The Huns and the Parthians

Nov 2018
82
Russian Federation
#61
meanwhile, Battle of Ongal (Summer, 680) where descendants of Huns, Bulgars, renewed Parthian success:
Commanders and leaders: Asparukh, Strength around 10-12,000; Constantine IV, Strength from 15 - 25,000 up to: 50,000


in 680 the Byzantines defeated the Arabs and concluded a peace treaty. After this success the emperor Constantine IV was free to move against the Bulgars and led an army against Asparuh.
...
"The infantry moved in battle lines towards the so called Onglos at the Danube and the fleet was ordered to anchor nearby. The Bulgars, seeing the dense and numerous lines, became desperate, fled in the aforementioned fortification and prepared themselves for defence. In the next 3-4 days nobody of them dared to show up and the Romans did not seek a battle because of the swamps. The filthy people, seeing the Roman weakness, recovered themselves and became bolder. The emperor suffered from a fit of gout and had to return to Messembria to take baths, leaving his generals to start the fighting and to engage them in a battle if they leave their fortifications. Otherwise, to put them under siege and to check their advances. The cavalry, however, spread the rumour that the emperor was deserting them, and fled on their own, without being chased by anybody. The Bulgars, seeing this, attacked and chased them and killed most of them by swords, and many were wounded. And after chasing them up to the Danube, they crossed it."


After the victory, the Bulgars advanced south and seized the lands to the north of Stara Planina. In 681 they invaded Thracedefeating the Byzantines again. Constantine IV found himself in a dead-lock and asked for peace. With the treaty of 681 the Byzantines recognised the creation of the new Bulgarian state and were obliged to pay annual tribute to the Bulgarian rulers, which was greatly humiliating for the empire which managed to defeat the Sassanid Persians and the Ummayads.
Battle of Ongal - Wikipedia
 
#62
So, let's get this straight. You quote the notoriously fallible and novice wikipedia as a source when you think it supports your ideas, but when Aetius actually sends you an abtract from a professional academic article produced by a team of geneticists, you dismiss it as an 'opinion'? That is ludicrous.

As Aetius has said, the linked document is just the abstract, not the full article, and thus it does not contain the specific figure that Aetius is quoting. But even so, he has referenced an academic study, not wikipedia, and the abstract demonstrates that Aetius is not pulling this out of thin air. To quote just three sentences from it: "Recently, we analyzed three samples of Hunnu from Barköl, Xinjiang, China, and determined Q-M3 haplogroup. Therefore, most Y chromosomes of the Hunnu samples examined by multiple studies are belonging to the Q haplogroup. Q-M3 is mostly found in Yeniseian and American Indian peoples, suggesting that Hunnu should be in the Yeniseian family."

Your defence was this:

"by your link: " The ethno-linguistic affiliation of the Hunnu is controversial among Yeniseian, Altaic, Uralic, and Indo-European. Ancient DNA analyses on the remains of the Hunnu people had shown some clues to this problem. Y chromosome haplogroups of Hunnu remains included Q-M242, N-Tat, C-M130, and R1a1. "
it is clear in the mixed group, Scythian/Iranian culture prevailed. religion, burial ceremony, language, military tradition. i suggest iranian warchief with squad came and organised eniseians into invincible horde

Aetius has already responded to this argument, but I would also like to point out that you are quoting not the findings of the study but the set-up. The geneticists are telling you that, at the time they undertook the study, the ethno-linguistic affiliation of the Hunnu was a matter of debate. What they then go on to say is that they have found evidence that the Hunnu are in the Yeniseian family. They are establishing what the problem/question is so that they can present their answer to said question.

Aetius also linked you to the following article, which you didn't acknowledge: "They also spoke Yeniseian as proven by a 5th century AD Jin transcription of a 2nd century BC Jie folk poem: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41928223"

If your answer to all this continues to be "unsupported opinion", then clearly you are not willing to engage honestly with the evidence and arguments, and no-one should take you seriously.
 
Nov 2018
82
Russian Federation
#67
still silence from Aetius about DNA.
well known that Huns, Sarmatians, Turks, Mongols used Scythian warfare tactics. only this enough to understand
Scythian Warfare


According to Herodotus the Scythians were ruthless and nearly invincible warriors who made cloaks from their victims scalps and drank from their skulls and sacrificed one out of every hundred prisoner of war. Wealthy Scythians reportedly gilded the insides of the skulls of their enemies and used them as drinking cups.

Scythians are credited with creating the first truly effective cavalry and employing tactics described as an ancient version of the blitzkrieg. They attacked their enemies on horseback and cut down their enemies with weapons mentioned below. They were difficult to fight against because moved swiftly on horseback. The nomadic ways made them difficult to attack and even find. There is also archeological evidence that the Scythians participated in battles and may have even lead charges.

The Scythians and their cousins the Sarmatians were the earliest recorded group of steppe warriors. In a review of Erik Hildinger's “Warriors of the Steppe”, Christopher Berg wrote: “Herodotus first made the “distinction between the Western and steppe ways of warfare." Their style of war was simple but effective: they never engaged the enemy preferring to remain just out of harm's way, and, feigning retreat, drew their foe unwittingly into an ambush. Hildinger notes, “Steppe warfare at its purest is one of travel across great distance, missile warfare and, if it is advantageous, strategic retreat before the enemy until attrition, exhaustion or isolation have made his defeat inevitable." The example of Crassus’ defeat at Carrhae illustrates the effectiveness of feigned retreats and the ability to neutralize opponents from a distance. Another tactic employed by other Barbarian tribes in Eastern Europe was encircling the enemy. Feigned retreats, drawing the enemy out, encirclement, and horse archers would be employed time and again by all steppe cultures with devastating effect. [Sources: “Warriors of the Steppe: A Military History of Central Asia 500BC to 1700AD” by Erik Hildinger (Da Capo Press, 1997); Christopher Berg, Sam Houston State University deremilitari.org
 
Last edited:
Feb 2017
418
Rock Hill, South Carolina
#68
That's the abstract, I had a physical copy of the paper but I'd have to get it through the library system again.

As for "Scythian Warfare" you do know that those descriptions are giant stereotypes, right? Methods of warfare are not an argument for ethnolinguistic affiliation. By that logic then 1700's Plains native Americans, Cossacks, and like myriad other peoples would be "Scythians."
 
Last edited:
Nov 2018
82
Russian Federation
#70
That's the abstract, I had a physical copy of the paper but I'd have to get it through the library system again.

As for "Scythian Warfare" you do know that those descriptions are giant stereotypes, right? Methods of warfare are not an argument for ethnolinguistic affiliation. By that logic then 1700's Plains native Americans, Cossacks, and like myriad other peoples would be "Scythians."
i don't believe a liberal saying "i had a physical copy".

cossacks indeed scythians, less reason talk same about american continent.
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions