THE HUNS

(250 - 822 CE)

 

BLUE HUNS

Xionites (250 - 500 CE)

Alxono (Bactrian), Xiyon or Hiyon (Middle Persian), Xianyun (Latinized Pinyin Chinese),

Xionitai (Greek), Chionitae (Latin), Huna (Sanskrit)

Yueban (160 - 490 CE)

Varkhonites/Avars (500 - 822 CE)

Awar (Avaric), Apar (Old Turkic), Abaroi (Greek)

 

RED HUNS

Karmir-Xiyon (Middle Persian), Huna (Sanskrit), Hua (Latinized Pinyin Chinese),

Ermexiones (Greek), Kermichiones (Latin)
Kidarites (335 - 480 CE)

Kidara (Bactrian)

Alxonites (480 - 670 CE)

Alxono (Bactrian)

Nezaks/Nizaks (484 - 665 CE)

Nezak (Middle Persian)

 

WHITE HUNS

Hephthalites (442 - 705 CE)

Ebadolo (Bactrian), Speta-Xiyon or Haytal (Middle Persian), Sveta Huna or Turushka (Sanskrit),

Ephthalitai (Greek), Hephthalites (Latin), Yeda/Yada (Latinized Pinyin Chinese)

 

BLACK HUNS

Northern Huns (300 - 432 CE)

Hunnic Empire (432 - 469 CE)

Kutrigurs, Utigurs, Onogurs/Ogurs, and Saragurs (469 - 630 CE)

Hunni (Latin), Hunnoi (Greek)

Sabirs (463 - 630 CE)

Sabiroi (Greek), Savir (Latin), Sawar (Middle Persian), Suar (Oghur-Turkic)

 

Ironically, the Huns are simultaneously well known and little understood—they are perhaps second only to the Mongols in the western imagination as exemplars of a Eurasian steppe nomad society, but their origins, ethnic makeup, and society have long been the subject of speculation and debate. The Roman historian Publius Cornelius Tacitus (56-117 CE) traced their origins to Central Asia in the first century CE, but then they do not appear in the historical record again until the mid-fourth century CE, when one group crossed the Ural River and migrated into Europe, and another crossed the Jaxartes River and migrated into Transoxania. It was once thought that the various exonyms (see above) applied to the Huns were all referring to the same group—Mongolic Xiongnu that had been driven from Mongolia in two waves (after being defeated by the Han Dynasty of China in 89 CE, and after being defeated by the Xianbei in 155 CE). These migrants were then believed to have inhabited the Kazakh steppe for 200 years before re-emerging into the historical record with a new name—Huns. These Hunnic Xiongnu were believed to have remained ethnically distinct from the peoples they conquered (or destroyed or displaced), and when they finally fell, they were in turn destroyed and/or displaced by their former subjects and by the Turks. Opinion was divided on the socio-political organization of the Huns—it was believed that the Huns that had invaded Europe maintained a vast empire that stretched from southern Germany in the west to western Mongolia in the east, and that the eastern groups that had invaded Transoxania, northeastern Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and northern India were offshoots or imitators of the main horde. However, the fact that period sources described the different branches of the Huns as having different physical characteristics (even before the eastern group moved south of the Jaxartes) long plagued these early theories—the eastern groups (the Xionites, Kidarites, Alxonites, Nezaks, and Hephthalites) were regularly described in period sources (Middle Persian, Sanskrit, and Classical Chinese) as having a Caucasoid/Europoid appearance (i.e., light-colored skin, blue eyes, and fair hair), and the coins struck by their rulers after they established themselves in the lands of the Persians, Kushans, and Indians largely portrayed them as Iranian monarchs; while the western groups that invaded Europe were described in period sources (Latin and Greek) as having purely Asiatic features (bronze-colored skin, dark hair, and dark eyes with epicanthic folds), although they struck no coins to provide us with images of how they saw themselves. To add to the confusion, archeological studies of skeletons (and the images on the coins of the eastern groups) showed that both groups practiced cranial deformation by head binding of infants—to produce an elongated skull—a practice normally associated with the Aryan steppe nomads the Huns were believed to have displaced, destroyed, and/or supplanted on the Eurasian steppe (e.g., the Massagetae, Thyssagetae, Dahae, Kushans, Wusun, Saka, Bactrians, Alans, and Sarmatians). Modern genetic studies, coupled with a more complete synthesis of the historical, archeological, and linguistic evidence, have led most modern scholars to view the ethnogenesis of the Huns as a more complex process of social aggregation that occured in what is today Kazkahstan, but it also links the ethnogenesis of the Huns with that of the Turkic peoples of Central Asia (i.e., the Huns are now largely considered to be an intermediary stage in the ethnogenesis of the Turks). This period of ehtnogenesis did indeed involve a series of migrations made by the Xiongnu out of Mongolia into various parts of Kazakhstan (ca. 89-160 CE), but it also involved a series of migrations made by Samoyedic peoples (the Dingling) out of southern Siberia into western Mongolia and northern Kazakhstan (ca. 100 BCE-400 CE). Prior to the arrival the Mongolic Xiongnu and Samoyedic Dingling peoples, the ethnic makeup of Central Asia was primarily Aryan—Massagetae and Thyssagetae in the west, Iranians in the south (Dahae, Bactrians, and Sogdians), and Kushans and Saka in the southeast—although the Uar peoples that lived in northern Kazakhstan are believed to have been Ugrians (related to the modern-day Khanty and Mansi ethnic groups of southwestern Siberia), and eastern Kazakhstan seems to have had some Tokharian groups (related to the Tibetans). There is no evidence that any of these groups were destroyed or displaced by the Xiongnu or Dingling as they migrated into Kazakhstan, and indeed neither group of migrants appears to have been numerous enough to have supplanted the groups that were already there (supplemented, not supplanted). However, different groups of Xiongnu and Dingling migrated into different areas of the Kazakh steppe and assimilated with different indigenous groups, while each of the resulting subgroups continued to influence each other, so that what we see emerge by the third century CE is two large Hunnic groups on the Kazakh steppe that shared some broad features of culture and language, although each subgroup also had its own unique characteristics (both groups were internally divided into various tribal socio-political units called hordes). Therefore, it is generally accepted today that the Huns were probably not a distinct ethnic group unto themselves—it has been suggested in recent years that the name, "Huns," developed a kind of cultural caché by the third, fourth, and fifth centuries CE (i.e., it became a byword for "savage steppe nomads"), used by the steppe nomads because it struck fear into their enemies, and used by their enemies as hyperbole to explain their defeats at the hands of the nomads or to increase the glory of their victories over them. Certainly, the groups that are identified as Huns in ancient annals and histories seem to have arisen during a period when the ethnic makeup of Central Asia was in flux, and they present us with a fascinating and complex historiographical knot, seemingly being a kind of "missing link" that bridges the gap between the period of Aryan dominance on the Eurasian steppes (ca. 3000 BCE-550 CE) and the Turko-Mongol period (ca. 300 CE-today). If my use of the term, "Aryan," offends you or piques your curiosity, please use the button at the bottom of this page to go to an essay regarding my use of the term on this website.

 

Later Turkic and Mongolic groups often associated colors with cosmological concepts, cardinal directions, and/or political divisions, and this practice seems to have had its roots in the Hunnic period. Among the Huns, black was associated with the north, blue with the east, red with the south, and white with the west (keep in mind that later Turkic and Mongolic groups sometimes used these color correspondences differently). It was common for these nomad groups to divide their territories into two, three, or four regions corresponding to the cardinal directions, each with its own horde (i.e., socio-political unit and army division), and to identify each regional horde with a corresponding color (e.g., a northern region would have a black horde and a southern region a red horde). In the case of the Huns, we have some evidence that the Xionites (discussed below) may have divided their territoritories in this manner after their advent in Transoxania-Ferghana and Bactria, although different sources claim they had two divisions (north-south) or four divisions (all four cardinal directions), and we only have specific evidence for two such divisions—the Kidarites were sometimes referred to collectively as the Karmir-Xiyon ("Red/Southern Xionites"), and the Hephthalites were sometimes referred to as the Speta-Xiyon ("White/Western Xionites") or Sveta Huna ("White/Western Huns"). I would like to suggest a speculative, although I think useful, system for conceptualizing the Huns during their period of ethnogenesis that is in part based on these known divisions and their color correspondences. The Hunnic group that arose in northern Kazakhstan (ca. 100 BCE-370 CE) seems to have been composed of Xiongnu, Dingling, and Ugrian sub-groups, and after they crossed the Volga River into eastern Europe (ca. 370 CE) they seem also to have absorbed elements of the Alans (see my Western Aryan Nomads gallery). I would identify this group as the Black/Northern Huns. The Hunnic group that arose in eastern Kazakhstan during this same period (ca. 100 BCE-250 CE) seems to have been composed of Xiongnu, Dingling, Ugrian, and Tokharian groups, and after some of them migrated southwards into Transoxania-Ferghana (i.e., the Xionites)(ca. 250-300 CE), they absorbed the peoples of the Iranian city-states there (a mix of Kushans, Saka, Bactrians, and Sogdians), while the tribes that remained in the Zhetysu region of eastern Kazakhstan formed the Yueban horde (160-490 CE) and later absorbed the Wusun (see my Eastern Aryan Nomads gallery) as the Wusun migrated into the Zhetysu region from western China (ca. 402-436 CE). I would identify both of these groups (Xionites and Yueban) as Blue/Eastern Huns. Soon after the Xionites arrived in Transoxania (ca. 335-484 CE), a Xionite horde crossed the Oxus River into northern Afghanistan (Bactria), and eventually continued into Pakistan (Gandhara, Jammu, Kashmir, Punjab, and Sindh), western India (Gujarat), and northern India (Madhya Pradesh and Malwa)—fittingly, the Persians referred to this group as the Karmir-Xiyon (Middle Persian, "Red Xionites"). I would identify these groups as the Red/Southern Huns. Between about 442 and 467 CE, the Xionites in Transoxania-Ferghana were either conquered from without or overthrown from within, leading to the rapid expansion of a new Hunnic hegemony throughout southern Central Asia (Dahistan, Khwarazmia, Transoxania-Ferghana, and Bactria), eastern Kazakhstan (by conquering the Yueban state), and the Tarim Basin in southwestern China (Xiyu). The name, Xionite, disappears from historical records at this time, to be replaced with Hephthalite ("Imperial Huns"), although the Persians referred to them as the Speta-Xiyon ("White Xionites") to differentiate them from the Karmir-Xiyon (i.e., at that time, the Hephthalites lived to the west of the Red Huns)(Sanskrit writers also differentiated the Hephthalites from the earlier hordes of the Huns that had invaded India by calling the Hephthalites Sveta Huna, "White Huns"). I would identify this imperial horde as the White/Western Huns.

 

Militarily, the success of the Hunnic hordes seems at least in part to have been due to technological innovations. The Hunnic bow, in particular, was credited by virtually everyone they fought as being superior to any bows that had been in use up until the third century CE on the Eurasian landmass. The Huns used a composite/laminated recurved bow that was short (and thus easy to use from horseback), had a relatively short draw (making it easy to loose arrows in quick succession), and was powerful enough to penetrate relatively thick armor (despite the fact that bone, stone, and antler remained the primary materials from which arrowheads were made). Composite/laminated bows were already in widespread use (i.e., bows constructed of multiple laths of wood, horn, and animal sinew laminated together), including bows with stiff unbending tips (siyah or kasan) made of horn or antler, and recurved bows (where the tips curve away from the archer) were also in widespread use. But the Huns are credited with adding stiffened laths to the grip of the bow. This might seem like a minor innovation, but a stiffened grip allowed archers using such a bow to maintain greater stability—and thus accuracy—and it increased the power of the draw, since only the stretch of the arms between grip and tip were flexible, creating a more efficient transfer of kinetic energy (i.e., energy was not wasted via dissipation through movement of the grip). In addition, it is believed that stirrups were developed in southern Central Asia during the Sassanid-Hunnic Wars (fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries CE), a practice that ultimately spread across the Eurasian steppes to China (via the Hephthalites) and Europe (via the Avars), and into India (via the Red Huns) and western Asia (via the Persians). These were initially made of wood, and later of metal. Stirrups allowed a mounted archer—and the Huns specialized in horse archery—to rise from his seat atop the horse into a squating position above the horse, which allowed him to use his legs like shock-absorbers so that he could remain in a relatively stable position while loosing arrows, regardless of the gait of the horse.

 

As mentioned above, one of the things that has made many historians question whether the northern and eastern groups of the Huns were in any way related (ethnically or culturally) is the fact that period sources often describe them in very different terms. This is not only true of their physical characteristics, but of their clothing, accoutrements, and military equipment. Generally, the northern Huns were described by Greek and Latin writers in Europe as primitive barbarians, uncouth and alien, and the portrayal of how they fought leaves a reader with the sense that they were tactically unsophisticated, their hordes a large undifferentiated mass of horse archers, and that they relied on ferocity and guile. Unfortunately, the Black Huns—as I've defined them—left an unedifying archeological and linguistic record that makes it difficult to dispel this prejudicial view. Although the Blue Huns—as I've defined them—and their offshoots were also generally described by Persian and Indian writers as savage barbarians, Classical Chinese writers tended to have a more balanced approach (they traded with the Huns, exchanged ambassadors with their leaders, and perhaps most importantly never actually had to suffer from their depredations, and so they managed to remain more objective, even if there was still an element of social snobbery). The Blue, Red, and White Huns also left more and better clues about themselves (e.g., images of rulers on coinage, wall paintings, and decorated accoutrements). However, my conclusions, drawn from an examination of the available evidence, is that the differences between the Black/Northern Huns and the Blue/Eastern Huns (and their Red and White offshoots) is superficial, and there is no evidence they had different military systems (i.e., the eastern Huns and their offshoots do not seem to have adopted Aryan-style lancers or Iranian cataphracts, except as auxiliaries). Both groups (northern and eastern) started out as pastoral horse-herding nomads with very similar constituent ethnic groups (regardless of the ethnicity of the ruling clan), and even among those groups that conquered urban and agrarian civilizations, a portion of their population always seems to have retained at least a semi-nomadic lifestyle (Transoxania was an alluvial plain, Bactria and Ferghana were semi-arid grassland plateaux, and the regions in Pakistan and India occupied by the Huns were mostly alluvial plains and steppes adjacent to the Thar Desert, all of which allowed for the maintenance of horse herds). It is true that only the eastern groups settled down to rule over urban and agrarian populations for any length of time—the Black/Northern Huns conquered a number of relatively unsophisticated agro-pastoralist tribal kingdoms (the Germanic kingdoms), ultimately failed to conquer the relatively sophisticated urban and agrarian Romans, and had a very short-lived empire (37 years), whereas the Xionite-Hephthalite state ruled a sophisticated urban and agrarian population for 518 years, and the various Red Hun states ruled in Pakistan and India for 300 years—but I maintain that while the elites of the eastern and southern Hunnic conquerers may have been able to adopt finer clothing (silk and cotton) and to expand and refine their military panoply; while their leaders may have married into the Persian, Kushan, and Indian noble classes and adopted their manners; and while those leaders may even have chosen to portray themselves as Iranian emperors; it was still the military system of the Hunnic conquerers that had a greater impact on the military systems of their subjects and enemies, and that system was fundamentally the same as that of the northern Hunnic peoples. 

 

One commonality between all the Hunnic groups is that their hordes would have been composed mostly of horse archers. These were generally lightly armored or unarmored bowmen on unarmored horses that carried a spear, sword, and dagger for close combat (whips and lassos are also mentioned in the sources). They fought in a skirmishing mode, making a series of attacks and retreats, all the while loosing arrows at their opponents to wear them down through a slow drain of casualties and frustration at not being able to come to grips with their tormentors. Frustration could lead to failures in discipline—individuals or groups breaking ranks to flee or attack without support—and these failures could be exploited. Outside the noble class, armor would have been rare—some of the better-equipped horse archers may have had a lamellar vest, sometimes supplemented with lamellar shoulder pieces, and a light helmet (one-piece pot or lamellar cap). After the Black/Northern Huns came into contact with the Germanic peoples (ca. 370-400 CE), and after the Blue/Eastern Huns came into contact with the peoples of Transoxania-Ferghana (ca. 250-300 CE), use of mail and composite helmets proliferated, due to the seizure of booty and the subjugation of craftsmen among the subject peoples. The spear/lance was short, capable of being thrust or thrown, and wielded single-handed. The Hunnic sword appears to have been similar to the Sassanian model—long (three-foot blade length) and straight-bladed, with dual parallel cutting edges and a sharply tapered point (sabres were invented by the Turks in southern Siberia in the sixth century, but did not appear across the steppes until the eighth century). The Hunnic fighting dagger is believed to have been the precursor of the later Germanic longseax—a single-edged, straight-bladed knife (up to 2 feet in blade length). The Black/Northern Huns were described by Latin writers like Ammianus Marcellinus as fighting in wedges (Latin, cuneus), although he goes on to make it clear that these were not tightly ordered formations like the Roman cuneus, but freewheeling swarms. Modern historians have interpreted this to mean that the Huns likely fought in tribal groups (i.e., to Roman eyewitnesses, the closest military formation they could think of was a cuneus, since it wasn't a long straight battle line), and since the Huns have started to be recognized as being an intermediate stage in the ethnogenesis of the Turks, these fighting tribal groups have been equated to the Turkic horde (see button at the bottom of this page). Each horde would have included all the available fighters from a given tribe, which means each horde probably varied in size and composition, and each horde would have been commanded by the chief. Clothing for the average Hunnic warrior seems to have been a long-sleeved linen shirt that extended down to mid-thigh, and baggy trousers tucked into boots that extended halfway up the calves. In inclement weather, a kaftan-like coat and hat were added, both usually made from rodent pelt—rat, squirrel, beaver, rabbit, and/or hare (although modern taxonomists place rabbits and hares in a separate family, in the ancient world they were considered rodents). Cloaks could also be worn in cold weather, and these seem to have consisted of bear, wolf, or bison pelts.

 

The panoply of noble warriors could be much more extensive—the lamellar vest sometimes being supplemented with a lamellar neck-guard, lamellar pieces for the upper arms and forearms (usually joined by a padded leather cap for the elbow), and long lamellar skirts (one for each side) intended to protect the entirety of each leg (i.e., from hip to ankle) while riding. Lamellar consisted of a series of small rectangular plaques (lamellae) sewn in overlapping rows onto a leather backing. Lamellae would most often have been made from hardened leather or horn, although chiefs, kings, and some of the wealthier nobles would have had bronze or iron lamellae (after contact with the Persians and Indians, steel lamellae also came into use). As with the commoners, the mounts of the nobles were probably mostly unarmored, but horse armor is sometimes depicted and described by period sources (quilted felt or lamellar barding). As mentioned above, it seems that most Hunnic chieftains/kings and nobles fought alongside their horde as horse archers, but there is some evidence that after the Black/Northern Huns came into contact with the Germanic peoples, the concept of the elite fighting unit of a leader (Latin, comitatus, Gothic, gefolge) as a separate company may have taken hold (they probably still fought as horse archers, although they may have formed distinct companies of elites that may also have developed an ethos that made them more eager to lead the charge into close combat when it was believed to be tactically expedient). We also know that at least the kings of the Blue/Eastern Huns and their offshoots liked to portray themselves as Iranian kings/emperors, and the Iranian peoples sharply divided their cavalry between noble armored lancers and commoner unarmored horse archers, and this probably influenced the eastern Hunnic elites, although like the Black/Northern Hunnic elites this only seems to have extended so far as forming separate elite retinues, not changing their tactical stance (i.e., they would still have been horse archers). The overwhelming preponderance of evidence in the east was that the Huns did not develop anything like the high-caste lancers or cataphracts of the Aryan/Iranian peoples. Rather, there seems to have been a shift in Aryan/Iranian practice away from this sharp division between lancers/cataphracts and horse archers to a model that most modern military historians refer to as composite cavalry (see button at the bottom of this page), and this was likely due to the influence of the Huns. Composite cavalrymen were basically heavily armored horse archers, but due to their more extensive panoply, larger array of close-combat weaponry, and military doctrine or warrior ethos, they were better prepared and willing to charge into close combat when it was deemd tactically expedient. The Huns are almost always described as fighting as cavalrymen, although they seem to have been comfortable with fighting on foot when the terrain didn't suit cavalry, or in sieges. In these instances, they seem to have fought primarily as bowmen, although they were of course also well-equipped to fight in close combat if necessary.

 

The Black/Northern Huns and their counterparts in the east (Blue, Red, White) would also have had a different array of auxiliaries drawn from subject peoples and allies. For the Black/Northern Huns, this would have included Aryan lancers and horse archers after contact with the Alans (ca. 370-469 CE); and East Germanic noble retinues (mounted and infantry) and tribal warbands (infantry) after contact with the Goths, Gepids, Scirians, Rugians, and Burgundians (ca. 370-558 CE). The Xionites would have had access to Sogdian lancers (chakars) and urban infantry militiamen (mostly bowmen, although probably also some spearmen) after they moved into Transoxania-Ferghana (ca. 250-500 CE), and after the Hephthalites came to power and expanded throughout southern Central Asia, the Tarim Basin city states would have provided similar auxiliaries (ca. 460-560 CE). The Xionites and Hephthalites would also have been able to levy auxiliaries (mainly skirmisher infantry) from the hill and mountain tribes in the region (Tajiks). The Kidarites were initially allies of the Kushans in Bactria (ca. 335-350 CE)(see my Eastern Aryan Nomads gallery), but even before the last Kushan emperor died (ca. 350 CE) the remnants of the Kushan army seem to have been absorbed into the Kidarite horde. The Kidarite, Alxonite, and Nezak rulers in Bactria would have been able to levy auxiliaries (mainly skirmisher infantry) from the hill and mountain tribes in the region (Tajiks and Paktyans). It is unknown to what degree the Kidarites and Alxonites may have used Indian auxiliaries—the Huns were particularly reviled in India, and for their part the Huns seemed to have had utter contempt for the culture of south Asia (Buddhists, in particular, were often targets of their brutality and vandalism). Indeed, the ultimate downfall of the Huns in south Asia was brought about by the rise of a widespread popular uprising (the Agnivanshi) that also swept away the Guptas (because they had failed to drive out the Huns). Much has been made of the report of a Chinese traveler to the court of Khingila I (430-490 CE), founder of the Alxonite Dynasty, in which he claims the Huns had 700 elephants in their army. However, this account is extremely fanciful—the traveler claimed the elephants swung huge swords with their trunks, and that each elephant was crewed by ten halberdiers (elephant crews in India were generally composed of a driver called a mahout, with between one and four archers or javelinmen as fighters). Nevertheless, it seems likely that during their 300 years in India, the Kidarites and Alxonites likely used some Indian auxiliaries (including elephants, although probably not as described by the Chinese traveler). The Gupta military system, which would have been the basis for any Indian auxiliaries levied by the Huns, utilized noble heavy cavalry (basically, armored horse archers), some unarmored horse archers (although on nothing like the scale of the Huns), elephantry (described above), and infantry bowmen (usually mass formations that delivered their arrows in volleys). These were sometimes supplemented with low-caste levies of spearmen (rabble). The Nezaks, on the other hand, only ruled the Kabul Valley (Kabulistan/Zabulistan), and like the last of the Kushan emperors, they probably had a very small army with few auxiliaries (Paktyan or Tajik skirmishers).

 

The figures I've used here are a combination of Khurasan Miniatures and Legio Heroica. In my opinion, the Khurasan figures (the horse archers) are the best Hunnic sculpts out there. The Legio Heroica figures (noble cavalry) are rather stiff, but excellently sculpted.