What do you think?
Rate this book
The Huns
This volume is a concise introduction to the history and culture of the Huns. This ancient people had a famous reputation in Eurasian Late Antiquity. However, their history has often been evaluated as a footnote in the histories of the later Roman Empire and early Germanic peoples. Kim addresses this imbalance and challenges the commonly held assumption that the Huns were a savage people who contributed little to world history, examining striking geopolitical changes brought about by the Hunnic expansion over much of continental Eurasia and revealing the Huns' contribution to European, Iranian, Chinese and Indian civilization and statecraft. By examining Hunnic culture as a Eurasian whole, The Huns provides a full picture of their society which demonstrates that this was a complex group with a wide variety of ethnic and linguistic identities. Making available critical information from both primary and secondary sources regarding the Huns' Inner Asian origins, which would otherwise be largely unavailable to most English speaking students and Classical scholars, this is a crucial tool for those interested in the study of Eurasian Late Antiquity.
208 pages, Paperback
First published December 18, 2015
8 people are currently reading
183 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
February 1, 2018
I am so out of touch with the European end of things that his claims there are impossible at present for me to assess. They are large claims, about Hun influence on Europe subsequently (as per his The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe, more briefly dealt with here).
But the strength of the book is obvious: that he integrates Hun history from East Asia (yes, the Xiongnu), to Central Asia (White Huns, etc.), to the European Huns. Hyun Jin Kim is across the sources in order to do this, and that's pretty rare. One basic misunderstanding has been that the search for continuity between the Chinese-named Xiongnu and the Huns as known in Europe, used to focus on whether there is an 'ethnic', 'blood descent', racial link. Whereas of course the link is political and to do with the Huns' enormous political prestige and legacy. As typical for steppe societies the Huns were ethnically very mixed indeed, and our understanding of connections must not be in those old terms, blood and race.
So this is an overview of the Huns from China to Rome, integrated by Kim's Inner Asian perspective. The political institutions of the Huns were extremely long-lived and tenacious, although unfortunately we still have to try to see them from the outside in -- that is, from the written accounts of settled societies. His ideas on the enduring political and cultural legacy in Europe are challenging and probably overreach. But his work is a massive step forward in knowledge of the Huns.
As a new standard history of the Huns, this doesn't read as easily as one might wish. It is, however, aimed at a general audience. I have a couple of popular histories of the Huns, but until this information filters into a popular format, you'd miss far too much if you went elsewhere.
But the strength of the book is obvious: that he integrates Hun history from East Asia (yes, the Xiongnu), to Central Asia (White Huns, etc.), to the European Huns. Hyun Jin Kim is across the sources in order to do this, and that's pretty rare. One basic misunderstanding has been that the search for continuity between the Chinese-named Xiongnu and the Huns as known in Europe, used to focus on whether there is an 'ethnic', 'blood descent', racial link. Whereas of course the link is political and to do with the Huns' enormous political prestige and legacy. As typical for steppe societies the Huns were ethnically very mixed indeed, and our understanding of connections must not be in those old terms, blood and race.
So this is an overview of the Huns from China to Rome, integrated by Kim's Inner Asian perspective. The political institutions of the Huns were extremely long-lived and tenacious, although unfortunately we still have to try to see them from the outside in -- that is, from the written accounts of settled societies. His ideas on the enduring political and cultural legacy in Europe are challenging and probably overreach. But his work is a massive step forward in knowledge of the Huns.
As a new standard history of the Huns, this doesn't read as easily as one might wish. It is, however, aimed at a general audience. I have a couple of popular histories of the Huns, but until this information filters into a popular format, you'd miss far too much if you went elsewhere.
December 23, 2016
Kim's "The Huns" is a reasonably concise overview of Eurasian and North African history that attempts to center the developments from around 100 - 600 AD in a region he refers to as "Inner Asia". Kim's designation is cultural, not geographic. In essence Kim contends that the region was inhabited by a polygot, multiethnic amalgam of steppe peoples who profoundly influenced their neighbors. Each successive state he examines exerted tremendous influence on the Chinese, Indian, Persian and Roman empires, not to mention the subordinate Germanic and Tocharian peoples. Highly centralized clans ruled over these mongrel empires; the languages of these dominant clans were, for the most part, Mongolic, Turkic and Iranian with the exception of the potentially Yenisian Xiongnu elite.
To his credit, Kim makes several bold hypotheses. He unequivocally equates the European Huns with the Xiongnu. The Xiongnu-derived White Huns of central Asia not only saved Hindu India from a Muslim Arab invasion but their occupation forged a Persian proto-nationalism. Not only do his Huns essentially give birth to dynastic struggle, feudalism and the Knights of Medieval Europe, but also their rule creates the conditions for the birth of early Rus. The merits of each of these hypotheses are debatable (more on a few of them below), but even his least controversial claims about the transfer of Han power in China to Mongolic and Turkic rule by the middle of the first millenia illustrate what can only be called a prolific impact of the Inner Asians on their "civilized" neighbors, and Kim adequately emphasizes this point.
The sheer scope of the research project is admirable, which is why I give this book three stars. Kim has here had to synthesize several historiographies, disciplines, and literatures from across a vast intellectual space. This makes the book a decent point of departure, but sadly, it is not clear this made for a better product.
If it weren't for the ambitious research, this book would get 2 stars. The writing is dull. About 1/2 the text is devoted to the European Huns, and the style there is scholarly and uninspiring. Kim himself seems to recognize this, as when he apologizes for the "tedious etymologies" he walks the reader through to try to argue that Valamir of the Ostrogoths was a Hun. The philological case Kim makes is plausible, but this material could have been relegated to an appendix, or, for a book like this, even published as a standalone scholarly journal article before the appearance of the book, with the main text summarizing the key conclusions from the geneology in Table 6.1. Even if Kim felt compelled to keep this material in the text, he could have made the material on the aftermath of Attila a much more engaging read. A consequence of this is that the exciting story of how medieval Europe emerged not so much from Rome but from the Hunnic state gets lost in the pedantic prose.
The first half of the text is equally disappointing, but in different ways. Here Kim seems rather uneven. His account of events read like a chronicle. In year such and such this and that happened. In year such and such + 1, that other thing happened. And in year etc... Part of this may have to do with Kim's not being a sinologist (which is fine). But there is a sense of reading Kim's research notes rather than a polished and engaging review of the state of the art of Chinese historiography from this era. His discussion of the Huns in the Indian subcontinent and Persia is much better.
The ultimate result is a book that reads as though it were an exhaustive treatment of minutea yet, by virtue of its very format, doesn't succeed in being an engaging introductory text. The scholarship is interesting, but frankly it reads like the appendix of a survey history textbook.
Perhaps what bothered me most about the book is that Kim's claim that the European Huns were the Xiongnu is not convincingly argued. There are key similarities across the empires, but it stands to reason to me at least that similar cultures engaging similar historical and material conditions should come up with similar approaches to statecraft. That there were important parallels hardly implies identity by descent. Copying, borrowing, convergent ingenuity - would all seem to adequately explain the similarities between the Xiongnu and Hun polities. Given how much Kim emphasizes how the Germanic tribes of eastern and central Europe copied so extensively from the Huns, the fact that the Huns themselves could not have borrowed from the Xiongnu isn't discussed much. Perhaps in one sense, Kim is justified in identifying the Xiongnu with the European Huns. In particular, he seems to want to expand the definition of the Hun to mean any Inner Asiatic empire of moderate political sophistication. If this were the case, then the xiongnu being "hun" is a mere tautology. But often Kim suggests he means more; namely, that they were the same empire, much as the armies of Batu that terrorized the Holy Roman Empire and the last Yuan emperor in Beijing belonged to the same polity. But Kim presents very little in the way of direct evidence, except to suggest that the Chinese chroniclers attributed the Xiongnu's ultimate homeland in the Altai mountains. This locations seems to be where other chronicles suggest a steppe empire of Sogdia may have originated from. The locations these central Asian conquests in turn seem to be referenced in European writings about their Hunnic invasions. But this must be evaluated in light of the fact that, as Kim notes later on, the Romans had a very confused understanding of Scythia. Kim further fails to give us much reason to believe the Chinese chroniclers had much interest in the detailed geography of the Altaic mountain region. As a result, the direct link between the Xiongnu and the European Huns is never very clearly spelled out, and seems to arise from a potential overlap between vague Chinese understanding of the western frontier and a vague Roman understnading of their eastern frontier, leading one to suggest Kim has a tautological definition of the Huns in mind, which is what makes his argument so frustrating.
There are also annoying inconsistencies in places. Some flagrant examples include paragraphs claiming things like " the Chinese glyph for Hua was actually read 'Var' in early middle Chinese" but then go on to note "the absence of the sound r in early middle Chinese". It seems, at least to a nonexpert of early middle Chinese, that both of these cannot be simultaneously true. At other times, he is very credulous to the Chinese sources, but (in my view rightfully) is quite dismissive of certain Roman sources such as Jordanes. Why couldn't the Chinese histories, which were notorious for the editing applied by succeeding dynasties, have been any less reliable? At the very least, I found this double standard uneasy.
Nor is Kim particularly persuasive that feudalism had a Hunnic origin. There were concrete material reasons, covered by economic historians, of how the Roman slave state transformed into a feudal, dynaistic aristocracy, without needing to invoke Hunnic interventio. To be sure the theories are not mutually exclusive; perhaps the huns 'inspired' the 'idea' of feudalism that found particularly futile ground in the economic realities of late Rome? But there is almost no economic discussion of the advantages of dynasties and medieval dutchies and suchwhat that Kim seems overly eager to attribute to steppe innovation. At best the presentation is unbalanced, and at worst the evidence Kim cites seems selective.
Thus, the dull writing, combined with the arguments that seem a little superficial make what could have been a rather interesting text a disappointment. Perhaps this was forced on him by the terse nature of the series; he had very little space to expound on his many strong claims. The pedagogical benefits of a superficial treatment could justify the fact that much of the book reads like a timeline put into paragraph form. But at the end of the day, Kim's book can't seem to decide what kind of book it imagines itself as. He had the opportunity to write an engaging survey of the inner asian steppe history of an exciting era for the beginner. Instead, what emerged was a somewhat uninspiring academic review.
To his credit, Kim makes several bold hypotheses. He unequivocally equates the European Huns with the Xiongnu. The Xiongnu-derived White Huns of central Asia not only saved Hindu India from a Muslim Arab invasion but their occupation forged a Persian proto-nationalism. Not only do his Huns essentially give birth to dynastic struggle, feudalism and the Knights of Medieval Europe, but also their rule creates the conditions for the birth of early Rus. The merits of each of these hypotheses are debatable (more on a few of them below), but even his least controversial claims about the transfer of Han power in China to Mongolic and Turkic rule by the middle of the first millenia illustrate what can only be called a prolific impact of the Inner Asians on their "civilized" neighbors, and Kim adequately emphasizes this point.
The sheer scope of the research project is admirable, which is why I give this book three stars. Kim has here had to synthesize several historiographies, disciplines, and literatures from across a vast intellectual space. This makes the book a decent point of departure, but sadly, it is not clear this made for a better product.
If it weren't for the ambitious research, this book would get 2 stars. The writing is dull. About 1/2 the text is devoted to the European Huns, and the style there is scholarly and uninspiring. Kim himself seems to recognize this, as when he apologizes for the "tedious etymologies" he walks the reader through to try to argue that Valamir of the Ostrogoths was a Hun. The philological case Kim makes is plausible, but this material could have been relegated to an appendix, or, for a book like this, even published as a standalone scholarly journal article before the appearance of the book, with the main text summarizing the key conclusions from the geneology in Table 6.1. Even if Kim felt compelled to keep this material in the text, he could have made the material on the aftermath of Attila a much more engaging read. A consequence of this is that the exciting story of how medieval Europe emerged not so much from Rome but from the Hunnic state gets lost in the pedantic prose.
The first half of the text is equally disappointing, but in different ways. Here Kim seems rather uneven. His account of events read like a chronicle. In year such and such this and that happened. In year such and such + 1, that other thing happened. And in year etc... Part of this may have to do with Kim's not being a sinologist (which is fine). But there is a sense of reading Kim's research notes rather than a polished and engaging review of the state of the art of Chinese historiography from this era. His discussion of the Huns in the Indian subcontinent and Persia is much better.
The ultimate result is a book that reads as though it were an exhaustive treatment of minutea yet, by virtue of its very format, doesn't succeed in being an engaging introductory text. The scholarship is interesting, but frankly it reads like the appendix of a survey history textbook.
Perhaps what bothered me most about the book is that Kim's claim that the European Huns were the Xiongnu is not convincingly argued. There are key similarities across the empires, but it stands to reason to me at least that similar cultures engaging similar historical and material conditions should come up with similar approaches to statecraft. That there were important parallels hardly implies identity by descent. Copying, borrowing, convergent ingenuity - would all seem to adequately explain the similarities between the Xiongnu and Hun polities. Given how much Kim emphasizes how the Germanic tribes of eastern and central Europe copied so extensively from the Huns, the fact that the Huns themselves could not have borrowed from the Xiongnu isn't discussed much. Perhaps in one sense, Kim is justified in identifying the Xiongnu with the European Huns. In particular, he seems to want to expand the definition of the Hun to mean any Inner Asiatic empire of moderate political sophistication. If this were the case, then the xiongnu being "hun" is a mere tautology. But often Kim suggests he means more; namely, that they were the same empire, much as the armies of Batu that terrorized the Holy Roman Empire and the last Yuan emperor in Beijing belonged to the same polity. But Kim presents very little in the way of direct evidence, except to suggest that the Chinese chroniclers attributed the Xiongnu's ultimate homeland in the Altai mountains. This locations seems to be where other chronicles suggest a steppe empire of Sogdia may have originated from. The locations these central Asian conquests in turn seem to be referenced in European writings about their Hunnic invasions. But this must be evaluated in light of the fact that, as Kim notes later on, the Romans had a very confused understanding of Scythia. Kim further fails to give us much reason to believe the Chinese chroniclers had much interest in the detailed geography of the Altaic mountain region. As a result, the direct link between the Xiongnu and the European Huns is never very clearly spelled out, and seems to arise from a potential overlap between vague Chinese understanding of the western frontier and a vague Roman understnading of their eastern frontier, leading one to suggest Kim has a tautological definition of the Huns in mind, which is what makes his argument so frustrating.
There are also annoying inconsistencies in places. Some flagrant examples include paragraphs claiming things like " the Chinese glyph for Hua was actually read 'Var' in early middle Chinese" but then go on to note "the absence of the sound r in early middle Chinese". It seems, at least to a nonexpert of early middle Chinese, that both of these cannot be simultaneously true. At other times, he is very credulous to the Chinese sources, but (in my view rightfully) is quite dismissive of certain Roman sources such as Jordanes. Why couldn't the Chinese histories, which were notorious for the editing applied by succeeding dynasties, have been any less reliable? At the very least, I found this double standard uneasy.
Nor is Kim particularly persuasive that feudalism had a Hunnic origin. There were concrete material reasons, covered by economic historians, of how the Roman slave state transformed into a feudal, dynaistic aristocracy, without needing to invoke Hunnic interventio. To be sure the theories are not mutually exclusive; perhaps the huns 'inspired' the 'idea' of feudalism that found particularly futile ground in the economic realities of late Rome? But there is almost no economic discussion of the advantages of dynasties and medieval dutchies and suchwhat that Kim seems overly eager to attribute to steppe innovation. At best the presentation is unbalanced, and at worst the evidence Kim cites seems selective.
Thus, the dull writing, combined with the arguments that seem a little superficial make what could have been a rather interesting text a disappointment. Perhaps this was forced on him by the terse nature of the series; he had very little space to expound on his many strong claims. The pedagogical benefits of a superficial treatment could justify the fact that much of the book reads like a timeline put into paragraph form. But at the end of the day, Kim's book can't seem to decide what kind of book it imagines itself as. He had the opportunity to write an engaging survey of the inner asian steppe history of an exciting era for the beginner. Instead, what emerged was a somewhat uninspiring academic review.
November 25, 2024
El libro es muy bueno, es fácil de leer, el autor cuestiona muchas ideas que se tenían sobre los hunos, y lo argumenta con muy buenas fuentes, no se que queda solo en el fin de los hunos sino que mira su legados y la continuación de estos, el ver a los pueblos esteparios como un Verdadero sistema político con gran impacto en el mundo es todo un acierto.
El libro empieza mencionando que, por mucho tiempo los hunos, fueron vistos como salvajes, por ello es importante estudiar a estos en Asia y Europa para demostrar que es incorrecta tal afirmación. es importante mencionar que este pueblo viene desde hace anterior el cual está compuesto por varios pueblos no más esteparios los cuales tienen diferentes modos de vida como la agricultura o el pastoreo, cuentan con varios idiomas e identidades, además que es un lugar que conecta con grandes civilizaciones como la china, la india y el mundo mediterráneo.
Los no más para el autor contaban con un territorio fijo y operaban bajo una estricta organización política, los hunos, eran muy diversos en su interior étnico ya que contaban con turcos e iraníes, por ejemplo. El origen de los hunos es complejo, pero la autora afirma que hay una estrecha relación entre estos y los xiongnu en china, ya que hay mucha similitudes identitarias y culturales, además que la arqueología en los calderos muestra clara similitudes. lo cierto es que ambos grupos eran muy heterogéneos y contaban con varios idiomas como anteriormente se mencionó.
Los xiongnu, eran una sociedad agro pastoral y contaban con una muy buena organización política, estos eran una aristocracia altamente centralizada la cual contaba con un emperador, personas encargadas en tareas administrativas, gobernaciones, un consejo aristocrático, funcionarios tribales, aparatos militares y civiles y jueces, con todo lo anterior el autor nos quiere demostrar que era un estado temprano y un imperio, el cual tuvo mucha influencia por parte de los escitas, de ellos aprendieron por ejemplo hacer censos para saber los guerreros disponibles.
Posterior a esto el autor nos explica un poco del origen de este pueblo estepario el cual fue expulsado de su tierra natal la región de ordos, por parte del nuevo emperador Qin, con ello también sea la construcción de la primera muralla para los chinos de estos pueblos, luego del fin de esta dinastía los xiongnu, volverían a su tierra natal y con ellos surgiría el primer unificador de este pueblo Modu Chanyu, el cual incorporaría otros pueblos hunos, recupera el territorio perdido por los chinos y llevaría a cabo la primera unificación de Asia interior. En el 200 a.c lograría vencer a los Han y convertir a estos en un estado tributario. Este emperador crearía el imperio xiongnu, el cual duraría 400 años y dejaría su poder a su hijo sin muchas complicaciones.
Su hijo expandió el imperio hacia Kazajistán y Kirguistán, para el 129 a.c, continuaron las guerras contra los Han, pero divisiones internas entre el pueblo estepario haría que muchos se unieran con los chinos continentales y con ello para el 60 a.c se lograría una gran derrota contra los xiongnu, los cuales lucharon por el título imperial, para el año 50 se llevaría a cabo la división permanente entre los xiongnu del norte y del sur, estos últimos se adentraron más a china, pero los del norte no tendrían un destino favorable ya que para el año 89 serían derrotados por los Han.
Los nuevos amos de Asia central para el año 91 serían los xianbei, los cuales trataron de replicar el imperio xiongnu, pero tal esfuerzo no duraría mucho, siguiendo con el pueblo estepario que sobrevivió al sur esto lograría liberarse del yugo chino luego de varias guerras civiles por lo que para el año 304 estos mismos se verían como sucesores de la dinastía Han, su poder fue tal que para el año 311 el imperio chino caería a manos de este pueblo estepario y para el año 316 la segunda capital de la dinastía gil también se haya tomado por este pueblo, por lo que para el año 318 este pueblo estepario había logrado conquistar gran parte de china. pero la inestabilidad entre los gobernantes dio fin a estos los cuales serían derrotados por los Wei del norte en el 350.
Los xiongnu, no desaparecerían como tal, sino que por más de 300 años vivieron en otros pueblos, por ejemplo, los de Wei del norte introducirán a china mucho del sistema político de este pueblo estepario inclusive la dinastía Tang subió al poder gracias a estos pueblos. La arqueología nos demuestra que este pueblo era un imperio que abarcaba varios territorios en el que por ejemplo se practicaban la agricultura gracias a la evidencia de recintos amurallados, eran grandes comerciantes que intercambiaban con los chinos y los lejanos pueblos greco-bacterianos.
Entre el anterior pueblo y el surgimiento de los hunos hay un interludio de 200 años en el que el autor nos habla de otros pueblos en Asia interior que siguieron los modelos xiongnu, como puede ser el caso de los kushan, los cuales eran grandes comerciantes, aunque finalmente serían conquistados por los persas sasánidas. Otro estado importante fueron los Kangju, los cuales tenían un sistema político muy similar al de los xiongnu, también contaron con habitantes urbanos, este pueblo duró en torno de 200 años gracias a su buena organización política.
Los hunos blancos procedían del imperio xiongnu, las puras arqueológicas de los calderos dan cuenta de esta continuidad, este pueblo contaba incluso con una constitución legal y querían apropiarse del pasado kushan. El primero de estos pueblos hunos fueron los kidara, esto es conquistaron Afganistán y se expandieron hacia el reino Gupta, gracias a las debilidades internas que había en estos, la absorción por parte de los heftalitas, le dio un respiro a ese pueblo indio. Los heftalitas era un estado muy heterogéneo, estos absorbieron parte de la cultura iraní y empezaron en el año 350 a amenazar a los persas, por ello fue necesario que Shapor II, hiciera un acuerdo de paz con estos.
Los persas perderían tierras iraníes orientales por este pueblo estepario y para el año 442 se volvieron prácticamente un estado tributario de los heftalitas, en el año 456 los persas serían derrotados en una batalla al frente de estos pueblos esteparios por lo que estos empezaron a entrometerse en los asuntos políticos persas al punto de apoyar a diferentes reyes para subir al trono, con la posterior absorción en el 467 de los kidaritas, llegaron al cenit de su poder al punto de capturar a un rey persa y lograr grandes victorias en el año 484, en donde los persas tendría grandes tributos a este pueblo estepario y con ello lograrían una gran expansión al punto de llegar a la india occidental y convertirse en el siglo VI, en el más grande del mundo, pero el nuevo enemigo de estos los turcos se aliaron con los persas y derrotaron a los heftalitas, por ello en el 560 moriría el último de los reyes de los hunos blancos.
Los turcos tomarían mucho el territorio que le pertenecía a los hunos blancos, estos reemplazarían a la élite heftalitas, aunque posteriormente caerían por la dinastía Tang, con la expansión árabe, al debilitar a los enemigos de los heftalitas, breve resurgimiento, aunque serían derrotados definitivamente por los árabes en Afganistán a principios del siglo VIII. En la India todavía vivirían algunos reyes hunos y en Afganistán el reino de Shahi, continuaría legado de estos Hunos.
Las prácticas políticas de estos hunos eran muy similares al de sus contrapartes europeas, también practicaban la deformación craneal, nombraban reyes vasallos e introdujeron en la india un tipo de casi feudalismo. como en el caso anterior también eran grandes comerciantes que incluso marcaron el inicio del auge de ciudades comerciales de Asia central como está marcando, los hunos blancos, eran cosmopolitas.
El legado de estos en el mundo persa fue hacer que se llevará a cabo una crisis de legitimidad entre los sasánidas, los cuales debieron buscar legitimidad a través de una historia nacional, la dominación de estos pueblos esteparios también dio forma al orden político persa y formó una identidad iraní. Los hunos en india bloquearon la expansión de los árabes hacia la india, algunos elementos políticos de este pueblo quedaron en el subcontinente, preservaron mucho de la cultura y crearon de cierta manera a los rajputs y su tradición guerrera.
Para entender a los hunos europeos, primero en menester tener en cuenta el contexto de Eurasia, la cual estaba compuesta por alanos y sármatas que serían reemplazados luego por los godos, las tribus germánicas que había allí contaban con una organización tribal muy rudimentaria, los godos por ejemplo evolucionarán a visigodos por sus encuentros con los alanos y hunos, puesto que estos adaptaron nuevas prácticas políticas militares que venían desde las regiones esteparias. Los ostrogodos igualmente adoptaron prácticas esteparias por la dominación de los hunos y los francos se encontraban descentralizados.
Por lo que con lo anterior se puede hablar de que no había una autoridad central en las tribus germánicas y tenían era una débil integración política que no podía ser una seria amenaza para los romanos, con lo anterior es la autora firma que los romanos aún podían resistir a los pueblos germánicos y tenían un gran ejército por lo que no se puede hablar de una decadencia antes de la llegada de los hunos, inclusive si no hubiera sido por esto el imperio romano de occidente hubiera existido por mucho más tiempo.
Pero esta aparente estabilidad fue cambiada por la llegada de este pueblo estepario, los cuales empezaron a absorber a muchos pueblos como los alanos, los godos que había en ucrania y Rumanía, ello genera una crisis de refugiados que se adentran al imperio romano, los cuales sufren varias derrotas por estos pueblos, lentamente el nombre de los hunos causaba temor entre los pueblos germánicos y romanos al punto de usar su nombre para asustar y marcar respeto. En el 384 este pueblo ayuda a los romanos a atacar a otros pueblos bárbaros, con ello se hicieron del poder de gran parte de la moderna, en el 387 lograron conquistar grandes territorios de Hungría lo que demostraba un sistema organizado de gobernanza.
En el 395 iniciaron una ofensiva en el Cáucaso el cual estaba dominado por romanos y persas, otro frente sería los Balcanes del oeste, esto consiguió grandes saqueos y demostraba la gran organización militar de los hunos para hacer la guerra. En el siglo V, surge el primer rey de este pueblo estepario, Uldin, el cual se aliaría con los romanos para atacar Alarico y con ello seguir la expansión de los hunos, en el 408 pueblo intentó atacar roma, pero fracasaría en su intento debido a que su ejército estaba formado por tribus germánicas poco fiables.
En el 420, surgen dos reyes Hunos, Ruga y Octar, estos apoyaron mucho al hombre fuerte romano Aecio, pese a eso para el 430 continuó la expansión de los hunos, en el que a su paso derrotó a los borgoñeses debido a que estos los habían derrotado en otra batalla anterior, aunque las relaciones con los romanos occidentales eran buenas con los orientales eran mucho más tensas punto de que los bizantinos lograron derrotar a este pueblo y matar a uno de sus reyes Ruga.
La fuerza militar de este pueblo era sorprendente la superioridad de su ejército no tenía comparación con el de los romanos, su control inclusive llegaba hasta la región del Volga. este pueblo también contaba con un gobierno central y una gran política de recolección de impuestos, no solo practicaban la economía nómada ya que tenían un importante asentamiento agrícola en ucrania, en este imperio también existía una jerarquía y estratificación muy estricta por lo que es innegable el gran legado político que dejaron los xiongnu en los hunos en el ámbito político, demuestran que fue un imperio capaz de unificar otros varios pueblos y la práctica de deportaciones masivas es una clara muestra de un gran nivel de organización que no cualquier pueblo podría hacer.
Atila y Bleda se convertirían en los nuevos reyes del imperio huno, esto seguirán aportando tropas al imperio romano de occidente al punto de derrotar a los visigodos ambos, esta alianza dio buenos resultados ya que los romanos volvieron a tener el control de Galia, pero en el 441 la paz se acabaría iniciaron los ataques de este imperio en simultáneo con los persas. Aproximadamente en el 447 Bleda moriría y ascendería Atila, aunque en un principio se darían revueltas por la usurpación del poder Atila, este volvería en su guerra contra los romanos al punto de destruir al ejército bizantino en los Balcanes y adentrarse hacia Grecia al punto de bastar el ejército bizantino por lo que estos debieron pagarles tributo a los hunos.
El motivo que llevó Atila conquistar la Galia era para que los francos continuarán en su esfera de influencia, los hunos, nunca quisieron acabar con el imperio romano, el objetivo de atila era crear un anillo defensivo de estados vasallos alrededor de su territorio, para ello era importante mantener el control de Galia y atacar a los romanos para que estos también se convirtieran en estados tributarios. En la batalla de Chalons, ambos ejércitos están compuestos por muchos pues los germánicos e inclusive el romano tenía elementos hunos, y dentro del ejército de Atila había cristianos por lo que no era una lucha religiosa. esta batalla lo que sí marcaría es el fin del ejército romano occidental imperial qué pasaría a ser huno compuesto por bárbaros y mercenarios, el autor nos muestra los mitos y la verdad que ocurrió en la anterior batalla mencionada, lo que realmente ocurrió fue una victoria pírrica de los romanos y un regreso de atila que tenía más cosas a su favor, pero es innegable el gran impacto que tuvieron los hunos en el decaimiento de roma.
Después de la muerte de atila se llevaron a cabo guerra civiles, puesto que atila depende de muchos grupos tribales, por lo que estos entraron en conflicto entre los que se vieron favorecidos por el emperador atila y los que no, en el 454 el hijo mayor de atila sería derrotado por los gépidos, Ardaric, sería el más beneficiado en estas guerras civiles y que demostraba una gran estrecha relación con los hunos, por lo que este nuevo poder seguía una estructura política muy similar al de sus antecesores los hunos.
Muchos reinos surgieron con raíces procedentes de los hunos, el autor acá con varios argumentos y fuentes menciona a Odoacro, el rey de los ostrogodos Valamer y los godos. Uno de los descendientes de atila en el 466 conseguiría consolidar el control de este pueblo en el Danubio, pero en el 469 serían derrotados definitivamente por los bizantinos a causa de la poca fiabilidad que había dentro de las tropas de estos, o lo que se puede hablar de tres potencias post Atila.
Los nuevos llegados a las tierras de los hunos serían los oghurs, otros pueblos también serían llamados hunos, por lo que habría que diferenciarlos de los avaros, en oriente por ejemplo los hunos continuaron 100 años después de la muerte de atila, y luego adquirirán el nombre de búlgaros, estos últimos lograrían grandes victorias contra los bizantinos, y siguen ocasionando problema en el Danubio al punto de llegar en el 558 a las murallas de Constantinopla.
En el Cáucaso también se desarrollaron otros pueblos hunos, los cuales llegaron a invadir territorio persa de gran ayuda a los bizantinos en su lucha contra los persas puesto que su caballería no tenía comparación alguna. los avaros por su parte siguieron muchas prácticas de los hunos, su poder llegó al punto de que en el año 626 junto a los persas asediaron Constantinopla, muchos otros pueblos surgieron de los hunos, como el de los húngaros los cuales se relacionaron con Atila.
Los hunos, si tuvieron un gran impacto en el mundo, lo primero es que propiciaron el fin del imperio romano occidental, pueblos como los ostrogodos y lombardos eran resultado de unidades políticas formadas por los hunos, los hunos crearon el reino franco ya que Childerico sube al poder con el apoyo de este pueblo, con ello el autor afirma que este pueblo estepario ayudó a crear muchos reinos bárbaros e inclusive exportaron el sistema proto feudal que había en Asia interior hacia Europa. la autoridad del rey se vio fortalecida con la influencia de unos hunos, el juramento de lealtad hacia el rey también tuvo inspiración en este pueblo. el pueblo eslavo también se ve impactado por la llegada de este pueblo estepario cómo se ve en qué llaman a su gobernante khagan, algo de inspiración huna.
La deformación craneal para ser alguien de la aristocracia de los hunos, fue algo que influyó en otros pueblos, las diademas de oro y el arte gótico tuvo gran influencia esteparia o lo que es importante mencionar que los hunos sí tenían una cultura y un arte y no eran tan primitivos como se creía.
En las conclusiones se retoman muchas de las ideas centrales del autor con lo que es posible mencionar que los hunos, estuvieron políticamente organizados y contaron con un gran ejército, influyeron en el feudalismo y el uso de la guerra móvil como se vio en la caballería medieval y por supuesto el gran cambio geopolítico que propiciaron este pueblo estepario fue el fin del imperio romano occidental y con ello el surgimiento de la edad media.
El libro empieza mencionando que, por mucho tiempo los hunos, fueron vistos como salvajes, por ello es importante estudiar a estos en Asia y Europa para demostrar que es incorrecta tal afirmación. es importante mencionar que este pueblo viene desde hace anterior el cual está compuesto por varios pueblos no más esteparios los cuales tienen diferentes modos de vida como la agricultura o el pastoreo, cuentan con varios idiomas e identidades, además que es un lugar que conecta con grandes civilizaciones como la china, la india y el mundo mediterráneo.
Los no más para el autor contaban con un territorio fijo y operaban bajo una estricta organización política, los hunos, eran muy diversos en su interior étnico ya que contaban con turcos e iraníes, por ejemplo. El origen de los hunos es complejo, pero la autora afirma que hay una estrecha relación entre estos y los xiongnu en china, ya que hay mucha similitudes identitarias y culturales, además que la arqueología en los calderos muestra clara similitudes. lo cierto es que ambos grupos eran muy heterogéneos y contaban con varios idiomas como anteriormente se mencionó.
Los xiongnu, eran una sociedad agro pastoral y contaban con una muy buena organización política, estos eran una aristocracia altamente centralizada la cual contaba con un emperador, personas encargadas en tareas administrativas, gobernaciones, un consejo aristocrático, funcionarios tribales, aparatos militares y civiles y jueces, con todo lo anterior el autor nos quiere demostrar que era un estado temprano y un imperio, el cual tuvo mucha influencia por parte de los escitas, de ellos aprendieron por ejemplo hacer censos para saber los guerreros disponibles.
Posterior a esto el autor nos explica un poco del origen de este pueblo estepario el cual fue expulsado de su tierra natal la región de ordos, por parte del nuevo emperador Qin, con ello también sea la construcción de la primera muralla para los chinos de estos pueblos, luego del fin de esta dinastía los xiongnu, volverían a su tierra natal y con ellos surgiría el primer unificador de este pueblo Modu Chanyu, el cual incorporaría otros pueblos hunos, recupera el territorio perdido por los chinos y llevaría a cabo la primera unificación de Asia interior. En el 200 a.c lograría vencer a los Han y convertir a estos en un estado tributario. Este emperador crearía el imperio xiongnu, el cual duraría 400 años y dejaría su poder a su hijo sin muchas complicaciones.
Su hijo expandió el imperio hacia Kazajistán y Kirguistán, para el 129 a.c, continuaron las guerras contra los Han, pero divisiones internas entre el pueblo estepario haría que muchos se unieran con los chinos continentales y con ello para el 60 a.c se lograría una gran derrota contra los xiongnu, los cuales lucharon por el título imperial, para el año 50 se llevaría a cabo la división permanente entre los xiongnu del norte y del sur, estos últimos se adentraron más a china, pero los del norte no tendrían un destino favorable ya que para el año 89 serían derrotados por los Han.
Los nuevos amos de Asia central para el año 91 serían los xianbei, los cuales trataron de replicar el imperio xiongnu, pero tal esfuerzo no duraría mucho, siguiendo con el pueblo estepario que sobrevivió al sur esto lograría liberarse del yugo chino luego de varias guerras civiles por lo que para el año 304 estos mismos se verían como sucesores de la dinastía Han, su poder fue tal que para el año 311 el imperio chino caería a manos de este pueblo estepario y para el año 316 la segunda capital de la dinastía gil también se haya tomado por este pueblo, por lo que para el año 318 este pueblo estepario había logrado conquistar gran parte de china. pero la inestabilidad entre los gobernantes dio fin a estos los cuales serían derrotados por los Wei del norte en el 350.
Los xiongnu, no desaparecerían como tal, sino que por más de 300 años vivieron en otros pueblos, por ejemplo, los de Wei del norte introducirán a china mucho del sistema político de este pueblo estepario inclusive la dinastía Tang subió al poder gracias a estos pueblos. La arqueología nos demuestra que este pueblo era un imperio que abarcaba varios territorios en el que por ejemplo se practicaban la agricultura gracias a la evidencia de recintos amurallados, eran grandes comerciantes que intercambiaban con los chinos y los lejanos pueblos greco-bacterianos.
Entre el anterior pueblo y el surgimiento de los hunos hay un interludio de 200 años en el que el autor nos habla de otros pueblos en Asia interior que siguieron los modelos xiongnu, como puede ser el caso de los kushan, los cuales eran grandes comerciantes, aunque finalmente serían conquistados por los persas sasánidas. Otro estado importante fueron los Kangju, los cuales tenían un sistema político muy similar al de los xiongnu, también contaron con habitantes urbanos, este pueblo duró en torno de 200 años gracias a su buena organización política.
Los hunos blancos procedían del imperio xiongnu, las puras arqueológicas de los calderos dan cuenta de esta continuidad, este pueblo contaba incluso con una constitución legal y querían apropiarse del pasado kushan. El primero de estos pueblos hunos fueron los kidara, esto es conquistaron Afganistán y se expandieron hacia el reino Gupta, gracias a las debilidades internas que había en estos, la absorción por parte de los heftalitas, le dio un respiro a ese pueblo indio. Los heftalitas era un estado muy heterogéneo, estos absorbieron parte de la cultura iraní y empezaron en el año 350 a amenazar a los persas, por ello fue necesario que Shapor II, hiciera un acuerdo de paz con estos.
Los persas perderían tierras iraníes orientales por este pueblo estepario y para el año 442 se volvieron prácticamente un estado tributario de los heftalitas, en el año 456 los persas serían derrotados en una batalla al frente de estos pueblos esteparios por lo que estos empezaron a entrometerse en los asuntos políticos persas al punto de apoyar a diferentes reyes para subir al trono, con la posterior absorción en el 467 de los kidaritas, llegaron al cenit de su poder al punto de capturar a un rey persa y lograr grandes victorias en el año 484, en donde los persas tendría grandes tributos a este pueblo estepario y con ello lograrían una gran expansión al punto de llegar a la india occidental y convertirse en el siglo VI, en el más grande del mundo, pero el nuevo enemigo de estos los turcos se aliaron con los persas y derrotaron a los heftalitas, por ello en el 560 moriría el último de los reyes de los hunos blancos.
Los turcos tomarían mucho el territorio que le pertenecía a los hunos blancos, estos reemplazarían a la élite heftalitas, aunque posteriormente caerían por la dinastía Tang, con la expansión árabe, al debilitar a los enemigos de los heftalitas, breve resurgimiento, aunque serían derrotados definitivamente por los árabes en Afganistán a principios del siglo VIII. En la India todavía vivirían algunos reyes hunos y en Afganistán el reino de Shahi, continuaría legado de estos Hunos.
Las prácticas políticas de estos hunos eran muy similares al de sus contrapartes europeas, también practicaban la deformación craneal, nombraban reyes vasallos e introdujeron en la india un tipo de casi feudalismo. como en el caso anterior también eran grandes comerciantes que incluso marcaron el inicio del auge de ciudades comerciales de Asia central como está marcando, los hunos blancos, eran cosmopolitas.
El legado de estos en el mundo persa fue hacer que se llevará a cabo una crisis de legitimidad entre los sasánidas, los cuales debieron buscar legitimidad a través de una historia nacional, la dominación de estos pueblos esteparios también dio forma al orden político persa y formó una identidad iraní. Los hunos en india bloquearon la expansión de los árabes hacia la india, algunos elementos políticos de este pueblo quedaron en el subcontinente, preservaron mucho de la cultura y crearon de cierta manera a los rajputs y su tradición guerrera.
Para entender a los hunos europeos, primero en menester tener en cuenta el contexto de Eurasia, la cual estaba compuesta por alanos y sármatas que serían reemplazados luego por los godos, las tribus germánicas que había allí contaban con una organización tribal muy rudimentaria, los godos por ejemplo evolucionarán a visigodos por sus encuentros con los alanos y hunos, puesto que estos adaptaron nuevas prácticas políticas militares que venían desde las regiones esteparias. Los ostrogodos igualmente adoptaron prácticas esteparias por la dominación de los hunos y los francos se encontraban descentralizados.
Por lo que con lo anterior se puede hablar de que no había una autoridad central en las tribus germánicas y tenían era una débil integración política que no podía ser una seria amenaza para los romanos, con lo anterior es la autora firma que los romanos aún podían resistir a los pueblos germánicos y tenían un gran ejército por lo que no se puede hablar de una decadencia antes de la llegada de los hunos, inclusive si no hubiera sido por esto el imperio romano de occidente hubiera existido por mucho más tiempo.
Pero esta aparente estabilidad fue cambiada por la llegada de este pueblo estepario, los cuales empezaron a absorber a muchos pueblos como los alanos, los godos que había en ucrania y Rumanía, ello genera una crisis de refugiados que se adentran al imperio romano, los cuales sufren varias derrotas por estos pueblos, lentamente el nombre de los hunos causaba temor entre los pueblos germánicos y romanos al punto de usar su nombre para asustar y marcar respeto. En el 384 este pueblo ayuda a los romanos a atacar a otros pueblos bárbaros, con ello se hicieron del poder de gran parte de la moderna, en el 387 lograron conquistar grandes territorios de Hungría lo que demostraba un sistema organizado de gobernanza.
En el 395 iniciaron una ofensiva en el Cáucaso el cual estaba dominado por romanos y persas, otro frente sería los Balcanes del oeste, esto consiguió grandes saqueos y demostraba la gran organización militar de los hunos para hacer la guerra. En el siglo V, surge el primer rey de este pueblo estepario, Uldin, el cual se aliaría con los romanos para atacar Alarico y con ello seguir la expansión de los hunos, en el 408 pueblo intentó atacar roma, pero fracasaría en su intento debido a que su ejército estaba formado por tribus germánicas poco fiables.
En el 420, surgen dos reyes Hunos, Ruga y Octar, estos apoyaron mucho al hombre fuerte romano Aecio, pese a eso para el 430 continuó la expansión de los hunos, en el que a su paso derrotó a los borgoñeses debido a que estos los habían derrotado en otra batalla anterior, aunque las relaciones con los romanos occidentales eran buenas con los orientales eran mucho más tensas punto de que los bizantinos lograron derrotar a este pueblo y matar a uno de sus reyes Ruga.
La fuerza militar de este pueblo era sorprendente la superioridad de su ejército no tenía comparación con el de los romanos, su control inclusive llegaba hasta la región del Volga. este pueblo también contaba con un gobierno central y una gran política de recolección de impuestos, no solo practicaban la economía nómada ya que tenían un importante asentamiento agrícola en ucrania, en este imperio también existía una jerarquía y estratificación muy estricta por lo que es innegable el gran legado político que dejaron los xiongnu en los hunos en el ámbito político, demuestran que fue un imperio capaz de unificar otros varios pueblos y la práctica de deportaciones masivas es una clara muestra de un gran nivel de organización que no cualquier pueblo podría hacer.
Atila y Bleda se convertirían en los nuevos reyes del imperio huno, esto seguirán aportando tropas al imperio romano de occidente al punto de derrotar a los visigodos ambos, esta alianza dio buenos resultados ya que los romanos volvieron a tener el control de Galia, pero en el 441 la paz se acabaría iniciaron los ataques de este imperio en simultáneo con los persas. Aproximadamente en el 447 Bleda moriría y ascendería Atila, aunque en un principio se darían revueltas por la usurpación del poder Atila, este volvería en su guerra contra los romanos al punto de destruir al ejército bizantino en los Balcanes y adentrarse hacia Grecia al punto de bastar el ejército bizantino por lo que estos debieron pagarles tributo a los hunos.
El motivo que llevó Atila conquistar la Galia era para que los francos continuarán en su esfera de influencia, los hunos, nunca quisieron acabar con el imperio romano, el objetivo de atila era crear un anillo defensivo de estados vasallos alrededor de su territorio, para ello era importante mantener el control de Galia y atacar a los romanos para que estos también se convirtieran en estados tributarios. En la batalla de Chalons, ambos ejércitos están compuestos por muchos pues los germánicos e inclusive el romano tenía elementos hunos, y dentro del ejército de Atila había cristianos por lo que no era una lucha religiosa. esta batalla lo que sí marcaría es el fin del ejército romano occidental imperial qué pasaría a ser huno compuesto por bárbaros y mercenarios, el autor nos muestra los mitos y la verdad que ocurrió en la anterior batalla mencionada, lo que realmente ocurrió fue una victoria pírrica de los romanos y un regreso de atila que tenía más cosas a su favor, pero es innegable el gran impacto que tuvieron los hunos en el decaimiento de roma.
Después de la muerte de atila se llevaron a cabo guerra civiles, puesto que atila depende de muchos grupos tribales, por lo que estos entraron en conflicto entre los que se vieron favorecidos por el emperador atila y los que no, en el 454 el hijo mayor de atila sería derrotado por los gépidos, Ardaric, sería el más beneficiado en estas guerras civiles y que demostraba una gran estrecha relación con los hunos, por lo que este nuevo poder seguía una estructura política muy similar al de sus antecesores los hunos.
Muchos reinos surgieron con raíces procedentes de los hunos, el autor acá con varios argumentos y fuentes menciona a Odoacro, el rey de los ostrogodos Valamer y los godos. Uno de los descendientes de atila en el 466 conseguiría consolidar el control de este pueblo en el Danubio, pero en el 469 serían derrotados definitivamente por los bizantinos a causa de la poca fiabilidad que había dentro de las tropas de estos, o lo que se puede hablar de tres potencias post Atila.
Los nuevos llegados a las tierras de los hunos serían los oghurs, otros pueblos también serían llamados hunos, por lo que habría que diferenciarlos de los avaros, en oriente por ejemplo los hunos continuaron 100 años después de la muerte de atila, y luego adquirirán el nombre de búlgaros, estos últimos lograrían grandes victorias contra los bizantinos, y siguen ocasionando problema en el Danubio al punto de llegar en el 558 a las murallas de Constantinopla.
En el Cáucaso también se desarrollaron otros pueblos hunos, los cuales llegaron a invadir territorio persa de gran ayuda a los bizantinos en su lucha contra los persas puesto que su caballería no tenía comparación alguna. los avaros por su parte siguieron muchas prácticas de los hunos, su poder llegó al punto de que en el año 626 junto a los persas asediaron Constantinopla, muchos otros pueblos surgieron de los hunos, como el de los húngaros los cuales se relacionaron con Atila.
Los hunos, si tuvieron un gran impacto en el mundo, lo primero es que propiciaron el fin del imperio romano occidental, pueblos como los ostrogodos y lombardos eran resultado de unidades políticas formadas por los hunos, los hunos crearon el reino franco ya que Childerico sube al poder con el apoyo de este pueblo, con ello el autor afirma que este pueblo estepario ayudó a crear muchos reinos bárbaros e inclusive exportaron el sistema proto feudal que había en Asia interior hacia Europa. la autoridad del rey se vio fortalecida con la influencia de unos hunos, el juramento de lealtad hacia el rey también tuvo inspiración en este pueblo. el pueblo eslavo también se ve impactado por la llegada de este pueblo estepario cómo se ve en qué llaman a su gobernante khagan, algo de inspiración huna.
La deformación craneal para ser alguien de la aristocracia de los hunos, fue algo que influyó en otros pueblos, las diademas de oro y el arte gótico tuvo gran influencia esteparia o lo que es importante mencionar que los hunos sí tenían una cultura y un arte y no eran tan primitivos como se creía.
En las conclusiones se retoman muchas de las ideas centrales del autor con lo que es posible mencionar que los hunos, estuvieron políticamente organizados y contaron con un gran ejército, influyeron en el feudalismo y el uso de la guerra móvil como se vio en la caballería medieval y por supuesto el gran cambio geopolítico que propiciaron este pueblo estepario fue el fin del imperio romano occidental y con ello el surgimiento de la edad media.
September 19, 2024
Borrow.
A presentation of the facts based on the sources we actually have without any fluff or made up narratives. True straight history. A good and needed history of the Huns all in one place.
A bit dry at times but worth a read for sure.
A thesis presented here that I hadn't heard before was that the Huns and other Steppe people could very well be the origin of the European feudel system that followed. I wasn't completely convinced but sure would like to read more on this.
A presentation of the facts based on the sources we actually have without any fluff or made up narratives. True straight history. A good and needed history of the Huns all in one place.
A bit dry at times but worth a read for sure.
A thesis presented here that I hadn't heard before was that the Huns and other Steppe people could very well be the origin of the European feudel system that followed. I wasn't completely convinced but sure would like to read more on this.
September 27, 2022
A book that brings Hunnic historiography up-to-date and includes Chinese and Soviet/Russian sources that may have been missing in many westerner's assessment of the Huns. As such, the bibliography might be as interesting as the work itself.
Hyun Jin Kim helps to demystify some of the tropes surrounding the Huns, and reminds the reader that steppe cultures in general are just as complex and structured as Rome or ancient China ever were. Kim clearly loves the subject, as throughout the book he doesn't shy away from making some big claims. While some seem plausible (in particular the Hun-Xiongnu connection and the Huns' influence on the changing landscape of European warfare), others make it seem like Kim is getting a bit carried away with himself. The Huns being the arbiters of Persian nationalism? All migratory groups north of Rome and Persia having the Huns as their primary influence? The Huns as the forerunners to European feudalism? Perhaps Kim is pushing against the "Late Antiquity" scholarship and reminding readers that the collapse of the Roman world really was such, but he perhaps leans a bit to heavily on one side of the scale in arguing why we should take the Huns more seriously.
Nevertheless, I am hopeful that this book is the beginning of a wider trend in Eurasian history, focusing on the central asian steppes and how over and under looked this region is in the wider scope of the world.
Hyun Jin Kim helps to demystify some of the tropes surrounding the Huns, and reminds the reader that steppe cultures in general are just as complex and structured as Rome or ancient China ever were. Kim clearly loves the subject, as throughout the book he doesn't shy away from making some big claims. While some seem plausible (in particular the Hun-Xiongnu connection and the Huns' influence on the changing landscape of European warfare), others make it seem like Kim is getting a bit carried away with himself. The Huns being the arbiters of Persian nationalism? All migratory groups north of Rome and Persia having the Huns as their primary influence? The Huns as the forerunners to European feudalism? Perhaps Kim is pushing against the "Late Antiquity" scholarship and reminding readers that the collapse of the Roman world really was such, but he perhaps leans a bit to heavily on one side of the scale in arguing why we should take the Huns more seriously.
Nevertheless, I am hopeful that this book is the beginning of a wider trend in Eurasian history, focusing on the central asian steppes and how over and under looked this region is in the wider scope of the world.
January 19, 2025
A short but comprehensive book on the history of the Huns, tracing their roots from the Xiongnu of the Inner Asian steppes to the enduring legacy of the European Huns. Hyun Jin Kim presents the Huns as a crucial Eurasian reality, moving away from Eurocentric or sedentary cultural perspectives to highlight their significant and often underestimated historical influence. Some of the thesis may be speculative but worth to think and seem stronger than the already mainstream ones in the area.
The Huns were far more complex than the typical labels of nomadic or semi-nomadic empires suggest. According to Kim, their lifestyle can be best described as agro-pastoralism, where agriculture and herding played significant roles. Throughout Inner Asian history, control over key agricultural regions like "Tarim Basin" in East Turkestan was vital to their political strategies (not coincidentally, the word tarim means agriculture in Modern Turkish, and means delta in Old Turkish). This focus on agriculture extended to the Western Huns, for whom the Pontic steppe, particularly modern Ukraine, which is the core lands of the East side.
Kim’s work focuses on two key periods of Hun influence: the Xiongnu’s dominance in Inner Asia and the reign of Attila over the European Huns. Additionally, he sheds light on the enduring structures of Hunnic rule in Inner Asia, which persisted in China, Iran, and Northern India for centuries. There is solid evidence of political and cultural continuity between Mete’s Xiongnu and their Hunnic successors.
The Xiongnu were not a monolithic ethnic group but a highly diverse, multilingual, and multiethnic society. The Xiongnu’s ruler elites are thought as speakers of a Yeniseian or Turkic language. As the Huns moved westward, their Turkic linguistic and cultural elements became more pronounced, naturally reflecting the demographics of the regions they controlled. While the European Huns were led by a Turkic-speaking elite more evidently. In the East, some Hunnic groups adapted more visibly to Iranian and Chinese cultures.
The Hun society combined settled and pastoral communities, unified under a divine, lineage-based leadership. Mete, a transformative leader, unified the Xiongnu and established advanced political and military organizations. Under his leadership, the Xiongnu evolved from a mere threat to China into a dominant empire spanning much of Central Asia.
During the European Hun era, the Xiongnu legacy continued. Attila and his predecessor emerged as not only successful military leaders but also for their diplomatic power. However Attila is an extraordinary figure. When Attila and Bleda came to power, as a very powerful Hunnic custom which east is always superior than west, Bleda, the supreme king ruled the East and Attila ruled the West. His tension with his Bleda results with Bleda's death, probably with an assassination by Attila. After this point Attila was supposed to be the superior king of the East part and give the west to one of his son or another family member. But he settled in West This move is seen as a response to conflicts with Eastern tribes and a strategy to strengthen ties with Western groups like the Gepids. In my weak hypothesis, Attila’s strategy of staying close to potential conquest and plunder zones can reflect his military vision. But Kim has the first stronger one, whose results can be seen in internal turmoil in Attila's reign (solved relatively very easily by Attila's strong dictatorship) and after his death.
Kim’s another important analysis is about the Battle of Chalons challenging the traditional narrative of a Hun defeat. Kim argues, with compelling evidence, that the Huns achieved a strategic victory through their use of feigned retreat tactics, a distinctive Inner Asian warfare. The aftermath, including the withdrawal and death of Gothic leaders, and the Hunnic control of the battlefield, supports this reinterpretation. The quick transition to the Italian campaign further reinforces the argument that the Huns were the victorious side at Chalons.
Following Attila’s death, the disintegration of the Hunnic Empire gave rise to new structures in Europe, many of which were continuations of Hunnic frameworks. The Huns functioned as a "Commonwealth" and, despite political fragmentation, continued to influence emerging powers through cultural and political synthesis. The Xiongnu adapted to Chinese influences over time, while their historical rivals, the Xianbei, carried forward the Hunnic legacy. In the West, the Huns integrated with and governed Germanic tribes, shaping their political systems. Their cultural union with Rome left a dual legacy: a commonwealth marriage that the visible layer of Roman influence on medieval Europe and the often-overlooked foundational impact of the Huns. This legacy is evident not only in the Turkic-speaking Hun elites among the Goths, Franks, and other groups but also in the proto-feudal practices evolving feudalism of medieval Europe and military traditions introduced by the Huns, which shaped the medieval Europe.
This observation seems to initially clash with the other Medieval historians' thesis. Belgian historian Henri Pirenne for instance argues that the fall of Western Roman systems and culture was not due to the barbarians but rather the encirclement of the Mediterranean by Islam, leading Western Europe to turn its back on the Mediterranean. Over time, however, as these barbarians settled and, perhaps most importantly, converted to Christianity, an argument from a Eurocentric perspective could ignore ‘commonwealth marriage’ discussed earlier, framing it as a direct continuation of the Roman legacy. Yet, the profound Hunnic influence, which shaped the structural transformation of Christian Europe, emerges as a pivotal factor that left its mark on the entirety of the medieval period.
The Huns’ influence extended far beyond Europe. Through the White Huns, their impact reached Inner Asia, Iran, and India. Under the Hephthalites, the previously undefeated Sasanian Empire abandoned its traditional warrior-king ideology in favor of a divinely ordained imperial model, echoing the Huns’ political culture. There are a lot more element of Hun history like Bulgar successors of Europe Huns, several more successors of Xiongnu in Central Asia and China.
The Huns were far more complex than the typical labels of nomadic or semi-nomadic empires suggest. According to Kim, their lifestyle can be best described as agro-pastoralism, where agriculture and herding played significant roles. Throughout Inner Asian history, control over key agricultural regions like "Tarim Basin" in East Turkestan was vital to their political strategies (not coincidentally, the word tarim means agriculture in Modern Turkish, and means delta in Old Turkish). This focus on agriculture extended to the Western Huns, for whom the Pontic steppe, particularly modern Ukraine, which is the core lands of the East side.
Kim’s work focuses on two key periods of Hun influence: the Xiongnu’s dominance in Inner Asia and the reign of Attila over the European Huns. Additionally, he sheds light on the enduring structures of Hunnic rule in Inner Asia, which persisted in China, Iran, and Northern India for centuries. There is solid evidence of political and cultural continuity between Mete’s Xiongnu and their Hunnic successors.
The Xiongnu were not a monolithic ethnic group but a highly diverse, multilingual, and multiethnic society. The Xiongnu’s ruler elites are thought as speakers of a Yeniseian or Turkic language. As the Huns moved westward, their Turkic linguistic and cultural elements became more pronounced, naturally reflecting the demographics of the regions they controlled. While the European Huns were led by a Turkic-speaking elite more evidently. In the East, some Hunnic groups adapted more visibly to Iranian and Chinese cultures.
The Hun society combined settled and pastoral communities, unified under a divine, lineage-based leadership. Mete, a transformative leader, unified the Xiongnu and established advanced political and military organizations. Under his leadership, the Xiongnu evolved from a mere threat to China into a dominant empire spanning much of Central Asia.
During the European Hun era, the Xiongnu legacy continued. Attila and his predecessor emerged as not only successful military leaders but also for their diplomatic power. However Attila is an extraordinary figure. When Attila and Bleda came to power, as a very powerful Hunnic custom which east is always superior than west, Bleda, the supreme king ruled the East and Attila ruled the West. His tension with his Bleda results with Bleda's death, probably with an assassination by Attila. After this point Attila was supposed to be the superior king of the East part and give the west to one of his son or another family member. But he settled in West This move is seen as a response to conflicts with Eastern tribes and a strategy to strengthen ties with Western groups like the Gepids. In my weak hypothesis, Attila’s strategy of staying close to potential conquest and plunder zones can reflect his military vision. But Kim has the first stronger one, whose results can be seen in internal turmoil in Attila's reign (solved relatively very easily by Attila's strong dictatorship) and after his death.
Kim’s another important analysis is about the Battle of Chalons challenging the traditional narrative of a Hun defeat. Kim argues, with compelling evidence, that the Huns achieved a strategic victory through their use of feigned retreat tactics, a distinctive Inner Asian warfare. The aftermath, including the withdrawal and death of Gothic leaders, and the Hunnic control of the battlefield, supports this reinterpretation. The quick transition to the Italian campaign further reinforces the argument that the Huns were the victorious side at Chalons.
Following Attila’s death, the disintegration of the Hunnic Empire gave rise to new structures in Europe, many of which were continuations of Hunnic frameworks. The Huns functioned as a "Commonwealth" and, despite political fragmentation, continued to influence emerging powers through cultural and political synthesis. The Xiongnu adapted to Chinese influences over time, while their historical rivals, the Xianbei, carried forward the Hunnic legacy. In the West, the Huns integrated with and governed Germanic tribes, shaping their political systems. Their cultural union with Rome left a dual legacy: a commonwealth marriage that the visible layer of Roman influence on medieval Europe and the often-overlooked foundational impact of the Huns. This legacy is evident not only in the Turkic-speaking Hun elites among the Goths, Franks, and other groups but also in the proto-feudal practices evolving feudalism of medieval Europe and military traditions introduced by the Huns, which shaped the medieval Europe.
This observation seems to initially clash with the other Medieval historians' thesis. Belgian historian Henri Pirenne for instance argues that the fall of Western Roman systems and culture was not due to the barbarians but rather the encirclement of the Mediterranean by Islam, leading Western Europe to turn its back on the Mediterranean. Over time, however, as these barbarians settled and, perhaps most importantly, converted to Christianity, an argument from a Eurocentric perspective could ignore ‘commonwealth marriage’ discussed earlier, framing it as a direct continuation of the Roman legacy. Yet, the profound Hunnic influence, which shaped the structural transformation of Christian Europe, emerges as a pivotal factor that left its mark on the entirety of the medieval period.
The Huns’ influence extended far beyond Europe. Through the White Huns, their impact reached Inner Asia, Iran, and India. Under the Hephthalites, the previously undefeated Sasanian Empire abandoned its traditional warrior-king ideology in favor of a divinely ordained imperial model, echoing the Huns’ political culture. There are a lot more element of Hun history like Bulgar successors of Europe Huns, several more successors of Xiongnu in Central Asia and China.
April 12, 2025
The huns were an Eurasian phenomenon. That sums it up! But really though. I'll admit that partially I was in line with thinking that Hyun Jin Kim wants to address, namely the tendency for European history to make the huns appear out of nowhere and then vanish a few years after Atilla, their impact reduced to destruction. Now I had heard in the past of the Xiongnu that harassed the Han dynasty in China and their links with the Huns but especially the "after Atilla" part is something I admittedly bought in the whole "and then they were gone" story.
For Hyun this is the second time he forays into Hunnic history and impact but whilst his first book is all about the political impact the huns had on the transition between roman era and medieval europa; this one takes a much broader approach starting with the mentioned Xiongnu. His goal is to make the story of the huns fit in the longer story of the Eurasian Steppe in all its complexity and diversity stressing continuously the Huns were not some half savages but a society that had its own dynamics as worthwhile for study as what the Romans, Persians and Chinese were up to. However in his efforts to showcase positive impacts I do think he strays a bit to far, for example he points out a Hunnic dynasty which made it into north India and founded a dynasty there (a bit akin to the Mughals who would do the same) and who fought against the Islamic armies in the 7th till 9th centuryn, thus preserving Hinduism.... I mean its not like they were fighting for that and I have some trouble with presenting this as a good things whilst simultaneously minimizing the destruction and havoc the Huns caused elsewhere as if the one balances out the other.
It is clear that Hyun Jin Kim wants to do the same for the Huns as has been done for the Mongols who have for the last 50 years steadily undergone a PR stunt with equating them with globalization, international law and religious toleration, which to be fair is more or less all true but we should never forget the terror that was needed to create it. I do think the climb is going to be much steeper when it comes to the huns as unlike the Mongols there was no pan Eurasian trade network under their protection, no Roman or byzantine dignitary made its way to China via the Hun lands, they did so via the indian Ocean network (at least once). I do concur as I did with his earlier book, that the impact the huns had on early medieval europe is neglected and for no reason. It is true that horse riding, falconry, banquets and divine kinship replaced the Roman elite system and it must have come from somewhere whilst Germanic kingship system as would survive in Scandinavia was far less centralized and authoritative then would be achieved by the likes of Clovis.
The narrative of after Atilla with the late transformation of the huns into the Bulgars which likewise also seemed to have come out of nowhere is a good sell but I do think this would require further study and debate albeit I am reminded of an older debate on what happened to the britons when the Saxons came to Britain, assumptions had been made they killed all the Britons or drove them to Wales but DNA evidence shows that most people just stayed put and over time identities changed. Modern ideas of ethnicity and national identity projected on the past once again clouding what happened. Something similar seems logical for the Huns. They did not kill the other steppe people, they took them in under the royal clan, their defeated elites joined up the as lesser nobles and in time the Hunnic elites did the same when the Maygars and Bulgars came from the north and further east.
A definite must read for anyone interested in the subject of Eurasian history and in particular at the late classical age although I do think a bit more space should have devoted to cultural practice rather then the "and then this happened" political history most of chapter "the huns after Atilla" is spend on or some more analysis rather then simply recounting.
For Hyun this is the second time he forays into Hunnic history and impact but whilst his first book is all about the political impact the huns had on the transition between roman era and medieval europa; this one takes a much broader approach starting with the mentioned Xiongnu. His goal is to make the story of the huns fit in the longer story of the Eurasian Steppe in all its complexity and diversity stressing continuously the Huns were not some half savages but a society that had its own dynamics as worthwhile for study as what the Romans, Persians and Chinese were up to. However in his efforts to showcase positive impacts I do think he strays a bit to far, for example he points out a Hunnic dynasty which made it into north India and founded a dynasty there (a bit akin to the Mughals who would do the same) and who fought against the Islamic armies in the 7th till 9th centuryn, thus preserving Hinduism.... I mean its not like they were fighting for that and I have some trouble with presenting this as a good things whilst simultaneously minimizing the destruction and havoc the Huns caused elsewhere as if the one balances out the other.
It is clear that Hyun Jin Kim wants to do the same for the Huns as has been done for the Mongols who have for the last 50 years steadily undergone a PR stunt with equating them with globalization, international law and religious toleration, which to be fair is more or less all true but we should never forget the terror that was needed to create it. I do think the climb is going to be much steeper when it comes to the huns as unlike the Mongols there was no pan Eurasian trade network under their protection, no Roman or byzantine dignitary made its way to China via the Hun lands, they did so via the indian Ocean network (at least once). I do concur as I did with his earlier book, that the impact the huns had on early medieval europe is neglected and for no reason. It is true that horse riding, falconry, banquets and divine kinship replaced the Roman elite system and it must have come from somewhere whilst Germanic kingship system as would survive in Scandinavia was far less centralized and authoritative then would be achieved by the likes of Clovis.
The narrative of after Atilla with the late transformation of the huns into the Bulgars which likewise also seemed to have come out of nowhere is a good sell but I do think this would require further study and debate albeit I am reminded of an older debate on what happened to the britons when the Saxons came to Britain, assumptions had been made they killed all the Britons or drove them to Wales but DNA evidence shows that most people just stayed put and over time identities changed. Modern ideas of ethnicity and national identity projected on the past once again clouding what happened. Something similar seems logical for the Huns. They did not kill the other steppe people, they took them in under the royal clan, their defeated elites joined up the as lesser nobles and in time the Hunnic elites did the same when the Maygars and Bulgars came from the north and further east.
A definite must read for anyone interested in the subject of Eurasian history and in particular at the late classical age although I do think a bit more space should have devoted to cultural practice rather then the "and then this happened" political history most of chapter "the huns after Atilla" is spend on or some more analysis rather then simply recounting.
November 28, 2020
Book : The Huns
Writer : Hyun Jin Kim
Publication : Routledge
ISBN : 9781138841758
Printed price : ₹3499
Page count : 193
Reading period : 1st September, 2020 - 26th September, 2020
Rating : ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Are the Huns successors of the Xiongnu? Was the Xiongnu state just a tribal confederation, or an empire? Is Feudalism a Hunnic, and taking a larger view, an inner Asian innovation? Has dynastic succession too sprouted from their society? Would the modern Persian nationalism had emerged without the Huns? Did the Gurjar-Pratihars and the Rajputs emerged from the Huns? Who was actually defeated in the battle of Chalons? Did the death of Attila meant the end of the Hunnic Empire in Europe? Is the name 'Attila' the real name of that person?
These and many other questions have been answered in this book. Moving aside the stereotype of the typical 'barbarian', and by taking the help of recent archeological evidences and literary records, Hyun Jin Kim throws a completely new light on the Huns, the forerunners of the Mongols and the Turks, who left a massive imprint upon the world of their time in a uniquely nomadic way, not bereft of sophistication.
Writer : Hyun Jin Kim
Publication : Routledge
ISBN : 9781138841758
Printed price : ₹3499
Page count : 193
Reading period : 1st September, 2020 - 26th September, 2020
Rating : ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Are the Huns successors of the Xiongnu? Was the Xiongnu state just a tribal confederation, or an empire? Is Feudalism a Hunnic, and taking a larger view, an inner Asian innovation? Has dynastic succession too sprouted from their society? Would the modern Persian nationalism had emerged without the Huns? Did the Gurjar-Pratihars and the Rajputs emerged from the Huns? Who was actually defeated in the battle of Chalons? Did the death of Attila meant the end of the Hunnic Empire in Europe? Is the name 'Attila' the real name of that person?
These and many other questions have been answered in this book. Moving aside the stereotype of the typical 'barbarian', and by taking the help of recent archeological evidences and literary records, Hyun Jin Kim throws a completely new light on the Huns, the forerunners of the Mongols and the Turks, who left a massive imprint upon the world of their time in a uniquely nomadic way, not bereft of sophistication.
August 10, 2025
Incredibly intriguing read, very much worth buying for anyone interested in not just the Völkerwanderung, but also the late Roman and early Medieval period. Hyun Jin Kim presents the Huns not just as a crude horde which conquests disappeared as quickly as they came about, but as the successors (to some extent ethnically, but mostly culturally and politically) of the Xiongnu, people with a sophisticated state apparatus which the Huns inherited (and arguably passed onto the Europeans), which was autocratic in nature with Imperial pretensions, but also quasi-feudal (the most convincing aspect he argues the Europeans adopted), who together with their Alanic and Germanic confederates had a profound impact on post Western Imperial, Ibero-Roman and Gothic as well as Gallo-Roman and Frankish statebuilding and military developments, as well in the arts of the eastern branches of the Germanic groups or Danubian.
April 7, 2024
A great introduction to the history of the Huns, which goes into a great deal of detail (too much detail, at times). It's easily readable and the amount of information and bibliographical resources is admirable. It makes for some compelling arguments for not underestimating the Huns and their political and agricultural methods, as is common in popular thought.
Where this book falls short are the big dubious claims that Kim commonly makes, particularly towards Chapters 7 and 8. These chapters discuss the future and implications of Hunnic rule, and how it's responsible for some major changes in Europe such as the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the establishment of the Frankish Kingdom. I believe too much emphasis is put on Hunnic influence on the various barbarian groups we see throughout Europe.
I also felt a great lack of diagrams and images, although it might not be easy or even necessary to add such information from a pre-Medieval culture.
Where this book falls short are the big dubious claims that Kim commonly makes, particularly towards Chapters 7 and 8. These chapters discuss the future and implications of Hunnic rule, and how it's responsible for some major changes in Europe such as the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the establishment of the Frankish Kingdom. I believe too much emphasis is put on Hunnic influence on the various barbarian groups we see throughout Europe.
I also felt a great lack of diagrams and images, although it might not be easy or even necessary to add such information from a pre-Medieval culture.
September 11, 2020
Quite interesting book, I enjoy a lot as a Turkish man.. I’m flattered his ambition to assume that the medieval traditions and newly established empires, kingdoms are based in the beginning a Hunnic tradition, though sometimes I feel like it’s too much...
my first impression is that you have to know the history background of the late Roman empire and the collapse afterwards before getting into the details of this book. So this is not a book for the beginner of the history of the medieval age.
I do have to admit that I’m not convinced entirely his argument but eager to drawn into the deeper details of this period of time..
I recently discover the Turkish translation of the book and surprise to see a preface dedicated to Turkish people. That’s nice thank you
my first impression is that you have to know the history background of the late Roman empire and the collapse afterwards before getting into the details of this book. So this is not a book for the beginner of the history of the medieval age.
I do have to admit that I’m not convinced entirely his argument but eager to drawn into the deeper details of this period of time..
I recently discover the Turkish translation of the book and surprise to see a preface dedicated to Turkish people. That’s nice thank you
September 14, 2025
Very thorough, a hard read because of it, a huge catalog of information which I suppose is more a starting point for people trying to dive deeper into the subject. I found that skimming it gave a broad sense of what went on, and the author never quite simplified the big picture enough for my liking. This is respectable and understandable, because he captured all the nuances, exceptions, and events, which simplifying into a big picture would have ruined. In some cases I think the author was a little biased, he does seem to value the Huns perhaps a little too highly, but this also is understandable.
June 30, 2024
Hun Jin Kim has unfortunately been touched by the Eurasia madness. Specializing such an obviously decisive and misunderstood region of the world that is also a complete black hole for textual evidence would drive any academic mad. I respect the hustle and he certainly brings up some very, very tantalizing ideas but where's the beef Hyun?
August 9, 2024
3.5 stars. I'm glad I read this book. The introduction is excellent. Parts of the book analyze names and titles to determine if they were of Hun origin. This I found less interesting. I really appreciated that a variety of classic resources were refered to, from China to Iceland. This is something I thought was missing in many of my past books on Rome and related histories. Very little about what the lives of various Hun groups was like.
November 27, 2025
Think the Huns were an Atilla-centered tornado that ripped through Europe in the fifth century, made some drinking vessels out of conquered foes’ skulls, and departed back to Inner Asia? Think again. While the extent of the Huns’ effect on EVERYTHING that happened in early medieval Europe as asserted by the author was a bit of an eyebrow raiser, this book did cause me to recalibrate a bit.
November 27, 2020
Summarizes the events very well. An easy reading about Huns.
September 29, 2025
Needed take on the Huns and earlier Turkic empires from an eastern point of view and beautiful synthesis of facts and logical arguements.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews