Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Origin of Atilla

Petian23Petian23 Senior MemberRegistered Users Posts: 185
edited April 2015 in Off Topic General
So im curious to know what ethnic group Atilla is from. Atilla the Great youtuber, claims that he is Turkish, but provides only biased commentary about it. And when confronted, calls anyone who disagrees with him to be "ignorant and stupid" including CA and the historian they hired. So if you're unbiased and know a little bit of their history please comment.

Thanks
Post edited by Petian23 on
«13

Comments

  • DaveypoohDaveypooh Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 158
    edited March 2015
    With regards to Attila the only thing we are sure of is... that we're not sure what ethnic group he was from.

    There will always be people who'll claim Attila was from their part of the world in an attempt to aggrandize themselves and their own history, just like some of the people who live in Italy today might like to claim descent from the Romans of ancient times, when in reality most of them probably have no actual descent from those people.
  • Sieggi858Sieggi858 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 527
    edited March 2015
    lol Nobody is 100% sure where attila was from, but he definately WAS NOT turkish, maybe turkic, but NOT TURKISH The only people that say that are people with more national pride than brain cells. In all honesty, it would probably be best to say he was just born on the steppes. We don't have concrete evidence of a specific place, but just saying "the steppes" is good enough.

    I seriously don't get it when people say he was turkish though. Although, I'm sure the turkish would have us believe everybody was a turk
    OS: Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
    Processor: AMD FX-6300 six-core processor 3.5ghz
    Ram: 8gb
    GPU: AMD Radeon R9 290x
    Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-78LMT-USB3
    Hoplites had swords but only the Spartans actually trained themselves in its use. The rest had it only as decoration.
  • Sgt. JohnyMcChickenSgt. JohnyMcChicken Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 405
    edited March 2015
    I can imagine what sources the youtuber is using..let me guess turkish ones?. They were either Hung-No a barbaric northern china tribe or indeed turk. As we have more evidence by chinese sources, which fought and won against those tribes, leading to their migration through the russian steppe and to the subjugation of the alans. Which then created the famous Hunnic raiding through europe, we can atleast know where they were coming from geographically. To claim they are definetely turks and using buyist sources is not really that convincing.
    There are quite a few of parts in turkish/osmanic history, were the turks have their own unique view on things(1914-1918), but that`s something you can say about any country, hence why using a wide variety of sources is important.
  • Petian23Petian23 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 185
    edited March 2015
    I can imagine what sources the youtuber is using..let me guess turkish ones?. They were either Hung-No a barbaric northern china tribe or indeed turk. As we have more evidence by chinese sources, which fought and won against those tribes, leading to their migration through the russian steppe and to the subjugation of the alans. Which then created the famous Hunnic raiding through europe, we can atleast know where they were coming from geographically. To claim they are definetely turks and using buyist sources is not really that convincing.
    lol yup the "turksih ones"
  • jonasneejonasnee Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,737
    edited March 2015
    i think most people would agree with that he is ural chinese or mongolian, the huns might afterwards have settled and migrated to turkey, the people there are a weird mixture of greek, steppe and assyrians anyways.
    put your actions where your mouth is.
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=TJpmII-kxuM
    Total war is best when it is kept simple and not overly complex
  • MautidatesMautidates Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 423
    edited March 2015
    Oh lord, historical stuff on youtube is mainly recepted and commented by biased supernationalistic damp rags.

    Turks cheer to Attila and Gengiz Khan for national pride.
    Germans cheering to Arminius, Alaric and Theoderic for national pride.
    Britts cheering their Budicea-Cult.
    Some very hardline Italians and Greeks roaming around Roman/Greek supremacy and claim to be some kind of master race...

    Dull, dull, dull

    Never tell them they are just an individual being of extraordinary mixed genes, ancestors and heritages and even 1500 years back in the time of the hun invasion, cultures and ethnicies were allready pretty mixed. Huns where just a big messy mix of different colors and creeds, Asians, Germanics, Sarmatians, Thracians, Slavs....eca. Even the brothers Attila and Bleda reflect this. Attila could be propably a turkic name, but Bleda is definetely east-germanic....weird eh? Could it be the cultural borders (and with it the names) disappeared inbetween the hunnic hordes? ;)

    Forget about it ppl can't deal with it, still claiming by that time every germanic being to where all tall and blonde, north africans being either 100% white or 100% black, lmao. How are they supposed to decide wether Old Atti was turkic or mongolian or germanic or maybe the devil himself?
    Team WRE
  • R3V0_76R3V0_76 Member Registered Users Posts: 30
    edited March 2015
    He is considered Turkish, even in Turkish history he's being presented as Turkish. Because in Turkish language, 'Turkish' and 'Turkic' means the same word.

    So yeah, for Turks he's Turkish, for the rest of the world he's Turkic. Atilla is Turkish as Irina Shayk is Turkish.
  • Sgt. JohnyMcChickenSgt. JohnyMcChicken Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 405
    edited March 2015
    Mautidates wrote: »
    Oh lord, historical stuff on youtube is mainly recepted and commented by biased supernationalistic damp rags.

    Turks cheer to Attila and Gengiz Khan for national pride.
    Germans cheering to Arminius, Alaric and Theoderic for national pride.
    Britts cheering their Budicea-Cult.
    Some very hardline Italians and Greeks roaming around Roman/Greek supremacy and claim to be some kind of master race...

    Dull, dull, dull

    No one in the right mind is cheering to arminius, alaric and theodoric in germany. National pride is a difficult subject for the germans. In my school time we never got teached anything like,"Arminius the liberator of germany" , actually something like this is more like " arminius that once germanic noble wanted to become germanic chief of the cheruskans and therefore betrayed his buddies in the legio, ****move".
    The problem however is that the turks are very nationalistic and confronted with a few darker parts of their history, they get mad. Attila the Great is only using russian and turkish sources , which gives his claims a buyist touch if his origin, wouldn`t be enough already.
  • ArilouArilou Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 632
    edited March 2015
    I seriously don't get it when people say he was turkish though. Although, I'm sure the turkish would have us believe everybody was a turk

    When people say that Attila was a turk they're not talking about modern-day Turkey, but rather about him being a turkish-speaking nomad from the steppes. (the steppes today, and since... some point, it's hard to tell) is largely turkish-speaking. Even mongol is an altaic language fairly closely related to turkish, and most other steppe groups (cumans, kipchaks, bulgars, tatars, avars, etc. spoke some kind of turkish language.

    The issue is that we know that earlier steppe peoples (scythians, sarmatians, etc.) spoke indo-iranian languages (related to modern-day persian, farsi, etc.) and we don't know exactly when the change happened, or how. (the huns is one of the possible points-of-divergence)

    What confuses stuff further is that when the huns show up in sources they have obviously had quite a bit of contact with both germanic and iranian-speaking steppe peoples.

    The problem is that we have very little evidence of hunnic languages, only three words are universally attested as being hunnic, and they are the type of words (drinks, food etc.) that tends to be "Borrowed" between languages often.

    What we know is that they didn't spoke gothic. (although gothic was spoken at the hunnic court)

    Whether or not the huns are to be identified with the Xiongnu (which is certainly possible) is a different matter, but regardless of whether or not they are the same as the Xiongnu, that doesen't say anything of whether or not they were turkish-speakers or not: We don't have much more information about the language the Xiongnu spoke than what we know of hunnic.
  • RynofitiumRynofitium Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 190
    edited March 2015
    Well, some folks just don't get the difference between words "Turkish" and "Turkic". Same with "German" and "Germanic". And so on.
  • Bolo101Bolo101 Member Registered Users Posts: 32
    edited March 2015
    He could have been half German for all we know even more German than original Hun due to marriage. He maybe even have dressed as a German and the Huns themselves may have been Germanised.
    There is argument that Attila derives from Gothic rather than a turkic language. Atta is Gothic for father. The dominant people in the area prior to Huns were Goths. Maybe the Huns were a semi assimilated upper class by Attila's birth. Similar to the Normans in that regard.
    Though the Huns were accompanied by turkic peoples, if you consider Bulgars turkic.
  • MautidatesMautidates Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 423
    edited March 2015
    @Sgt. Johnny...my post was related to Youtube plebs debating and commenting historical stuff there. ;)
    Team WRE
  • ArilouArilou Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 632
    edited March 2015
    Bolo101 wrote: »
    He could have been half German for all we know even more German than original Hun due to marriage. He maybe even have dressed as a German and the Huns themselves may have been Germanised.
    There is argument that Attila derives from Gothic rather than a turkic language. Atta is Gothic for father. The dominant people in the area prior to Huns were Goths. Maybe the Huns were a semi assimilated upper class by Attila's birth.

    This is another point: Ruling elites are often very different ethnically than their subject peoples due to frequent intermarriage, etc. (just to pick an example, the british royal family is almost entirely german)
  • Sgt. JohnyMcChickenSgt. JohnyMcChicken Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 405
    edited March 2015
    Mautidates wrote: »
    @Sgt. Johnny...my post was related to Youtube plebs debating and commenting historical stuff there. ;)

    Youtube is definetely a place for exchanging national pride, which possibly led to this youtube commentary in the first place. The problem however is that he is mainly using turkisch and russian sources and that there is not the variety of international sources to make this claims to "evidence" as it is called in his videos.
  • Tyer032392Tyer032392 Senior Member FloridaRegistered Users Posts: 4,784
    edited March 2015
    Mautidates wrote: »
    @Sgt. Johnny...my post was related to Youtube plebs debating and commenting historical stuff there. ;)

    Most of the "Youtube plebs" don't understand jack about history, and probably could not even tell you where Attila's family is from. Ironically enough, I think Attila would be more along the lines of Anatolian (ancient Turkic before the Turks became a faction), so in a sense they are right about his birth place, but I would assume Attila would of considered himself to be whatever his parents were.
    Ready for Three Kingdom's TW: I5-6600k, EVGA Geforce GTX 1070SC, 16Gigs RAM, WD Blue PC SSD @ 500GB
  • AgiondAgiond Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 18
    edited March 2015
    Tired of Turkish nationalism? Ask them about the battle of Lepanto or the siege of La Vallette. Tho get ready to be blocked or insulted to death.
  • Sgt. JohnyMcChickenSgt. JohnyMcChicken Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 405
    edited March 2015
    Tyer032392 wrote: »
    Most of the "Youtube plebs" don't understand jack about history, and probably could not even tell you where Attila's family is from. Ironically enough, I think Attila would be more along the lines of Anatolian (ancient Turkic before the Turks became a faction), so in a sense they are right about his birth place, but I would assume Attila would of considered himself to be whatever his parents were.

    It becomes a problem if those "plebs" make videos claiming "evidence", when the whole world isn't even sure where the huns came from to begin with.
  • AgiondAgiond Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 18
    edited March 2015
    It becomes a problem if those "plebs" make videos claiming "evidence", when the whole world isn't even sure where the huns came from to begin with.

    That doesn't matter. Tell a lie 1000 times and it will become a truth to them
  • Bolo101Bolo101 Member Registered Users Posts: 32
    edited March 2015
    Agiond wrote: »
    That doesn't matter. Tell a lie 1000 times and it will become a truth to them

    Deep.

    No one should read youtube comments, they are bad for your health.
  • seienchinseienchin Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,572
    edited March 2015
    Bolo101 wrote: »
    He could have been half German for all we know even more German than original Hun due to marriage. He maybe even have dressed as a German and the Huns themselves may have been Germanised.
    There is argument that Attila derives from Gothic rather than a turkic language. Atta is Gothic for father. The dominant people in the area prior to Huns were Goths. Maybe the Huns were a semi assimilated upper class by Attila's birth. Similar to the Normans in that regard.
    Though the Huns were accompanied by turkic peoples, if you consider Bulgars turkic.
    This is identical to what I read. Before Looking at this forum i never read that his Name is from a turk Language.

    Even if it was from a altaic Language his Name might also have been connected to modern Mongolin language, Which share a Language family with the turk languages.
    Anyway, for me he will always be just another rootless steppe warrior. Dont are of indogermanic, mongolish, sabir, turk or whatever.
  • Petian23Petian23 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 185
    edited March 2015
  • ArilouArilou Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 632
    edited March 2015
    Tyer032392 wrote: »
    Most of the "Youtube plebs" don't understand jack about history, and probably could not even tell you where Attila's family is from. Ironically enough, I think Attila would be more along the lines of Anatolian (ancient Turkic before the Turks became a faction), so in a sense they are right about his birth place, but I would assume Attila would of considered himself to be whatever his parents were.

    Why on earth would Attila be of anatolian descent? He's nowhere near Anatolia.
  • AkrotiriAkrotiri Senior Member Hellenic RepublicRegistered Users Posts: 873
    edited March 2015
    Hyelander wrote: »
    So im curious to know what ethnic group Atilla is from. Atilla the Great youtuber, claims that he is Turkish, but provides only biased commentary about it. And when confronted, calls anyone who disagrees with him to be "ignorant and stupid" including CA and the historian they hired. So if you're unbiased and know a little bit of their history please comment.

    Thanks

    Well he probably was of central asian stock which is what the majority of ethnic Turks are with the exception of the Kurds and Alevis who consist of 30% of the population of modern turkey. However the modern turkish language and even its predecessor language Ottoman Arabic was not spoken by Attila and we don't even know what language he did speak but it's hypothesized that he spoke an indo-Iranian one. Try not to get into discussions about anything with nationalistic undertones with some Turks because they tend to go to 0-60 quite quickly, trust me I live 5 nautical miles from Smyrna (Izmir) and some Turks have serious aggression towards non-turks.
    "Hence we will not say that Greeks fight like heroes, but that heroes fight like Greeks"
    -Winston Churchill , after the Greek victory against fascist Italy during WW2.
    explorechios.gr
  • AkrotiriAkrotiri Senior Member Hellenic RepublicRegistered Users Posts: 873
    edited March 2015
    Tyer032392 wrote: »
    Most of the "Youtube plebs" don't understand jack about history, and probably could not even tell you where Attila's family is from. Ironically enough, I think Attila would be more along the lines of Anatolian (ancient Turkic before the Turks became a faction), so in a sense they are right about his birth place, but I would assume Attila would of considered himself to be whatever his parents were.

    Your way off by a lot actually. Anatolia was populated by Greeks and Armenians from 750bcwell into moderns times and also in the archaic period by Persians too. There is no such thing as " ancient Turkic". Turks only recognized and organized themselves as a distinct ethnic group in the 1300s which obviously doesn't make them an ancient distinct people like Greeks, Armenians, Celts, Iranians, etc. Attila hailed from around the caspian sea area which would put him near Azerbejian.
    "Hence we will not say that Greeks fight like heroes, but that heroes fight like Greeks"
    -Winston Churchill , after the Greek victory against fascist Italy during WW2.
    explorechios.gr
  • ArilouArilou Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 632
    edited March 2015
    xiosisland wrote: »
    Your way off by a lot actually. Anatolia was populated by Greeks and Armenians from 500bc well into moderns times. Also in the archaic period Persians from 750bc to 200bc. There is no such thing as " ancient Turkic". Turks only recognized and organized themselves as a distinct ethnic group in the 1300s which obviously doesn't make them an ancient distinct people like Greeks, Armenians, Celts, Iranians, etc. Attila hailed from around the caspian sea area which would put him near Azerbejian.

    Err, no? They were turkic states in the steppes for hundreds of years before that, like the Gokturks.

    They didn't settle in Anatolia however until the very late 11th century (and not in any significant numbers until the 13th) But even the earliest anatolian turkish state was founded in the late 11th century, with the Rum sultanate. (which in turn broke off from the Great Seljuq Empire)

    The Ottomans didn't show up until after the mongol conquest in the 14th century, but they're relative latecomers: There was already a settlet turkish population and turkish states in Anatolia at the time.

    owever the modern turkish language and even its predecessor language Ottoman Arabic

    While Ottoman turkish is heavily influenced by arabic (and written in the arab script, as opposed to modern turkish) it's still a turkic language, and not descended from arabic at all.
  • PhaonixPhaonix Senior Member Georgia, USARegistered Users Posts: 1,297
    edited March 2015
    Bolo101 wrote: »
    Deep.

    No one should read youtube comments, they are bad for your health.
    Sad but true,
    On topic it is more likely that Attila was of mixed ancestry than any one ethnicity. Intermarriage was extremely common in this time, for example many leading Romans married Germanic spouses and vice versa, so it is quite likely that Attila's Huns were no exception to this norm. Additionally while the Huns origins as a whole is hotly debated, due to their migratory nature it is quite certain that they like every other major confederation were not a homogeneous group, so any argument over their ethnicity is pretty pointless
    "And you spoke of being an heir to the throne, did you not, mother? Vasusen needs no throne. He has his seat in the hearts of the common people. That is the best throne a man can ever look for. I need no other." Karna to his mother Kunti on the eve of the battle of Kurukshetra
  • Bolo101Bolo101 Member Registered Users Posts: 32
    edited March 2015
    I would like to point out that the commonly used portrait of attila from that monk, while not contempory, doesn't depict him as a "mongolian" steppe nomad. Neither do stained glass windows of his encounter with the pope.
    I think it is very easy to fall into the belief that he was some mongolian warlord because of common depictions,romanticism and the likening of him to a proto-Genghis khan, which i think is unfair to genghis considering attila was small fry to him.
    To me the descriptions of huns do not indicate someone who is east asian necessarily.
    The description of attila himself doesn't necessarily conform to an asian appearance.
  • AkrotiriAkrotiri Senior Member Hellenic RepublicRegistered Users Posts: 873
    edited March 2015
    Err, no? They were turkic states in the steppes for hundreds of years before that, like the Gokturks.

    They didn't settle in Anatolia however until the very late 11th century (and not in any significant numbers until the 13th) But even the earliest anatolian turkish state was founded in the late 11th century, with the Rum sultanate. (which in turn broke off from the Great Seljuq Empire)

    The Ottomans didn't show up until after the mongol conquest in the 14th century, but they're relative latecomers: There was already a settlet turkish population and turkish states in Anatolia at the time.




    While Ottoman turkish is heavily influenced by arabic (and written in the arab script, as opposed to modern turkish) it's still a turkic language, and not descended from arabic at all.

    Everything you said is completely wrong. They didn't call themselves the Gokturks, they had no identity at the time at all. Gokturks is a modern day term historians use to describe the wandering Turkic steppe tribes at the time in question.The Rum sultanate is what they called the Greeks after 1453, " Rum " literally means Roman and it's what Turks call Greeks and Italians to this day. Ottomans are/were Turks , how can you say they weren't? Ottoman was the first Turkish state / sultanate in fact. Ottoman Turkish was descended from Arabic because it used the Arabic script , their is no other explanation unless your using semantics. Yes Ottoman Turkish was Turkish but it was formed/ descended from Arabic, it's historical fact and there's nothing wrong with that.
    "Hence we will not say that Greeks fight like heroes, but that heroes fight like Greeks"
    -Winston Churchill , after the Greek victory against fascist Italy during WW2.
    explorechios.gr
  • Tyer032392Tyer032392 Senior Member FloridaRegistered Users Posts: 4,784
    edited March 2015
    Why on earth would Attila be of anatolian descent? He's nowhere near Anatolia.

    You do realize that Anatolia is the ancient name given to what is now modern day Turkey, right. And I never said that Attila was of Anatolian descent, I said it was possible that he might of been born there. There is a big difference between being born somewhere, and having been descend from a specific time.
    xiosisland wrote: »
    Your way off by a lot actually. Anatolia was populated by Greeks and Armenians from 750bcwell into moderns times and also in the archaic period by Persians too. There is no such thing as " ancient Turkic". Turks only recognized and organized themselves as a distinct ethnic group in the 1300s which obviously doesn't make them an ancient distinct people like Greeks, Armenians, Celts, Iranians, etc. Attila hailed from around the caspian sea area which would put him near Azerbejian.

    I was actually using Anatolia as a rough estimate at where Attila was born at, not actually being descended from any particular tribe.
    Ready for Three Kingdom's TW: I5-6600k, EVGA Geforce GTX 1070SC, 16Gigs RAM, WD Blue PC SSD @ 500GB
  • Bolo101Bolo101 Member Registered Users Posts: 32
    edited March 2015
    xiosisland wrote: »
    Everything you said is completely wrong. They didn't call themselves the Gokturks, they had no identity at the time at all. Gokturks is a modern day term historians use to describe the wandering Turkic steppe tribes at the time in question.The Rum sultanate is what they called the Greeks after 1453, " Rum " literally means Roman and it's what Turks call Greeks and Italians to this day. Ottomans are/were Turks , how can you say they weren't? Ottoman was the first Turkish state / sultanate in fact. Ottoman Turkish was descended from Arabic because it used the Arabic script , their is no other explanation unless your using semantics. Yes Ottoman Turkish was Turkish but it was formed/ descended from Arabic, it's historical fact and there's nothing wrong with that.

    I don't think you read what he typed, he didn't say ottomans weren't turkish. Also we call the turkish state formed in anatolia eventually after manzikert the sultanate of Rum.

    Ottomans are the first turkish state by the modern definition of a state, but there were turkish dominions in anatolia from manzikert onwards.
Sign In or Register to comment.