Talk:Huns

A reconstruction of Attila - image

"A reconstruction of Attila by George S. Stuart, Museum of Ventura County." image shows Attila riding a horse with his foot in a stirrup.
The Huns didn't know the stirrup. It was invented by the Magyars. That George S. Stuart didn't know that, well... it's just an artifahrty picture. But using this false image in a supposedly scientific article reveals that the author doesn't have any knowledge of the subject either. From here on the article and it's author have lost all credibility and it become a cyber-rubbish in best case or an anti Hun/Magyar propaganda piece at worst.

Predecessors and Sucessors

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

So, it should have their predecessors and sucessors¡

For predecessors:

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

-The Alans, conquered by huns

-The Greuthungi, conquered by huns

-The Thervingi, conquered in part by huns

-Roman Pannonia province: base under Attila

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

Successors:

-After Nedao:

-The kingdom of the Rugii

-The kingdom of the Gepids

-The kingdom of the Ostrogoths

-A suebian kingdom in the danube.

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

Comments?

New genetics paper

There appears to be a new genetics paper on this subject, by Gnecchi-Ruscone et al. [1]. According to the abstract: We find no evidence for the presence of a large eastern/steppe descent community among the Hun- and post-Hun-period Carpathian Basin population. We also observe a high genetic diversity among the eastern-type burials that recapitulates the variability observed across the Eurasian Steppe. This suggests a mixed origin of the incoming steppe conquerors. Nevertheless, long-shared genomic tracts provide compelling evidence of genetic lineages directly connecting some individuals of the highest Xiongnu-period elite with 5th to 6th century CE Carpathian Basin individuals, showing that some European Huns descended from them. @Austronesier and Andrew Lancaster: I differ to your superior understanding of genetics, but it seems like something to be added (in brief!) here and to Origins of the Huns, I'd say? We need to be careful how we frame this, of course, and not give it overdue weight given that it's a single study.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

It strikes me that the paper's most important points are:

1. Even the Hunnic elite shows a high genetic diversity, with only some individuals showing connections to the Xiongnu;
2. There isn't evidence for a mass migration of the type later performed by the Avars;

But that's just what I've gleaned from a quick perusal of the "discussion" section.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

"Xiongnu-like" might be more accurate but it sounds about right at first sight. So there are articles now seeming to demonstrate not only the viability of a part of the Hun ancestry coming (indirectly) from quite far east, but also, OTOH, that this was a complex "trickle". I don't know if this disproves mass migration in the sense of mass migration from the eastern European steppes. I am reminded of this other article I noticed Florin Corta mentioning: https://www.academia.edu/127182405/Ancient_DNA_reveals_reproductive_barrier_despite_shared_Avar_period_culture --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if this disproves mass migration in the sense of mass migration from the eastern European steppes - I meant a mass migration of the Xiongnu across Eurasia, just to clarify.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

This paper might deserve appropriate attention, since I am not recognising any serious contradiction with Maróti et al.: Whole genome analysis sheds light on the genetic origin of Huns, Avars and conquering Hungarians, as already referenced in the article. Tympanus (talk) 09:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

How does everyone feel about the version added at Origin of the Huns by Sentausa [2]? Seems about right.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, as we can see from these genetic studies, the horselord (Scythian) steppe folks migrated both westward and eastward across the 8,000 km-long steppe zone, mixing with many peoples. For example, there were many Asian Scythian and Sarmatian components among the Xiongnu. [3], and ancient Mongolia also was ethnically diverse.[4] Other genetic study stated that European Hun elite had connection to Xiongnu, but majority of European Huns were Sarmatian and Germanic [5]. Which means Huns were not only Huns as we can see also from this new genetic study, but it was many tribes always, a tribal confederation. Like according to genetic studies Hungarian conquerors also were very diverse [6] (they also had Xiongnu and Sarmatian components [7]), even the name of Magyars (Hungarians) came just from the leader tribe name. This Hun origin story of Hungarians came from the Hungarian royal dynasty, according to genetic studies the royal Arpad and Aba family had Hun connections [8] [9]. But of course the Hungarian conquerors just mixed with the locals (like with the remnant of Avars, Slavs...), and those locals already mixed with every other previous incomer people. Uploading my personal DNA sample to MyTrueAncestry, as Hungarian from the Carpathian Basin, my genetic is ancient local + I have sample matches from all of those above listed steppe folks (Scythian, Sarmatian, Asian Scythian, Hungarian conquerors, Avars, Carpathian Basin Hun, Xionghu...) + Germanic and Slavic components. When a new genetic study published like this, I check my new sample matches, after this mentioned Avar genetic study I found about 50 Avar Carpathian Basin sample matches with my DNA: [10] OrionNimrod (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Fine, I do agree with this obvious competent addition. Tympanus (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Physical appearance, religion, modern associations with savagery.

Ammianus Marcellinus describes the Huns as physically misshapen and monstrously ugly, with deep scars on their cheeks to prevent beard growth. He mentions their strong, compact limbs, thick necks, and overall appearance, which he compares to two-legged beasts or rough-hewn statues. Their facial features, particularly the lack of beauty and beard growth, are depicted as signs of their harsh upbringing.

[[Ammianus Marcellinus]] described the Huns as "like unreasoning beasts, they are utterly ignorant of the difference between right and wrong; they are deceitful and ambiguous in speech, never bound by any reverence for religion or for superstition.{{sfnm|1a1=Ammianus Marcellinus|1y=1862|1t=Res Gestae|1p=31|2a1=Yonge|2y=1862|2t=Res Gestae|2p=31|3a1=Harvard University Press|3y=1862|3p=1}}

[[Adolf Hitler]] referenced the Huns in his book [[Mein Kampf|''Mein Kampf'']] as part of his broader ideological framework regarding race and the supposed superiority of the Aryan race. He associated the Huns with the invasions of Europe during the 4th and 5th centuries, which he considered destructive and destabilizing to the [[Roman Empire]]. Hitler’s racial theories linked the Huns to the concept of racial degeneration of [[Slavs]] in Europe.{{sfn|Koonz|2003|pp=178–180}}

can these be added? Oa0214 (talk) 08:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

The first quote is Ammianus describing the Huns as monstrous - this is already discussed as a general trope in the article and is not useful in actually figuring out how the Huns appeared. I don't think we ought to include it.

The second quote (on religion) just says the same thing as what's already in the article, just with a quote rather than a brief summary. We know Ammianus is wrong, so I'm not sure why we should emphasize this to our readers.

The last one is far too long. There's no reason to say that Hitler associated the Huns with invasions in the 4th and 5th centuries - that's what modern historians do as well! I'd say we could include at most a sentence about the misuse for racial purposes, and I'm not sure we really need even that. It's not as though Hitler and other racists used the Huns alone to describe Slavs as racial degenerate. It had more to do with Mongols and the Golden Horde.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Hitler's mention of the invasion of the Huns and the effect on the Roman Empire is certainly relevant as it would have immense influence on his audience at the time.

Ammianus's comments on physical appearance and religion do seem to add to what has briefly been mentioned but I thought it would be insightful as he is a Roman writer describing the Huns from when they were invading Europe. I am curious what you mean when you say "We know Ammianus is wrong". Oa0214 (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Since Hitler himself acted without any convincing traceability against ethnic minorities with a cruelty that was in no way inferior to the Huns, he should not be quoted. Tympanus (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

It is relevant under the section "modern associations with savagery" because of the affect it would have had on society, it has nothing to do with bias of the author. Oa0214 (talk) 06:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think Hitler's musings on Huns and Slavs are particularly noteworthy, as he did not say anything original. If you can find a source discussing the Huns (and Mongols, etc) more generally as a source of racial degeneration, that might be worth adding.

And I say that Ammianus is wrong because the Huns did not look like monsters. There's likewise no point in quoting him saying the Huns were dumb brutes without religion. There's no point in quoting him when his information is useless according to modern scholars.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

you need to provide a source for that claim because if we are disregarding an eyewitness testimony on the appearance of the Huns then there needs to be a valid reason. Oa0214 (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

The sources are in the sections in question - just read the text that’s already there.—-Ermenrich (talk) 12:17, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I should also note that the section on appearance is in the "Origins" section. It's not just a general section on what the Huns looked like and was originally titled "Race".--Ermenrich (talk) 13:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

@ Oa0214: Your objection misses the point, as Hitler was not a historian, but – possibly apart from a chance hit – an exorbitant political failure. His ethnic views are generally rejected and therefore not favoured for referencing. However, I would not reject Ammianus' assessment of the Huns on the basis of non-negligible historical transmissions! Tympanus (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Ammianus’s views are already referenced in the article. The question is whether they need to be quoted verbatim.—Ermenrich (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

At best, I would quote Ammianus verbatim with another contemporary author who at least basically agrees with his depictions. Tympanus (talk) 10:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I think that the view regarding the failure of the Roman Empire caused by the Huns does seem relevant to bring up, not as a source of fact but as the view some people had in the pre WW2 era. Oa0214 (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

We are already reporting some of the general types of opinions people had in the past. What you are asking for is a specific focus upon the opinions of one person. But his opinions on this particular point on not (as far as I know) particularly influential or even very different from the opinions of other people in the past?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Exactly right, Andrew.—-Ermenrich (talk) 12:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Legacy of the Huns: Links to the Hungarians

Links to the Hungarians

This part of the entry needs to be updated and corrected. As it stands, it is shows a strong political influence (which is not history and not relevant) and quotes very dated material which ignores the scientific, archaeological, historical and genetic publications of the last 30 years.

Beginning in the High Middle Ages, Hungarian sources have claimed descent from or a close relationship between the Hungarians (Magyars) and the Huns.

This statement is true as far as written source material goes, but it should be remembered that most Hungarian heritage has been lost due to the Ottoman Empire’s destruction of buildings on a level not seen elsewhere in Europe. It is very likely that most medieval chronicles have been lost.

However, Lampert von Hersfeld reports on a “Sword of Attila” being donated to Otto, Duke of Bavaria in 1063 by Anastasia, widowed queen of Hungary, who subsequently withdrew to a monastery. It is generally accepted that this sword is the Vienna sabre, a typical 9^th-10^th C Magyar sabre. It is unlikely that Anastasia would have learned of Attila in Kiev, or in the convent, therefore the only place she might have heard of this sword being linked to Attila would logically be the Hungarian royal court.

Wiki goes on to say:

The claim appears to have first arisen in non-Hungarian sources and only gradually been taken up by the Hungarians themselves because of its negative connotations.

The question is ”negative connotations” to whom? Certainly not Hungarians. This claim is simply unproven and should be removed. It should be noted that there are no medieval Hungarian sources indicating any kind of disapproval of Attila and the Huns as ancestors or predecessors. It was very much taken as read in the whole country, whether based on folk stories or on written sources, until the 19th Century.

The Anonymous Gesta Hungarorum (after 1200) is the first Hungarian source to mention that the line of Árpádian kings were descendants of Attila, but he makes no claim that the Hungarian and Hun peoples are related.

It’s actually “Anonymus” and not the English form. In this work, Árpád repeatedly states that he is of the ”offspring of Attila”, and that his claim to the Carpathian Basin/Hungary is that it belonged to his ancestor, Attila, and therefore it is his inheritance.

These works were not written in a vacuum, the author had to have the approval of the king and the royal house. It should be noted that there was no objection to Master P.’s (Anonymus) work in the Royal Court of King Béla III, which there would certainly have been if the royal house had not had a native tradition relating to the Huns.

The first Hungarian author to claim that Hun and Hungarian peoples were related was Simon of Kéza in his Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum (1282–1285).

Correction: The first EXTANT source. Incidentally, the materials of the later Pictorial Chronicle are from earlier sources than either Anonymus or Kézai.

Simon claimed that the Huns and Hungarians were descended from two brothers, named Hunor and Magor. These claims gave the Hungarians an ancient pedigree and served to legitimize their conquest of Pannonia.

This was not his “claim”, it was common belief.  All Kézai did was record folk stories and the Royal House’s internal legends about their origins. Why would the Hungarians need an ancient ”pedigree” ? Also, given that they completed their cnquest of the Carpathian Basin by defeating the invading the East Franks at Pressburg in 907, why would they need to ”legitimise” their conquest more than 300 years later? And surely, if they wanted a ”pedigree” to impress Christendom, they should have linked themselves to some ”Christian” ruler, like Charlemage, not the hated Attila.

Incidentally, Thomas of Spalato, who wrote before Kézai, also made the connection between the Huns and Magyars. Also incidentally, the Hungarian form of the name was Etele, not Attila.

The mention of Hunor and Magor by Kézai is part of the retelling of an ancient Eurasian origin legend, in which two brothers (Hunor and Magor) chase a miraculous stag/hind, which leads them to a new country and where they find wives and settle down. Attila Mátéffy writes in a book dedicated to the Hungarian folklore and Shamanism expert, Mihály Hoppál, that:

When we analyse the whole chain of motifs, we realize, that the heroic tales and legends containing all the motifs are found in Central Eurasia, especially in the nomadic steppe region. These are the components of the original and most archaic motif sequence.

The Wiki section goes on:

Modern scholars largely dismiss these claims. Regarding the claimed Hunnish origins found in these chronicles, Jenő Szűcs writes:

The Hunnish origin of the Magyars is, of course, a fiction, just like the Trojan origin of the French or any of the other origo gentis theories fabricated at much the same time. The Magyars in fact originated from the Ugrian branch of the Finno-Ugrian peoples; in the course of their wanderings in the steppes of Eastern Europe they assimilated a variety of (especially Iranian and different Turkic) cultural and ethnic elements, but they had neither genetic nor historical links to the Huns.

Jenő Szűcs is certainly not a “modern scholar”, having died before the end of Communism. It should be noted for those not in the field, that studies of nomadic cultures have taken off since the fall of the Soviet Union and quoting dated material like this does no-one any good. It should, at the very least, be balanced with a more up-to-date version, representing the other view. There are many historians who do consider the Huns to be involved in Hungarian ethnogenesis, but not necessarily in an oversimplified manner. Some saw the very persistent legends of the Huns in Hungary as pointing to the Onogur Bulgars, or others to the Avars, or to a possible distant link with the actual Huns. Some examples of historians who perceive a link between the two peoples include:

Gyula Németh, Zoltán Gombocz, János Berze Nagy, Gyula László, Dezső Dümmerth, János Makkay, Mihály Hoppál and György Szabados, to name just a few.

This next bit is very serious and could be actual libel!

While the notion that the Hungarians are descended from the Huns has been rejected by mainstream scholarship … (false!) , the idea has continued to exert a relevant influence on Hungarian nationalism and national identity. A majority of the Hungarian aristocracy continued to ascribe to the Hunnic view into the early twentieth century. The Fascist Arrow Cross Party similarly referred to Hungary as Hunnia in its propaganda. The supposed Hunnic origins of the Hungarians also played a large role in the modern radical right-wing party Jobbik's ideology of Pan-Turanism.

This entire section is rubbish and says nothing of ethnography, musicology or historiography, therefore should be removed. It’s merely politics.

This very poor Wiki section goes on:

Members of the Hungarian right wing, with the support of the government of prime minister Viktor Orbán and academic institutions such as the Institute of Hungarian Research (Magyarságkutató Intézet, MKI), continue to promote Hungarian descent from the Huns.

This is modern political spin, and has nothing to do with the history or the actual legacy of the Huns, but rather daily politics. If this section claims to represent the legacy of the Huns in Hungary, then let it do that. I can help a lot with actual scholarship, but not ideological nonsense!

As for the MKI, I know many people who work there, and none of them claims either neo-Nazi ideology nor descent from the Huns. As this section could give rise to a libel suit, I suggest it be removed and replaced by actual Hunnic and Steppe heritage among Hungarians. Cavszabo (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:TLDR - but I notice an utter lack of sources and a potential WP:conflict of interest if you "know many people who work" at the MKI. The threat to sue is also laughable - let Orban and his cronies try.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

It is a talk page. During a chat, one does not need sources. You want sources? If I have time, I will give you plenty of sources. It seems you have a poltical angle to play, which is not scholarship. I realise this is only Wikipedia, and not a scholarly publication, but it does not reflect well on this section of it is politically inspired. Whatever your opinion of Hungary's PM, that can hardly be a reason to misrepresent a very old tradition!

Come on, be fair here!! Cavszabo (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

OK, then.

Here is what I will do. My own specific area of research is the 10th C Magyar military, but I have done some double-checking on the Hun-Magyar area and this section is, as I said, woefully inadequate and misleads the non-specialist reader. I will pick one paragraph and correct it with sources etc.

I normally use Chicago Style notes, I trust that will be in order.

I hope once the editor has seen that the last reference is from the Communist Era, which was a type of "directed" historiography, I expect that the section will be improved.

Watch this space! Cavszabo (talk) 09:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

You most certainly will not “correct” the page to say that the Hungarians are descended from the Huns, contrary to what all the reliable sources here say. That is a far-right conspiracy, essentially, as is indicated by the sources already cited. You cannot refer to the quotation of a single source - published well after the communist era, no matter the author - and then use that as a reason to disregard the scholarly consensus, which it continues to represent. Any attempt to alter the page according to this notion will be reverted, and I call upon everyone who watches this page to prevent any such changes @Andrew Lancaster, Austronesier, and Mann Mann:.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Cavszabo as this is clearly an issue where other editors are expressing strong concern I think it is a good idea to start with a small section for more concrete discussion, but I strongly recommend that you post the sources and changes here first on the talk page. In the end this type of sourcing discussion might need to move to a bigger forum such as WP:RSN. Concerning formatting style we typically try to follow the style being used in the article already, and there are a range of templates which have helped move most articles to a dominate citation style which nearly all articles use.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

What I am busy doing is taking two (really poor) paragraphs and working my way through them. I might finish today Sunday. I am ABSOLUTELY not claiming Hungarians are descended from the Huns, as a scholar that would be nonsense. It is necessary to separate the legends from history. However, myths are also part of the broader sweep of history, as is the Iliad to the Greeks, or King Arthur to the British. That doesn't make it history, but the chapter heading is "legacy". Funny how you accept Germanic legends as legacy, but not Hungarian ones. What's that?

AND, MOST IMPORTANTLY: I would appreciate if you stopped making the assumption that I am a "far right" anything. This makes your case very weak. The key problem here is the emic versus the etic view. You are holding an etic -- and let me add -- very strongly biased view.

I will be quoting sources for every statement and put it up here on Talk.

I don't expect a reasonable response from you all, of course. I am doing this "for the record" and for my own conscience. So in future if someone asks why the English Wiki is so outdated, I can say I tried! Cavszabo (talk) 11:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

OK, here is the correction of the first para in the legacy Links to Hungarians:

There is a very old tradition in Hungary linking the House of Árpád, to Attila, King of the Huns, and the Hungarian people to the Huns.  Balázs Sudár writes that the Hun tradition forms part of Hungarian self-image for ”a good many centuries, from 1200 at the latest.”^[1]  Historians generally agree that the legends about Attila and the Huns are very old, but are divided about whether these are based on Attila’s Huns or later Steppe peoples, for instance the Avars, as Szántó says.^[2] Dümmerth, however, considered the Danube Bulgars to be the source.^[3] Others, like Péter Kulcsár, are convinced the legends come from folk-memories within Hungary.[4] Early hints in the written record suggest this belief went back to the 11th Century or earlier. As Professor László Veszprémy puts it: ’The connection between Attila and the Hungarians can naturally be documented before the work of Anonymus.’^[5] One of the first written sources linking the Árpáds to Attila is the Chronicle of Lambert of Hersfeld, whose 1070 entry describes an event probably in 1063, in which, during an internecine conflict between Árpád royal claimants, King Salomon’s mother, Anastasia of Kiev, gave the ’Sword of Attila’ as a gift to Otto of Nordheim, at the time Duke of Bavaria.^[6]

The first surviviing Hungarian written source stating that Árpád was a descendant of Attila goes back to Anonymus, believed to have been the notary of King Béla III. (c.1282.) Anonymus, in his Gesta Hungarorum (Deeds of the Hungarians) states of Árpád, that he was of the clan of Magog, then Ügyek-Ügek and Álmos.^[7] These are clearly legendary and Biblical figures, except Álmos, who is historically attested.[8]

The importance of the Anonymus Gesta is not its historicity or otherwise, but, inter alia, one of the origin legends of the Árpáds, the legend of the Turul Bird, in which a raptor either makes Álmos mother pregnant, or merely appears to her, foretelling that from her loins ‘glorious kings would issue, but would not multiply in their homeland. (In Etelköz.)[9]

Later, Master Ákos or Simon of Kéza would share another legend, that of the miraculous stag.

----[1] Sudár, Bálazs. ’Az Árpádok, Attila és a dinasztikus hagyományok.’ Századok, 150 évf, 2. szám (150th Year, second editon,) A Magyar Történelmi Társulat folyóirata. (Centuries. Journal of the Hungarian Historical Society. Budapest, 2016), pp. 431-441.  https://matarka.hu/cikk_list.php?fusz=139473

[2] Szántó, Richárd. Mitosz es Tortenelem II. Vol. 1. (Europai Folklor Intezet – Magyar vallastudomanyi tarsasag, Budapest, 2022), p.91. It should be noted, however, that Szántó opines that many ’Avars’ were remnants of the Huns, and retained their oral history for some generations.

[3] Dümmerth, Dezső. Az Árpádok Nyomában.( Panoráma, Budapest, 1977),pp. 53-77.

[4] ItK. ‘Irodalomtörténeti Közlemények’, Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Irodalomtudományi intézetének folyóirata. 1-2. (1987-1988), (Institute for Literary Studies, Hungarian Academy of Sciences), pp. 523-544.

[5] Veszprémy, p.28. Indidentally, this statement does not mean Veszprémy believes in a Hun-Magyar historical connection, rather, he leaves the door open for that possibility, but is not convinced.

[6] Veszprémy László: ‘A magyarországi hun hagyomány legkorábbi írott forrásai és európai kapcsolatuk.’  Acta Universitatis Szegediensis: Acta Historica, (135). pp. 25-44. (2013). University of Szeged, 2017. https://acta.bibl.u-szeged.hu/30514/

[7] Anonymus. Gesta Hungarorum. Hungarian translation by Dezső Pais. Magyar Helikon, Budapest, 1977), pp.3, 5 a total of 24 mentions.

[8] Constantine Porphyrogenitus. De Administrando Imperio,(DAI) ,Ed. Gy Moravcsik. Trans. R.J.H.

Jenkins. (Harvard University, Washington D.C.,1985), p. 38.

[9] Anonymus, p.5.

There you go. Now you can go ahead and call me a "Fascist, Capitalist, Imperialist Running Dog!"

I wonder though, if you will take what I wrote and critique it line by line if you have any pretensions to scholarship, of which I have not seen evidence of so far.

Shall we say, I really doubt it. Cavszabo (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to remind you of our policy WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS - focus on content, not contributors.

On to your proposed edits. Balázs Sudár writes that the Hun tradition forms part of Hungarian self-image for ”a good many centuries, from 1200 at the latest.”[ Hungarians have been in Hungary since the 9th century - the article already talks about legends beginning in the 1200s. Stating that the legends go back to the 1200s is not the same thing as stating that they are true or that they go back to the 900s. I don't see any point in going through all of your citations - several of them predate the end of communism (which is odd considering you raised such a fuss about Szucz) and the others appear to not really be making a point different from what the article currently does. Why should we mention the Turul bird here - the genuineness of that tradition has zero connection to whether the Hungarians are descendants of the Huns. The fact that these texts and traditions exist is not at issue.

You only cite two recent scholars who seem to argue that the Huns and Hungarians "might be" connected. The first is Veszprémy, who is directly connected to the University of Szeged and the MKI, which the article already notes, citing reliable sources, are both in support of a far right ideology, pan-Turanism, that is actively promoted by the government of Viktor Orban. The other is Szántó, who is making a decidedly non-consensus argument in claiming that the Avars are remnants of the Huns and is still speaking in terms of broad possibilities. It speaks volumes about how "scientific" this theory is that even its most ardent supporters can only speak in terms of "possibilities." The fact that such people exist, and that they are part of an essentially political project, are both already mentioned in the article.---18:37, 11 May 2025 (UTC) Ermenrich (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Regardind the last sentence: "Members of the Hungarian right wing, with the support of the government of prime minister Viktor Orbán and academic institutions such as the Institute of Hungarian Research (Magyarságkutató Intézet, MKI), continue to promote Hungarian descent from the Huns." It is very hard to go inferior in intellectual level than the author formulating this sctence.

This compound statement obviously intentionally mixes concepts. The main point of the sentence that the MKI is a fake scientific institution. Just because he can link it to some political figure, who can be written in the same sentence as the expression "right wing".

The sentence also contains an explicit lie about the MKI is promoting "Hungarian descent from the Huns", while keeping obscure if he/she means the descent of most early hungarian peolpe, and which Huns group at which century is mentioned. Also, using the verb "promoting" is absolutely questionable.

What the MKI is doing is: 178.164.193.13 (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Continue: What the MKI is doing:

-It performs historic research how the communist elite kept its power for decades after 1990. That a main reason why the institute is dealt with hatred from this elite.

-It utilizes modern, scientifically hardly disputable genetic methods to answer disputed questions. As the post-communist elite is no longer in power to control, what kind of scientific investigation might be done on taxpayers money, they try to discredit the whole institution.

-The main reason why the institution had to be established is, that members of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences - an institution of the scientific elite filtered by dictatory tools in the communism - was expelling scholars with exceptional hatred, who dared to find scientific answers to the questions that the majority in the Academy did not want to be subject of real scientific research. At least not from taxpayers money, that is reserved for the old elite - they think.

If you do not understand, the story is as follows: In the late nineteenth century the linguistics found evidence to the Ugric origin of the Hungarian language. It opposed to the first written Hungarian text about the origin of the House of Arpad (the first kings). Also, this undisputable linguistic finding contradicted the shocking similarity of Hun warfare to Hungarian warfare. (Please compare this article with the Battle of Pressburg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pressburg) This contradiction was handled somehow, but after 1920, the division of Hungary, many "scholars" resolved this contradiction by projecting the intent of XX. century people seeking for nooble origin to the royal family. This idea would project this intent and claim that the kings of XIII. century Hungary desperately needed to legitimate their presence or "noble" origin. However, if you think about, why would they do so. They already let many of the daughters of the royal family married to western emperors. They continuously seek allies and two centuries earlier declared that they want to appear as a royal family capable to running a "European" style feudal state. They had only to loose if they would invent relating themself to Attila. Also, there is no such a motivation in terms of pride: The Huns invaded western Europe for shorter times - with the same military technology and strategy - than the Hungarians prior to establishing the feudal state. The reign of the Huns did not lasted even for a century. That time (~1200) the Hungarians successively maintained their power over the Carpathian basin for more than three centuries, the royal family already had five deceased members honored as saints. In a Christian Europe, why would you need this as desperately as a broken nation in 1920 after loosing half of its population. The state was unable to organize any census about how many people oppose the division, as our left wing was so kind to utilize this shock and turn the emerging chaos into two revolutions, the second one bringing bloody communist terror, and total lack of recognized diplomatic authority in peace negotiations. The post communist elite evades this two questions (census and diplomacy) as having any slight chance to keep at least a few cities in that time) up to current times and declares that Hungarians communist has nothing to do with the exact final amount of the loss of population and territory. They only state that keeping most of the territory and most of the population was impossible any way.

So back to the question, in the 1920's the linguistic scholars and fellows made the "very scientific" statement, that they had the scientific authority declare that the linguistic results themself must be considered to be applicable to the inheritance of any other attributes of the early people considered to be Hungarian by them, and that the chronicles are obviously invented (because the linguistic results can not be disputed within the field of linguistics), and the similarity of Hun and Hungarian lifestyle and warfare must be neglected in the following.

Even non scientific people could feel that this statement is a lie. As we know today, that the inheritance of genetics, language, lifestyle, culture, religion, political order and the elite is not strongly related. Especially not in the Steppe. And if you look, this average people had the scientific truth: Linguistic itself is not enough to answer these question, and the linguistic scholars made false claims about the applicability of their discipline to history also.

Both the communist and post-communist elite relates to this question hysterically, insist of the original, false scientific claim (about the applicability, not about the indisputable origin of the language) and expels any scholars who opposes it by hatred. Almost all the time they accuse such scholars to be either proponent of fascism (term used by them instead of national-socialism - because that is so discrediting to their favorite ideology of mass-murder) or - in less serious cases - only belong to the right wing. Their point is the one written in the article itself: As among the people rejecting a false scientific claim (linguistics indisputably overrides history and archeology) have been national-socialists, therefore anyone disputing the question surely has and has only national-socialist motivation, enough surely to be expelled from the community of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.

To see how wide spread was the resistance among average Hungarian people against the idea that all "national" heritage comes by the same lineage as our Language, and how emotional relations to the so known Hun origin of the Hungarians (the royal family stated that they had Hun lineages, did not claim that most of the people) was increasing, that the poet mostly honored during Hungarian Communism was named József Attila (Hungarian and Japanese name order), and his famous anecdote was that in the school, they did not believe that such a name exists. His mother was very poor, therefore he can be considered as growing up as a "proletarian".

So that anti-scientific emotionally driven tricks are condensed in the section of the article: Links to the Hungarians.

This elite attacks results of the MKI by making the false claim that the scholars at MKI state:

-Hungarians are descendants of the Huns governed by Attila.

But they scientific claims are even not close to that. This fact does not hold back the left-wing scholars to publish articles with this false claims, write wikipedia-sections and discredit anyone opposing the purely linguistics based version by the stamp of nazism or nationalism.

The MKI states: They found genetic connection between members of the royal family and certain individuals buried in west-china. They make the hypothesis that the the political control of Hungarian speaking ugric people was taken over by a small elite with strong Xiongnu connection. They have support it via investigating Y chromosomes - which is the one relevant in terms of political lineages. They propose (not "promote") that the similarity between Hun warfare and Hungarian warfare might be result of the same origin of their political elite. (as to overtake political control, you probably need better military technology, and also to be able to protect the new formation against anybody who do not like its birth) However, they do not claim that there is genetic evidence that the lineage of Attila has Xiongnu connection.

They do not try to invalidate any scientific claims about the origin of the Hungarian Language, they invalidate the false scientific claim that the linguistics-based lineage of a language necessarily depicts the full (political and genetical) history of the continuously changing set of people speaking that language.

The members of the MKI clearly state that the resolution of the original dispute is that language, culture, genetics of the people, genetics of the elite, warfare does not inherit on the same track. Please denote, that the question of resuolution and lose connection between the inheritance-lineages of things of different nature is far-avoided in the given section of this wiki-page. It is not a coincidence.

So that is why I repeat: The formation of the cited last sentence of the section is hard to replicate in terms of intellectual and moral depth. If the author claims herself/himself being a scholar, than it is even more inferior.

Please remove the last sentence from the article and reformulate the whole section according to the above.

Please remove any mention that opposing the verdict of linguistic scholars connects someone to the national-socialist party, or include a statement that the national-socialists only utilized the wave of this understandable public dispute, did not create it. It is just a coincidence, that this dispute correlates with the political agenda of national-socialism, the connection in time is also a coincidence, but the order in time clearly clarifies which is the cause and which is the consequence. The moral responsibility for this dispute lies at the linguistic scholars trying to prohibit the scholars of other disciplines to answer a question the linguistics determined to be answered by them. 178.164.193.13 (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Take about a WP:WALLOFTEXT. We have a source specifically saying that the Hungarian right wing government under Viktor Orban supports Hungarian descent from the Huns. The same source says that since the MKI (and other Hungarian government supported organizations) can't show Hunnish descent via actual DNA of Hungarians, who have more or the less the same genetics as other Central Europeans, they focus on the DNA of the Arpad dynasty. The same source notes that the MKI uses two languages: one for its actual peer-reviewed genetics publications and one for its pronouncements to the Hungarian public: guess in which one they trumpet Hungarian/Arpad descent from the Huns? We have other sources that show that Hunnish descent of the Hungarians is a generally rejected theory outside of Hungarian right-wing circles. The fact that you personally do not like this does not change the fact that that's the scholarly consensus.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2025 (UTC)