde-Tengri-İnancı-Tengrizm-veya-Tengricilik.jpg

Today, there are still such houses around Mongolia.

58410613_1961291037313876_6296116245289844762_n.jpg

 

I will continue to provide resource support as much as I can.

Edited by tengrist
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tengrist said:

 The first belief of the Turks Tengrism:

"Öd tengri aysar, kişi oglı kop ölgeli törimiş"

In tenrism, "God" is nature itself.

The wolf is a symbolic and sacred animal in the Turks. In most Turkish motifs and mythologies, the Wolf figure is dominant.

 

When the Turks wanted something, they would hang their wishes on the trees they considered sacred.

 

Spoiler

Turks cared about planting trees and nature. For every tree planted, something can be considered for soldiers and female citizens.

 

880saman-gelenegi-1.jpg

Türklerde-Tengri-İnancı-Tengrizm-veya-Tengricilik.jpg

Today, there are still such houses around Mongolia.

58410613_1961291037313876_6296116245289844762_n.jpg

 

I will continue to provide resource support as much as I can.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...