Who has the details of Attila the Huns?

Attila was a Huns. Attila was the son of Montduk and succeeded to the throne in 445 AD. As early as 10 years ago, Attila facilitated his brother Breda to conquer the east and west, covering an area of about 4 million square kilometers from the Aral Sea in the east, the Rhine River in the west, the Balkans in the south, and the Baltic Sea in the north.

As a result, a Xiongnu Empire spanning Europe and Asia was born. And just after Attila ascended to the throne, the Huns did not restrain their expansionist nature. When Western Rome lost its plunder value, Attila returned to Western Rome.

Character ending:In 451 AD, Attila, known to Europeans as the "Whip of God", fought an alliance of Eastern and Western Romans, Franks, Visigoths, and Burgundians on the Champagne Plain in present-day northeastern France.

As a result, Attila's army was defeated, but fortunately, the main general of the coalition army, Aejos, did not launch a fatal blow against it, and Attila escaped with his life. Two years later, Attila married a 19-year-old Burgundian girl and died violently on her wedding night. Five years later, the Xiongnu Empire collapsed under the counterattack of the Roman Empire.

Therefore, Attila only gave the glory of the Xiongnu Empire another 8 years.

First of all, Attila is historically classified as a "Hun". Secondly, I think I can interpret your question as, ".Whether the Huns were Huns or not

There is insufficient evidence that the "Huns" and the "Huns" are the same peopleThe conclusion of the current stage of research is that "it is very likely that the Huns and the Xiongnu are the same people".

1. The reason why it is "very likely" is mainly due to the following reasons:

1. The names are similar. The ethnic group that destroyed the Western Jin Dynasty recorded in the Dunhuang literature is hwn (pronounced hun), and we know that the Western Jin Dynasty was destroyed by the Xiongnu in the Wuhu Rebellion in history, so this hwn is the Xiongnu, which is similar to the Huns (pronunciation and spelling are hun).

2. It is also an Asian horseback riding nation.

3. There is a sequence of time. The Han Dynasty united with Xianbei and Karasuma to defeat the Xiongnu first (1st century AD), and the Huns invaded Europe later (4th century AD).

4. The cultural relics of the Xiongnu are widely distributed across the Eurasian zone from China to Eastern Europe, and the time of the cultural relics is basically consistent with the time period from the westward migration of the Xiongnu to the invasion of Europe by the Huns.

Second, the reason why it is not "100% likely" is that there are still doubts in the following areas(Of course, it's all self-justifying).

1. The social structure is different. The social structure and hierarchy of the Xiongnu recorded in Chinese history books are very sound, while the social structure of the Huns recorded in Western history books is very loose. In terms of civilization, the Huns were much higher than the Huns.

2. The manufacturing level is different. The ** used by the Huns was actually far behind the Huns.

3. Different cultural habits.

Self-justification: the social system was linked to the socio-economic situation, and the environment of the Xiongnu westward migration could not be compared with the northern part of the Han Dynasty, and they had to reorganize the social structure in a form more suitable for nomadism, which also led to the retreat of the degree of civilization; Some of the techniques were lost in the process of moving west).

3. In addition to this, there are other issues that have been reasonably explained at this stage (although not fully agreed):

1. The Huns recorded in Western historical materials are short and stout, with obvious Mongolian characteristics; The Huns, on the other hand, were tall and had obvious Caucasian characteristics. (Solution: With the development of science,The latest DNA technology has analyzed the remains of the ancient Xiongnu tombs in Mongolia and found that more than eighty percent of the blood of these Xiongnu people is of race

The depiction of the Xiongnu posture in Chinese history books is considered to be nothing more than the usual exaggeration of Central Plains historians).

2. Western history books record that there was already a nation called hunni in the northern part of the Black Sea in the second century B.C., if this hunni and the later Huns (pronounced hun) are the same people, then it can be confirmed that the Huns were not formed by the Xiongnu who migrated west after being defeated by the Han Dynasty (the first century AD), but a different people from the Xiongnu since ancient times. (Explanation: After later archaeology, cemeteries with the characteristics of Xiongnu tombs from the first to the second centuries BC were found in the area of Kazakhstan, so they appeared.)Before the Han-Hungarian Hundred Years' War, there was already a certain scale of Xiongnu westward migrationThe possibility of it).

This question can't be you, upstairs is pure nonsense. First, Arati was a Hunn, and it is not conclusive whether the Huns in Europe were Huns in Asia or not. Second, the Huns cannot simply be considered Chinese.

Are the Mongols today Chinese? Both the Mongols and the Turks today consider their ancestors the Huns. Finally, don't just associate the great achievements of our predecessors with the history of our own nation.

Such as: Genghis Khan.

Patrilineally, the Huns should be considered Asian. But the Xiongnu culture was dominated by plunder. Including a large number of Eurasian women.

Therefore, in the later period, its bloodline is no longer pure Asian blood. This may result in the partial displacement of the paternal lineage. But according to the genealogical relationship, it is also an Asian lineage.

Therefore, the Xiongnu can only be regarded as Central Asians with Chinese patrilineal relations. It cannot be counted in the category of Chinese.

Attila Chinese, created by China in the universe.

can only say that the descendants of Yan and Huang. Originally, after the defeat of Inner Mongolia, one of them ran to Europe to dominate.

This is only a hypothesis, because there is no archaeological conclusive evidence whether or not they were called Huns in history or not as the Huns in China, but most historians believe that it is.

This man, Attila, was the emperor at that time. The Europeans called him the "whip of God". One can imagine the place of Attila in their hearts.

A lot of people think of him as a nightmare. He led his armies into Europe several times. At that time, it also hit the Orleans region of Gaul.

That is, today's France.

In fact, from Attila's early experience, it can be inferred whether he is a descendant of the Huns. He was first sent to Rome at the age of twelve by the Huns at the time of the time. From this, it can be seen that Attila is supposed to be a descendant of the Huns.

Otherwise, it would not have been exchanged as a proton to Rome. Because the Huns at that time were there to get information about Rome. Only then did he send this Attila to Rome.

And this relationship between the Huns and the Huns did not exist. There is no one conclusive conclusion. But a lot of things suggest that the two are probably not related.

Attila, who swept across Europe, was indeed a descendant of the Huns, and they beat the Europeans very badly, known as the whip of God, which was also very powerful at the time, and was finally defeated by the Europeans.

The descendants of the Attila Huns, and the descendants of the Shan family, those who know the Xiongnu religion in this regard have a clear understanding of their blood relationship.

It doesn't matter. They are the descendants of the westward Turkic and local Greeks, as well as the tribes of Asia Minor.

Attila is not a descendant of the Huns, Attila is a Hunn, and the Huns have nothing to do with the Huns.

There has to be a way to prove that he is African.

Whip of God.

Attila please read the full text for herself