The Hun is described as nomadic people living between the 4th and 6th century in central Asia. The Huns are known for terrorizing Europe and the Roman Empire and often referred to as ruthless indomitable savages. The Huns were recognized for their impressive horsemen and military achievements. The origin of Huns is historically unknown and disputed. Some historians believe that Huns originate from Asia described as the eastern edge of the Altai Mountains and the Caspian Sea recognized today as Kazakhstan (Thompson, 1948). Other researchers believe that Huns are thought to originate from the nomadic group of the Xiongnu people recognized historically from 318 B.C. they are associated with terrorizing China during the Qin Dynasty and the later Han Dynasty inspiring the creation of The Great Wall of China as protection from against the mighty Xiongnu (Rossabi, 2012). Huns are believed to migrate in small groups led by chiefs without an individual leader or a king before their invasions after the 4th century (Thompson, 1999).
The Mongols originated from Mongolia and gained fame in the 13th - the 14th Century. Mongols are viewed as an East-Central Asian ethnic group native to Mongolia composed of other minorities in China and Asia connected through a common heritage and owing to a similar ethnic identity. Mongols have various indigenous dialects known as the Mongolian language. They are associated with the formation of the largest adjoining land empire in history which arose as a result of the unification of several nomadic tribes in their homeland to fall under the leadership of Genghis Khan (Cordova, 1981). He is associated with the occurrence of the Mongol empire previously known as Temujin and later becoming Genghis Khan. Genghis Khan is described as a strong, charismatic leader endowed with discipline and a genius in military logistics. He could unite Mongol and Turkic tribes who lived in Mongolia attaining command from conquest and the army command.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Comparison
Both Huns and Mongols are a confederation steppe dwelling. They both had the same Altaic language with the Mongolian Altaic language comprised of Turkic languages, Japanese and Korean (Waley, 2010). The Huns had traces of Altaic language and later accumulated gothic language as they migrated. Both groups were ethnic and political entities. It is believed the fall of the Hun Empire after the death of Attila lead to the fall of the empire which dispersed in search of to the east to form the various tribes of Mongolia (Thompson, 1948).
Mongols and the Huns are military horse skills. The Huns are known as the primary contributors to the fall of the Roman Empire due to their brutal attacks. They have been cited as cruel, and savages in history hence becoming the most powerful and feared military force in Europe who brought death destruction and devastation wherever they went. They are referred to as accurately mounted archers with a unique command of horsemanship which was usually accompanied by strategic movements leading to victories and conquests. The Mongols are recognized for their military achievements attributed to their strategies planning and tactics. Their armies were dependent on horse soldiers and through signals and great organization afforded high degree mobility and speed which allowed them to defeat their enemies.
Both empires extended their territories over other tribes, and after their defeat, they became absorbed into the civilizations that they had conquered. The Huns over the centuries conquered the Visigoths and Goths extended their power over many tries of German in central Europe affecting people who fought for the Romans. The Huns also settled as a civilization in the Hungarian plains in Eastern Europe changing their nomadic lifestyles. After the death of their leader Attila, the Huns lacked proper leadership as his four sons fought for power dividing the empire and leading to its collapse (Thompson, 1948). The failure of the Hun Empire led to assimilation to other civilizations they formerly dominated. The Mongol empire also weakened and collapsed as a result of successions struggles after the death of Genghis Khan. The empire was divided into China, central Asia, the Middle East, and Russia. However, the empire greatly expanded before its collapse into Eastern Europe and is remember to date for its significant influence. Both realms took prisoners of war and enslaved them.
Contrast
The Huns and Mongols differed significantly in war, lifestyles culture conquest and beliefs. The Huns had a unique approach to warfare where they utilized swift and fast movements in the battlefield fighting in confusion to disorient their enemies. They used their expertise in archery using reflex bows made out of seasoned birch to attack and strike enemies eighty yards away (Thompson, 1999). They were also gifted with precision and skillfully lassoed their foes and tore them brutally in violent deaths. They are known to revere horses and sleeping on their backs and learning horsemanship at early ages. Mongols on the other hand despite their use of horses in battles relied more on strategies and tactics in addition to their high speed and mobility (Heather, 2017). Contrary to the Huns surprise attacks on their enemies, Mongols used skilled spies and propaganda before an attack.
The Huns were feared and revealed for their brutality. They are described as having a preference for war and killing than resources. They, however, made a treaty with Theophilus of the Roman Empire which they later broke and fought into the Roman Empire contributing to its collapse. Mongols Empire however under Genghis Khan worked through establishment and absorption of civilization to form a strong, unified, and well-organized state power. The empire used a combination of intensive training, war tactics such as swiftness, discipline, intelligence (Kennedy & Keegan, 2002. The Mongols were also flexible and continually adapted new campaigns which gave their army its rough edge which they used to defeat the sluggish, heftier armies of the era (Waley, 2010). To their advantage, both Mongol horses and people were tough, alert and robust with the unlimited ability for survival. The Mongol army continually trained the troops in variations, creations, and distracting tactics. The Mongol empire also adopted a policy of taxation on their empires leading to civilization and organized conquest.
The Mongols and Huns also experienced a geographical difference as Mongols origins are traced to western Asia as Huns origins are unclear though to have emerged from the west with historians debating on their closeness to China (Rossabi, 2012). The differences are also evident in their identities. Huns are seen as a political entity who posed a significant threat to the Roman Empire when Mongols are an ethnic and linguistic entity. The Huns were Mongols predecessors who lost the war and retreated to north Europe believed to have later formed the numerous different tribes of Mongolia (Cordova, 1981).
Sociological Changes
History indicates various similarities in practices and conduct of Huns and Mongols. Both indicating similar characteristics such as being efficient horse archers, barbaric nature and violence in fights and a great desire to conquer, destroy civilizations and rule (Kennedy & Keegan, 2002. Both empires are recognized as tribes of central Asia who have similar military strategies, strength, and swiftness religious beliefs and leading the same way of life in succession and continuity. However, various sociological changes are witnessed (Craughwell & OverDrive, 2008). The Mongols display different differing characteristic in culture, organization, and leadership in comparison to the ancient Huns Empire.
Mongols display better organization, leadership, and technology giving rise to different cultural and religious practices. The Mongol empire also practiced better relationships in conquering where they are seen to be more accommodating and incorporating their captured allies than the Huns ever did. Organization and leadership represent a significant social change in Mongols. The recognition of leadership and the use of intelligence in war marks social differences between the groups (Pritsak, 1982) (Prawdin, 2017). Mongols valued relationships and spared communities which preferred peace and formed close relationships among themselves as the armies. They were loyal to their units and to Genghis which further brought them closer to each other (Heather, 2017).
Relationships were paternal evolving from Hun traditional confederations which aimed at presenting opposition to local empires. The culture also transformed into different styles of dressing, eating, and lifestyles. The Huns had a culture of brutality and simple lifestyles. The Mongols present a transformed civilization with humanity and desire to rule (Lindner, 1981)) (Howarth, 1995). They Huns lacked a civilized manner of eating recorded to have consumed roots and uncooked meat. The Mongols were, however, enlightened in diet, behaviors, and conquest (Pritsak, 1982) (Prawdin, 2017). Mongols Empire was also sustained through the use of generals and advisers who offered insights to Genghis Khan such as those who advised him to tax conquered communities and built economic policies instead of killing them.
Conclusion
Huns and Mongols re ancient empires who are significant to history as they depict similar characteristics in their approach to life war and civilization. Though both have no significance addition to hum civilization except destruction of established sedentary lifestyles, the empires built in the ancient times offer information on the existence of superior horsemanship with swiftness and other unique war skills. The Huns are significant on the role in the collapse of the Roman Empire and the great migration while Mongols is essential in the history of the Mongolian empire.
References
Craughwell, T. J., & OverDrive, Inc. (2008). How the Barbarian Invasions Shaped the Modern World . Place of publication not identified: Rockport Publishers.
Cordova, A. (1981). The Mongolian spot: a study of ethnic differences and a literature review. Clinical pediatrics , 20 (11), 714-719.
Heather, P. (2017). The Huns and the end of the Roman Empire in Western Europe. In Warfare in the Dark Ages (pp. 67-104). Routledge.
Howarth, P. (1995). Attila, king of the Huns: Man and myth . Barnes & Noble Publishing.
Kennedy, H. N., & Keegan, J. (2002). Mongols, Huns and Vikings: nomads at war . Cassell.
Lindner, R. P. (1981). Nomadism, horses and Huns. Past & Present , 92 (1), 3-19.
Prawdin, M. (2017). The Mongol Empire: Its Rise and Legacy . Routledge.
Pritsak, O. (1982). The Hunnic language of the Attila clan. Harvard Ukrainian Studies , 6 (4), 428-476.
Thompson, E. A. (1948). A History of Attila and the Huns . University Microfilms.
Thompson, E. A. (1999). The Huns. Wiley-Blackwell.
Rossabi H. (2012). Mongols: A very short introduction . Oxford University Press.
Waley, A. (2010). The secret history of the Mongols: And other pieces. Kelly Bray, Cornwall: House of Stratus.
