The Xiongnu Confederation (History of Ancient China and Mongolia)

[@riccardomartina9517]

"Chinese's not a language that I'm too proficient in... But I'm working on it". Sounds like superman apologizing for not being able to teleport.

[@HistorywithCy]

LOL thanks! I'll get there soon hopeful. Thanks for stopping by, really appreciate it. More to come, stay safe!

[@rge24491]

@@HistorywithCy 如果只有你是女性，或者我是同性恋。

[@hudai7994]

@@HistorywithCy Çin'in Şian şehrinde bulunan piramitler hakkında video yapabilirmisiniz?

[@bluerose-eg8ln]

My ancestors too. Greetings from Hungary. We all descend from the Xiungnu, the Huns. We are brothers with Khirghiz, uyghur, tatar,mongol and khazaks. Love to you brothers.

[@ozibeyamca330]

Greetings from Turkey brother

[@bluerose-eg8ln]

@@ozibeyamca330 Thank you. MashaAllah.

[@yeshiyangzom8532]

You used to kill each other a lot

[@Raidon8537]

​MashAllah? Bro what is relevance? Go back to desert. @@bluerose-eg8ln

[@bestmovies1987]

Greeting from Mongolia. Brother

[@CoolHistoryBros]

Awesome work, Cy. Love the video! Thanks for featuring me too.

[@HistorywithCy]

No worries my friend, I was honored to have you in it. We'll do it again soon!

[@hannibalbarca2928]

New Book of Tang, vol. 215 upper. "突厥阿史那氏, 蓋古匈奴北部也." "The Ashina family of the Turk probably were the northern tribes of the ancient Xiongnu." translated by Xu (2005) Old Book of Tang Vol. 199 lower "鐵勒，本匈奴別種" tr. "Tiele, originally a splinter race from Xiongnu" Suishu, Vol. 84 "鐵勒之先，匈奴之苗裔也" tr. "Tiele's predecessors are Xiongnu's descendants." Linghu Defen et al., Book of Zhou, Vol. 50. (in Chinese) Li Yanshou (李延寿), History of the Northern Dynasties, Vol. 99. (in Chinese)

[@hannibalbarca2928]

@阿孚 The Huns are a Turkic-Mongolian confederation, and it is a confederation of unknown origin in the Han dynasty, never Chinese.

[@papazataklaattiranimam]

@@hannibalbarca2928 sadece Türk

[@papazataklaattiranimam]

@@hannibalbarca2928 2. Proto-Turkic: Its homeland and historical background The Turkic peoples are known to be traditionally nomadic or semi-nomadic pasto ralists, which can be confirmed by various written sources from at least the second half of the first millennium AD onwards (for example, a herding lifestyle including horse riding is reflected in Old Turkic runic texts, such as the 8th-century Kul Tigin inscription from the Orkhon river valley in Mongolia). For those Turkic speaking peoples that were described as agriculturalists rather than pastoralists in the past few centuries, such as the Chuvash in the Volga Basin, a relatively recent shift from nomadism to sedentarism has been attested.' The majority of traditional 1.Turkic societies practiced agriculture only as a secondary activity. Needless to say, one cannot automatically extrapolate such a situation to the Proto-Turkic period. However, one can provide some insights into the issue by integrating linguistic data with historical and archaeological evidence. To do so, it is first necessary to outline the contemporary views of the Proto-Turkic homeland and the probable historical affiliation of the Proto-Turkic speech community. It is generally agreed among historians and linguists that the starting point of the Turkic migrations was located in the eastern part of the Central Asian steppe (see, e.g., Golden 1992; Kljaštornyj & Sultanov 2009; Menges 1995:55). Turkologists use various definitions for describing the Proto-Turkic homeland, but most indicate more or less the same region. While Janhunen (1996: 26, 2015:293) locates the Proto-Turkic homeland fairly precisely in Eastern Mongolia, Róna-Tas (1998:88), in a rather general manner, places the last habitat of the Turkic speakers before the disintegration of the family "in West and Central Siberia and in the region south of it." The latter localization overlaps in large part with that proposed by Tenišev et al. (2006), who associate the Proto-Turkic urheimat with the vast area stretching from the Ordos Desert in Inner Mongolia to the foothills of the Sayan-Altai Mountains in Southern Siberia. Such a vague localization seems to be quite compatible with the association of at least late Proto-Turkic speakers with nomadic herders. From a historical linguistic viewpoint, the region under discussion appears to be the most probable habitat for a language that is assumed to have been in contact with Old Chinese, Old East Iranian and possibly Tocharian (and, according to some scholars (see Dybo 2007), at the same time reaching the languages far to the north-west, such as Proto-Yeniseian, Proto-Samoyedic and Proto-Ugric). An attempt at verifying the homeland by examining archaeological and paleobotanical evidence, as well as the Proto-Turkic roots referring to natural environment, has also been made (Tenišev et al. 2006). A few noteworthy proposals on the depth of Proto-Turkic, i.e., the time of its primal split into the Bulgar and Common Turkic branches, vary from the 5th century BC (Róna-Tas 1998, based on contact linguistics) to the period between 120 BC and the beginning of the first millennium AD (Mudrak 2009, based on glottochronological analysis of Turkic morphology and historical phonology) to the period between the 1st century BC and the 1st century AD (Dybo 2007, based on contact linguistics and lexicostatistics). The proposals regarding the Proto-Turkic homeland can be seen in the context of the possible Proto-Turkic affiliation with the Xiongnu, a nomadic group that lived north and northwest of China in the first centuries before and after the common era. Several dozen words used by the Xiongnu were recorded in Old Chinese texts such as Shiji (or the Records of the Grand Historian) and the Book of Han, and based on these few words, contemporary scholars have speculated on what language the Xiongnu may have spoken. Various hypotheses were put forward during the 20th century, yet the assumption that the Xiongnu, or at least some of them, were affili ated with Turkic-speaking groups has gained the widest acceptance among scholars (Ramstedt 1922; Basin 1948; Gabain 1949; Šervašidze 1986). This affiliation is based on direct linguistic evidence, i.e., comparing the Xiongnu words in Old Chinese texts with Proto-Turkic, supplemented by historical data that connects the Xiongnu and the subsequent Turkic peoples. Recently, the most reliable Xiongnu words that are comparable with reconstructed Proto-Turkic stems have been outlined by Dybo (2007). Janhunen (2015) also recognizes this affiliation. In short, although we can never exclude that the Xiongnu were a multi-ethnic confederation, it is very likely that their core was Turkic-speaking.2 Different historical and archaeological sources give clues about the subsistence patterns of the Xiongnu. Old Chinese histories (including Shiji) emphasize that the Xiongnu were nomadic pastoralists that bred different kinds of domestic ungulates, namely horses, cattle, sheep and camels (Watson 1961). On the other hand, there are multiple indications in Chinese chronicles (including Shiji, Hou Hanshu (or the Book of the Later Han) and notes on the Han annals by Yen Shi-ku) that the Xiongnu were familiar with agriculture, including millet farming (Bičurin 1950; Davydova & Šilov 1953; Davydova 1985). The written sources, however, do not indicate clearly whether it was the Xiongnu themselves or their Chinese captives who were involved in agricultural activities. From an archaeological perspective, although there is about 1000 years of nomadic life in Mongolia beforehand, the Xiongnu period is the first time we have any evidence of agriculture in the region. Agricultural tools and millet grains dating to this period have been found, as well as some isotopic evidence for millet consumption (William Taylor, p.c., Jena, May 2017). It is commonly agreed that the Xiongnu economy was based on pastoralism and had an agricultural component. However, the question of how important the latter was remains open (see Wright et al. 2009; Kradin & Kang 2011; Machicek 2011; Spengler et al. 2016 for further discussion). Given all these observations, it is interesting to examine whether historical linguistic analysis of Turkic subsistence terms can support the association of Proto-Turkic with the Xiongnu. 2. Dybo (2007) shows that the Turkic affiliation is valid, first of all, for the late Xiongnu, while some early "Xiongnu" words may have belonged to an Eastern Iranian (Khotan Saka?) language. There is also a hypothesis by Pulleyblank (1962), which was supported by Vovin (2000, 2002), that the Xiongnu were a Yeniseian-speaking people. An agnostic view of the linguistic affiliation of the Xiongnu is presented in Doerfer (1973). 3. Pastoralist vocabulary in Proto-Turkic Below I list some of the most relevant Turkic pastoralist terms. To give a more de tailed picture, I distinguish between Proto-Turkic and Common Turkic levels. The former label is used when a root occurs in both major subdivisions of the family: the "Standard" Turkic languages, like Turkish, Uyghur, Kazakh etc., and the very specific Bulgar branch, which is represented by its only living language, Chuvash, as well as rather poor lexical data from the extinct Bulgar dialects preserved mainly as loanwords in Hungarian. The label "Common Turkic" means that the word is not attested in Bulgar and hence should be technically attributed to the time after the split of Proto-Turkic. However, due to scarcity of evidence from the Bulgar branch, it is common practice in the field to equate such roots with the Proto-Turkic ones unless a source of borrowing into Turkic has been established. Robbeets, M. and Savelyev, A., n.d. Language Dispersal Beyond Farming. pp.136,137, 138.

[@jenoasztalos7658]

​@Hannibal Barca* let me tell you something, I hope is not nonsense because the origin of xiognu is hard to know , but according to some research, this people was chinese origin and they start as rebels somewhere around shanghai or suzhou area and they where pushed towards xi'an until they where sort of isolated what on that map shows xiognu as Mongolia, they fight for 200 years until they made peace by royal marriage between the 2 powers, now ,of the xiognu (Huns) was so week ? Why on earth chinese struggled so hard to build the great Wall? The legend says that the Huns ( xiognu) you name it ,they where very skilled on battle they horses was trained so well that was able to climb on those walls and they defeat the chinese army several times , anyway after the peace the xiognu use as writings chinese symbols the ancient one before Qin emperor introduced today chinese , (if you want more about this ,visit the Huns museum in xi'an) the known Huns separated later cos they want to conquer more lands ,so they invaded the rest pf the world under the leader of Attila the scourge of God and they defeated the mighty roman empire. They settled in panonoia this days Hungary, Budapest was build and named by Attila and was Buda in the honor of buddha the rest ,is easier to find out why today is Budapest

[@salvatorenostrade3331]

​@@hannibalbarca2928No, they were likely a mix of everything, Han deserters, Northern Chinese, Mongols, Turks, Tanguts, Jurchens and more.

[@Nomadicenjoyerplus]

Prof. Dr. Nicola Di Cosmo in: The Turks: Early ages, Part 4. Huns (Xiongnu): The Origin and Rise of the Xiongnu Empire, Y. T., 2002, pp.217-227, University of Michigan, ISBN 9756782552, 9789756782552 "There is not much doubt among historians about the Turkish nature of the Great Hun Empire, which ruled between 318 B.C. and 216 A.D., as well as that of its predecessor proto-Huns, whose presence was confirmed by Chinese sources. The Great Hun Empire, the Western Hun Empire and especially the European Huns were examined comprehensively by Western historians." Uyghur Khagans claimed descent from the Xiongnu (according to Chinese history Weishu, the founder of the Uyghur Khaganate was descended from a Xiongnu ruler).[86] Both the 7th-century Chinese History of the Northern Dynasties[87] and the Book of Zhou,[88] an inscription in the Sogdian language, report the Göktürks to be a subgroup of the Xiongnu.[89][90] It has been widely held that the Xiongnu, or at least their ruling clans, had or were acquiring a Turkic identity. (The Turks in World History-Oxford University Press) Around 155, the northern Hsiung-nu, who were most probably of Turkic stock and were established in the Orkhon region of upper Mongolia (Rene Grousset) John Man, Attila: the barbarian king who challenged Rome, Bantam, 2005, p.62. University of Michigan. ISBN 0593052919, 9780593052914: • "The Xiongnu also worshipped Tengri. A history of the Han dynasty (206 BC - AD 8), written towards the end of the first century by the historian Pan Ku, in a section on the Xiongnu, says, 'They refer to their ruler by the title cheng li [a transliteration of tengri] ku t'u [son] shan-yii [king]' i.e. something like 'His Majesty, the Son of Heaven'. In early Turkish inscriptions, the ruler has his power from Tengri; and Tengri was the name given to Uighur kings of the eighth and ninth centuries." The principal invaders in the north were no longer the Turkic Xiongnu, whose confederation ... The most outstanding were the Toba Turks, who set up their Northern Wei dynasty (386 - 535) (China: A New History, Second Enlarged Edition - Harvard University Press) The constant incursions in the Han's northern and northwestern frontiers by the Turkic nomads known as Xiongnu (the Huns) necessitated Han (Dictionary of Music-Harvard University Press)

[@irfaanrahim4523]

Nice collaboration between the two of my favourite channels! Thank you Cy and CJ!

[@HistorywithCy]

Oh was fun to do and hopefully we'll produce more videos together. Thanks for stopping by, really appreciate it...stay safe!

[@irfaanrahim4523]

@@HistorywithCy I look forward to it! And you too, be safe

[@GLeibniz1716]

Thanks cy, the history of ancient China is complex, and that was a great primer!

[@HistorywithCy]

My pleasure, thank you and glad that you found it interesting. More to come, stay safe!

[@carlossalazar2690]

Nothing better than breakfast and a new History with Cy video

[@HistorywithCy]

Thanks my friend, appreciate it honored that you're starting your day with this! Stay safe my friend!

[@pedrito01100]

Great video as usual Cy! Very respectful from you to at least try to pronounce the names correctly, but coming from you, I didn't expect it differently. I learned the basics of mandarin last year and, man, is it difficult hahaha Very interesting topic you talked about as well, and I'll surely go check CJ's work. Also, congrats to you for uploading videos on this regular basis, it must be very demandig for you. Thanks for these gifts, hope you're well!

[@HistorywithCy]

Thanks my friend, glad you enjoyed this detour into another place/era. Yeah Mandarin is hard, especially to get the right vocal tones. I tried to the first few lessons on Duolingo and yeah, I definitely see it as the most challenging language I've ever tried to learn. I've started learning Russian on it though... it's pretty good for that once you get acquainted with the alphabet. Yeah, definitely check out CJ's channel, it's one my favorites, definitely the best I've come across for Chinese and Korean history. Anyway hope all is well with you...stay safe out there, this c19 is really ramping up where I'm at. Valeu!

[@HVLLOWS1999]

YYYYEEESSSS I GET YOUR VIDS AGAIN!

[@HistorywithCy]

Nice and hope all is well on your end. On another note, two episodes in and I'm a bit disappointed so far with this season of the Mandalorian. It's dragging on too much!

[@ProvidenceNL]

@@HistorywithCy agreed, it would be fine if the season was like 15 eps but with only 8, there is no time for filler episodes like this. Back to te video, its as good as your others, keep up the good work Cy!

[@HistorywithCy]

Agreed!

[@papazataklaattiranimam]

2. Proto-Turkic: Its homeland and historical background The Turkic peoples are known to be traditionally nomadic or semi-nomadic pasto ralists, which can be confirmed by various written sources from at least the second half of the first millennium AD onwards (for example, a herding lifestyle including horse riding is reflected in Old Turkic runic texts, such as the 8th-century Kul Tigin inscription from the Orkhon river valley in Mongolia). For those Turkic speaking peoples that were described as agriculturalists rather than pastoralists in the past few centuries, such as the Chuvash in the Volga Basin, a relatively recent shift from nomadism to sedentarism has been attested.' The majority of traditional 1.Turkic societies practiced agriculture only as a secondary activity. Needless to say, one cannot automatically extrapolate such a situation to the Proto-Turkic period. However, one can provide some insights into the issue by integrating linguistic data with historical and archaeological evidence. To do so, it is first necessary to outline the contemporary views of the Proto-Turkic homeland and the probable historical affiliation of the Proto-Turkic speech community. It is generally agreed among historians and linguists that the starting point of the Turkic migrations was located in the eastern part of the Central Asian steppe (see, e.g., Golden 1992; Kljaštornyj & Sultanov 2009; Menges 1995:55). Turkologists use various definitions for describing the Proto-Turkic homeland, but most indicate more or less the same region. While Janhunen (1996: 26, 2015:293) locates the Proto-Turkic homeland fairly precisely in Eastern Mongolia, Róna-Tas (1998:88), in a rather general manner, places the last habitat of the Turkic speakers before the disintegration of the family "in West and Central Siberia and in the region south of it." The latter localization overlaps in large part with that proposed by Tenišev et al. (2006), who associate the Proto-Turkic urheimat with the vast area stretching from the Ordos Desert in Inner Mongolia to the foothills of the Sayan-Altai Mountains in Southern Siberia. Such a vague localization seems to be quite compatible with the association of at least late Proto-Turkic speakers with nomadic herders. From a historical linguistic viewpoint, the region under discussion appears to be the most probable habitat for a language that is assumed to have been in contact with Old Chinese, Old East Iranian and possibly Tocharian (and, according to some scholars (see Dybo 2007), at the same time reaching the languages far to the north-west, such as Proto-Yeniseian, Proto-Samoyedic and Proto-Ugric). An attempt at verifying the homeland by examining archaeological and paleobotanical evidence, as well as the Proto-Turkic roots referring to natural environment, has also been made (Tenišev et al. 2006). A few noteworthy proposals on the depth of Proto-Turkic, i.e., the time of its primal split into the Bulgar and Common Turkic branches, vary from the 5th century BC (Róna-Tas 1998, based on contact linguistics) to the period between 120 BC and the beginning of the first millennium AD (Mudrak 2009, based on glottochronological analysis of Turkic morphology and historical phonology) to the period between the 1st century BC and the 1st century AD (Dybo 2007, based on contact linguistics and lexicostatistics). The proposals regarding the Proto-Turkic homeland can be seen in the context of the possible Proto-Turkic affiliation with the Xiongnu, a nomadic group that lived north and northwest of China in the first centuries before and after the common era. Several dozen words used by the Xiongnu were recorded in Old Chinese texts such as Shiji (or the Records of the Grand Historian) and the Book of Han, and based on these few words, contemporary scholars have speculated on what language the Xiongnu may have spoken. Various hypotheses were put forward during the 20th century, yet the assumption that the Xiongnu, or at least some of them, were affili ated with Turkic-speaking groups has gained the widest acceptance among scholars (Ramstedt 1922; Basin 1948; Gabain 1949; Šervašidze 1986). This affiliation is based on direct linguistic evidence, i.e., comparing the Xiongnu words in Old Chinese texts with Proto-Turkic, supplemented by historical data that connects the Xiongnu and the subsequent Turkic peoples. Recently, the most reliable Xiongnu words that are comparable with reconstructed Proto-Turkic stems have been outlined by Dybo (2007). Janhunen (2015) also recognizes this affiliation. In short, although we can never exclude that the Xiongnu were a multi-ethnic confederation, it is very likely that their core was Turkic-speaking.2 Different historical and archaeological sources give clues about the subsistence patterns of the Xiongnu. Old Chinese histories (including Shiji) emphasize that the Xiongnu were nomadic pastoralists that bred different kinds of domestic ungulates, namely horses, cattle, sheep and camels (Watson 1961). On the other hand, there are multiple indications in Chinese chronicles (including Shiji, Hou Hanshu (or the Book of the Later Han) and notes on the Han annals by Yen Shi-ku) that the Xiongnu were familiar with agriculture, including millet farming (Bičurin 1950; Davydova & Šilov 1953; Davydova 1985). The written sources, however, do not indicate clearly whether it was the Xiongnu themselves or their Chinese captives who were involved in agricultural activities. From an archaeological perspective, although there is about 1000 years of nomadic life in Mongolia beforehand, the Xiongnu period is the first time we have any evidence of agriculture in the region. Agricultural tools and millet grains dating to this period have been found, as well as some isotopic evidence for millet consumption (William Taylor, p.c., Jena, May 2017). It is commonly agreed that the Xiongnu economy was based on pastoralism and had an agricultural component. However, the question of how important the latter was remains open (see Wright et al. 2009; Kradin & Kang 2011; Machicek 2011; Spengler et al. 2016 for further discussion). Given all these observations, it is interesting to examine whether historical linguistic analysis of Turkic subsistence terms can support the association of Proto-Turkic with the Xiongnu. 2. Dybo (2007) shows that the Turkic affiliation is valid, first of all, for the late Xiongnu, while some early "Xiongnu" words may have belonged to an Eastern Iranian (Khotan Saka?) language. There is also a hypothesis by Pulleyblank (1962), which was supported by Vovin (2000, 2002), that the Xiongnu were a Yeniseian-speaking people. An agnostic view of the linguistic affiliation of the Xiongnu is presented in Doerfer (1973). 3. Pastoralist vocabulary in Proto-Turkic Below I list some of the most relevant Turkic pastoralist terms. To give a more de tailed picture, I distinguish between Proto-Turkic and Common Turkic levels. The former label is used when a root occurs in both major subdivisions of the family: the "Standard" Turkic languages, like Turkish, Uyghur, Kazakh etc., and the very specific Bulgar branch, which is represented by its only living language, Chuvash, as well as rather poor lexical data from the extinct Bulgar dialects preserved mainly as loanwords in Hungarian. The label "Common Turkic" means that the word is not attested in Bulgar and hence should be technically attributed to the time after the split of Proto-Turkic. However, due to scarcity of evidence from the Bulgar branch, it is common practice in the field to equate such roots with the Proto-Turkic ones unless a source of borrowing into Turkic has been established. Robbeets, M. and Savelyev, A., n.d. Language Dispersal Beyond Farming. pp.136,137, 138.

[@spacebunny4335]

Great summery of the Turkic component of the Xiongnu. As for what group made up the Xiongnu elite I’m going to wait for more evidence. But the confederation was definetly mostly Turkic in population with a large Iranian infuance as seen with their art and some words.

[@troigcyusa]

Greek

[@EnchantedTV13]

Retardturks never beating "The Allegations",obsession is real.

[@ForceOfUru]

​@@troigcyusaMartians

[@reddixiecrat]

Look into the Xiongnu capital Luncheng also known as the “Dragon City”. It was just discovered very recently

[@HistorywithCy]

Cool, I will. Thanks for the tip! More to come, stay safe!

[@tedchandran]

Jai Hinduja. The Xiongnu were not all assimilated into the Han. There is still a living Xiongnu village in Anhui.

[@Trapper1]

The Chuvash speak the Xiongnu language@@tedchandran

[@suleimanthemagnificent1494]

Xiongnu is Turkic The predecessors of Huihe were Xiongnu. Because, customarily, they ride high-wheeled carts. They were also called Gaoche during the Yuan Wei times, or also called Chile, mistakenly rendered as Tiele. - Xin Tangshu, 232 Weishu, vol. 103 txt: "高車，[...] 其語略與匈奴同而時有小異，或云其先匈奴之甥也", tr: "The Gaoju, [...] their language and the Xiongnu's are similar though differ a little; or to say it differently, they are the sororal nephews/sons-in-laws of the Xiongnu” According to the Book of Wei, the Yuebans' language and customs were the same as the Gaoche, who were Turkic speakers. Yuebans(Weak Xiongnu) cut their hair and trimmed their ghee-smeared, sun-dried, glossy eyebrows evenly, and washed before meals three times everyday. Weishu, Vol. 102 "其風俗言語與高車同，而其人清潔於胡。俗剪髮齊眉，以醍醐塗之，昱昱然光澤，日三澡漱，然後飲食。"

[@papazataklaattiranimam]

2. Proto-Turkic: Its homeland and historical background The Turkic peoples are known to be traditionally nomadic or semi-nomadic pasto ralists, which can be confirmed by various written sources from at least the second half of the first millennium AD onwards (for example, a herding lifestyle including horse riding is reflected in Old Turkic runic texts, such as the 8th-century Kul Tigin inscription from the Orkhon river valley in Mongolia). For those Turkic speaking peoples that were described as agriculturalists rather than pastoralists in the past few centuries, such as the Chuvash in the Volga Basin, a relatively recent shift from nomadism to sedentarism has been attested.' The majority of traditional 1.Turkic societies practiced agriculture only as a secondary activity. Needless to say, one cannot automatically extrapolate such a situation to the Proto-Turkic period. However, one can provide some insights into the issue by integrating linguistic data with historical and archaeological evidence. To do so, it is first necessary to outline the contemporary views of the Proto-Turkic homeland and the probable historical affiliation of the Proto-Turkic speech community. It is generally agreed among historians and linguists that the starting point of the Turkic migrations was located in the eastern part of the Central Asian steppe (see, e.g., Golden 1992; Kljaštornyj & Sultanov 2009; Menges 1995:55). Turkologists use various definitions for describing the Proto-Turkic homeland, but most indicate more or less the same region. While Janhunen (1996: 26, 2015:293) locates the Proto-Turkic homeland fairly precisely in Eastern Mongolia, Róna-Tas (1998:88), in a rather general manner, places the last habitat of the Turkic speakers before the disintegration of the family "in West and Central Siberia and in the region south of it." The latter localization overlaps in large part with that proposed by Tenišev et al. (2006), who associate the Proto-Turkic urheimat with the vast area stretching from the Ordos Desert in Inner Mongolia to the foothills of the Sayan-Altai Mountains in Southern Siberia. Such a vague localization seems to be quite compatible with the association of at least late Proto-Turkic speakers with nomadic herders. From a historical linguistic viewpoint, the region under discussion appears to be the most probable habitat for a language that is assumed to have been in contact with Old Chinese, Old East Iranian and possibly Tocharian (and, according to some scholars (see Dybo 2007), at the same time reaching the languages far to the north-west, such as Proto-Yeniseian, Proto-Samoyedic and Proto-Ugric). An attempt at verifying the homeland by examining archaeological and paleobotanical evidence, as well as the Proto-Turkic roots referring to natural environment, has also been made (Tenišev et al. 2006). A few noteworthy proposals on the depth of Proto-Turkic, i.e., the time of its primal split into the Bulgar and Common Turkic branches, vary from the 5th century BC (Róna-Tas 1998, based on contact linguistics) to the period between 120 BC and the beginning of the first millennium AD (Mudrak 2009, based on glottochronological analysis of Turkic morphology and historical phonology) to the period between the 1st century BC and the 1st century AD (Dybo 2007, based on contact linguistics and lexicostatistics). The proposals regarding the Proto-Turkic homeland can be seen in the context of the possible Proto-Turkic affiliation with the Xiongnu, a nomadic group that lived north and northwest of China in the first centuries before and after the common era. Several dozen words used by the Xiongnu were recorded in Old Chinese texts such as Shiji (or the Records of the Grand Historian) and the Book of Han, and based on these few words, contemporary scholars have speculated on what language the Xiongnu may have spoken. Various hypotheses were put forward during the 20th century, yet the assumption that the Xiongnu, or at least some of them, were affili ated with Turkic-speaking groups has gained the widest acceptance among scholars (Ramstedt 1922; Basin 1948; Gabain 1949; Šervašidze 1986). This affiliation is based on direct linguistic evidence, i.e., comparing the Xiongnu words in Old Chinese texts with Proto-Turkic, supplemented by historical data that connects the Xiongnu and the subsequent Turkic peoples. Recently, the most reliable Xiongnu words that are comparable with reconstructed Proto-Turkic stems have been outlined by Dybo (2007). Janhunen (2015) also recognizes this affiliation. In short, although we can never exclude that the Xiongnu were a multi-ethnic confederation, it is very likely that their core was Turkic-speaking.2 Different historical and archaeological sources give clues about the subsistence patterns of the Xiongnu. Old Chinese histories (including Shiji) emphasize that the Xiongnu were nomadic pastoralists that bred different kinds of domestic ungulates, namely horses, cattle, sheep and camels (Watson 1961). On the other hand, there are multiple indications in Chinese chronicles (including Shiji, Hou Hanshu (or the Book of the Later Han) and notes on the Han annals by Yen Shi-ku) that the Xiongnu were familiar with agriculture, including millet farming (Bičurin 1950; Davydova & Šilov 1953; Davydova 1985). The written sources, however, do not indicate clearly whether it was the Xiongnu themselves or their Chinese captives who were involved in agricultural activities. From an archaeological perspective, although there is about 1000 years of nomadic life in Mongolia beforehand, the Xiongnu period is the first time we have any evidence of agriculture in the region. Agricultural tools and millet grains dating to this period have been found, as well as some isotopic evidence for millet consumption (William Taylor, p.c., Jena, May 2017). It is commonly agreed that the Xiongnu economy was based on pastoralism and had an agricultural component. However, the question of how important the latter was remains open (see Wright et al. 2009; Kradin & Kang 2011; Machicek 2011; Spengler et al. 2016 for further discussion). Given all these observations, it is interesting to examine whether historical linguistic analysis of Turkic subsistence terms can support the association of Proto-Turkic with the Xiongnu. 2. Dybo (2007) shows that the Turkic affiliation is valid, first of all, for the late Xiongnu, while some early "Xiongnu" words may have belonged to an Eastern Iranian (Khotan Saka?) language. There is also a hypothesis by Pulleyblank (1962), which was supported by Vovin (2000, 2002), that the Xiongnu were a Yeniseian-speaking people. An agnostic view of the linguistic affiliation of the Xiongnu is presented in Doerfer (1973). 3. Pastoralist vocabulary in Proto-Turkic Below I list some of the most relevant Turkic pastoralist terms. To give a more de tailed picture, I distinguish between Proto-Turkic and Common Turkic levels. The former label is used when a root occurs in both major subdivisions of the family: the "Standard" Turkic languages, like Turkish, Uyghur, Kazakh etc., and the very specific Bulgar branch, which is represented by its only living language, Chuvash, as well as rather poor lexical data from the extinct Bulgar dialects preserved mainly as loanwords in Hungarian. The label "Common Turkic" means that the word is not attested in Bulgar and hence should be technically attributed to the time after the split of Proto-Turkic. However, due to scarcity of evidence from the Bulgar branch, it is common practice in the field to equate such roots with the Proto-Turkic ones unless a source of borrowing into Turkic has been established. Robbeets, M. and Savelyev, A., n.d. Language Dispersal Beyond Farming. pp.136,137, 138.

[@suleimanthemagnificent1494]

@@papazataklaattiranimam Yes

[@baconsans431]

Xiongnu was a multi- ethnic empire, where turks were one of the many ethnicities. The ruling ethnic core was Mongolic speaking Peoples. Chinggis khan referred to Shanyu, the Xiongnu emperor, as his ancestor in his letter to Chinese monk. A genetic study published in the American Journal of Human Genetics in July 2003 examined the remains of 62 individuals buried between the 3rd century BC and the 2nd century AD at the Xiongnu necropolis at Egyin Gol in northern Mongolia.[141] The examined individuals were found to be primarily of Asian ancestry.[142] A genetic study published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology in October 2006 detected significant genetic continuity between the examined individuals at Egyin Gol and modern Mongols.[143]

[@biscolataman]

Collisions and trade with the Xiongnu , fierce Turkic-speaking nomads of the north and west, began in the life- time of Confucius. “The Emergence of an International System in East Asia.” East Asia at the Center: Four Thousand Years of Engagement with the World, by WARREN I. COHEN, Columbia University Press, NEW YORK, 2000, pp. 1-61. which is about the Han Dynasty general Su Wu, who was captured in 100 b.c. while on a diplomatic mission to the Xiongnu , a Turkic clan in central Asia. “FROM LUN ON AND LUN HOP TO THE GREAT CHINA THEATER, 1922-1925.” Chinatown Opera Theater in North America, by Nancy Yunhwa Rao, University of Illinois Press, Urbana; Chicago; Springfield, 2017, pp. 152-184. The principal invaders in the north were no longer the Turkic Xiongnu , whose confederation had broken up but a nomadic proto- Mongol people known as the Xianbei, who set up states in Gansu on the west and Hebei and Shandong on the east. “Reunification in the Buddhist Age.” China: A New History, Second Enlarged Edition, by John King Fairbank and Merle Goldman, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England, 2006, pp. 72-87. They aii belong to the Yugus branch of the western Xiongnu group of the Turkic languages, which are part of the Altaic language family. “The Frontier Ground and Peoples of Northwest China.” Familiar Strangers: A History of Muslims in Northwest China, by JONATHAN N. LIPMAN, University of Washington Press, SEATTLE; LONDON, 1997, pp. 3-23. Prof. Dr. Nicola Di Cosmo in: The Turks: Early ages, Part 4. Huns (Xiongnu): The Origin and Rise of the Xiongnu Empire, Y. T., 2002, pp.217-227, University of Michigan, ISBN 9756782552, 9789756782552 "There is not much doubt among historians about the Turkish nature of the Great Hun Empire, which ruled between 318 B.C. and 216 A.D., as well as that of its predecessor proto-Huns, whose presence was confirmed by Chinese sources. The Great Hun Empire, the Western Hun Empire and especially the European Huns were examined comprehensively by Western historians." Land conl icts were also a factor in the frequent clashes from the third century BC onwards between the Chinese Qin and Han Dynasties and the alliance of Turkic nomads, called the Xiongnu people. In the third century BC, the Xiongnu bordered the northwest frontier of Chinese imperial lands, and controlled many of the key trading centers along the land-based routes of the Silk Roads all the way to the Caucasus Mountains. Barbier, E. (2010). The Rise of Cities (from 3000 BC to 1000 AD). In Scarcity and Frontiers: How Economies Have Developed Through Natural Resource Exploitation (pp. 84-156). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511781131.004 It was the Hsiung-nu, a Turkic tribe , who first exerted pressure on the Chinese rulers in the north by capturing Lo-yang in 311 and Ch'ang-an in 316. From this period on, north China was under the sway of non- Chinese rulers. “INITIAL CONTACT AND RESPONSE: BUDDHISM UNDER THE EASTERN CHIN DYNASTY.” Buddhism in China: A Historical Survey, by KENNETH K. S. CH’EN, Princeton University Press, PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY, 1964, pp. 57-93. The northern one was exposed to war¬ ¬ lurgy (bronze is rarely found in late Lungshan), writ fare and aggression from the Turkic Hsiung-nu , Mon¬ ¬ ing, and excellent art. “ASIA.” The History and Geography of Human Genes: Abridged Paperback Edition, by L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza et al., Princeton University Press, PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY, 1994, pp. 195-254. The proto - Turkic Hsiung - nu were now challenged by other alien groups - proto - Tibetans , proto - Mongol tribes called the Hsien - pi, and seperate proto-Turks called the T’o-pa (Toba). China's imperial past : an introduction to Chinese history and culture / Charles O. Hucker. Stanford, Calif. : Stanford University Press, 1975. The Xiongnu became politically dominant in the steppes around 300 BC, and although the linguistic affiliation of the Xiongnu proper is still a matter of dispute, their political confederation certainly contained a significant Turkic component. By both ethnohistorical and linguistic considerations this component may in the first place be identified with the Bulgharic (Bulghar Turkic) branch of Turkic, today represented by the Chuvash language in the Volga region. The Turkic component of the Xiongnu is, however, unambiguously signalled by a number of Bulgharic loanwords in Proto-Samoyedic. Review: J. Janhunen (ed.),The Mongolic languages, London, New York : Routledge, 2003 An earlier date for the separation of proto-Turkic, preceding 209 BC would support the identification of Xiongnu language with proto-Bulgharic or one of its subgroups, while a later date of separation would make its association with proto-Turkic more plausible. Alexander Savelyev, Martine Robbeets, Bayesian phylolinguistics infers the internal structure and the time-depth of the Turkic language family, Journal of Language Evolution, Volume 5, Issue 1, January 2020 Xiongnu (Pre-Proto-Bulgharic, in Mongolia). Mongolian Vowel Harmony in a Eurasian Context In: International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics Authors: Ian G. Barrere 1 and Juha A. Janhunen University of Helsinki Online Publication Date: 18 Jun 2019 As this time depth coincides with the beginning of the Xiongnu empire (209 BCE-100 CE), the association of Xiongnu with Proto-Bulgharic does not seem unreasonable. However, given the relatively large credible interval involved in the Bayesian dating, the breakup of proto-Turkic may also be connected with the first disintegration of the Xiongnu confederation under influence of the military successes of the Chinese in 127-119 BCE (Mudrak 2009). In sum, the time depth of the breakup of Proto-Turkic can be estimated between 500 BCE and 100 CE. Martine Robbeets, Remco Bouckaert, Bayesian phylolinguistics reveals the internal structure of the Transeurasian family, Journal of Language Evolution, Volume 3, Issue 2, July 2018 The language of the European Huns is sometimes referred to as a Bulghar Turkic variety in general linguistic literature, but caution is needed in establishing its affiliations. The predominant part of the Xiongnu population is likely to have spoken Turkic (Late Proto-Turkic, to be more precise). Cite this article: Savelyev A, Jeong C (2020). Early nomads of the Eastern Steppe and their tentative connections in the West. Evolutionary Human Sciences 2, e20, 1-17. The predecessors of Huihe were Xiongnu. Because, customarily, they ride high-wheeled carts. They were also called Gaoche during the Yuan Wei times, or also called Chile, mistakenly rendered as Tiele. - Xin Tangshu, 232 only the Turkic Gaoju origin of the Hephthalites should be retained as indicative of their primary ethnicity.[82] Weishu, vol. 103 txt: "高車，[...] 其語略與匈奴同而時有小異，或云其先匈奴之甥也", tr: "The Gaoju, [...] their language and the Xiongnu's are similar though differ a little; or to say it differently, they are the sororal nephews/sons-in-laws of the Xiongnu " According to the Book of Wei, the Yuebans' language and customs were the same as the Gaoche, who were Turkic speakers. Yuebans(Weak Xiongnu) cut their hair and trimmed their ghee-smeared, sun-dried, glossy eyebrows evenly, and washed before meals three times everyday.[18][19] Chinese sources link the Tiele people and Ashina to the Xiongnu, According to the Book of Zhou and the History of the Northern Dynasties, the Ashina clan was a component of the Xiongnu confederation.[84][85] Uyghur Khagans claimed descent from the Xiongnu (according to Chinese history Weishu, the founder of the Uyghur Khaganate was descended from a Xiongnu ruler).[86] Both the 7th-century Chinese History of the Northern Dynasties[87] and the Book of Zhou,[88] an inscription in the Sogdian language, report the Göktürks to be a subgroup of the Xiongnu.[89][90] Tiele are originally Xiongnu's splinter stocks. As Tujue are strong and prosperous, all Tiele districts (郡) are divided and scattered, the masses gradually dwindled and weakened. Until the beginning of Wude [era], there have been Xueyantuo, Qibi, Huihe, Dubo, Guligan, Duolange, Pugu, Bayegu, Tongluo, Hun, Sijie, Huxue, Xijie, Adie, Baixi, etc. scattered in the northern wastelands. - Jiu Tangshu, 199, lower The Romans were in turn laid low by Turkic Eurasian pastoral nomads from the east-the Huns, or Juan-Juan in Chinese sources. “From Slavs to Rus.’” The Russian Moment in World History, by Marshall T. Poe, Princeton University Press, Princeton; Oxford, 2003, pp. 10-27.

[@Engjuehan]

Xiongnu only have king, they don't have emperor, Xiongnu empire never existed, there's only Xiongnu union

[@Willxdiana]

yes you got it. They are mongolic in dna , lanuage we dont know. Kyrgz were european looking. scythian turks

[@papazataklaattiranimam]

@@Willxdiana 2. Proto-Turkic: Its homeland and historical background The Turkic peoples are known to be traditionally nomadic or semi-nomadic pasto ralists, which can be confirmed by various written sources from at least the second half of the first millennium AD onwards (for example, a herding lifestyle including horse riding is reflected in Old Turkic runic texts, such as the 8th-century Kul Tigin inscription from the Orkhon river valley in Mongolia). For those Turkic speaking peoples that were described as agriculturalists rather than pastoralists in the past few centuries, such as the Chuvash in the Volga Basin, a relatively recent shift from nomadism to sedentarism has been attested.' The majority of traditional 1.Turkic societies practiced agriculture only as a secondary activity. Needless to say, one cannot automatically extrapolate such a situation to the Proto-Turkic period. However, one can provide some insights into the issue by integrating linguistic data with historical and archaeological evidence. To do so, it is first necessary to outline the contemporary views of the Proto-Turkic homeland and the probable historical affiliation of the Proto-Turkic speech community. It is generally agreed among historians and linguists that the starting point of the Turkic migrations was located in the eastern part of the Central Asian steppe (see, e.g., Golden 1992; Kljaštornyj & Sultanov 2009; Menges 1995:55). Turkologists use various definitions for describing the Proto-Turkic homeland, but most indicate more or less the same region. While Janhunen (1996: 26, 2015:293) locates the Proto-Turkic homeland fairly precisely in Eastern Mongolia, Róna-Tas (1998:88), in a rather general manner, places the last habitat of the Turkic speakers before the disintegration of the family "in West and Central Siberia and in the region south of it." The latter localization overlaps in large part with that proposed by Tenišev et al. (2006), who associate the Proto-Turkic urheimat with the vast area stretching from the Ordos Desert in Inner Mongolia to the foothills of the Sayan-Altai Mountains in Southern Siberia. Such a vague localization seems to be quite compatible with the association of at least late Proto-Turkic speakers with nomadic herders. From a historical linguistic viewpoint, the region under discussion appears to be the most probable habitat for a language that is assumed to have been in contact with Old Chinese, Old East Iranian and possibly Tocharian (and, according to some scholars (see Dybo 2007), at the same time reaching the languages far to the north-west, such as Proto-Yeniseian, Proto-Samoyedic and Proto-Ugric). An attempt at verifying the homeland by examining archaeological and paleobotanical evidence, as well as the Proto-Turkic roots referring to natural environment, has also been made (Tenišev et al. 2006). A few noteworthy proposals on the depth of Proto-Turkic, i.e., the time of its primal split into the Bulgar and Common Turkic branches, vary from the 5th century BC (Róna-Tas 1998, based on contact linguistics) to the period between 120 BC and the beginning of the first millennium AD (Mudrak 2009, based on glottochronological analysis of Turkic morphology and historical phonology) to the period between the 1st century BC and the 1st century AD (Dybo 2007, based on contact linguistics and lexicostatistics). The proposals regarding the Proto-Turkic homeland can be seen in the context of the possible Proto-Turkic affiliation with the Xiongnu, a nomadic group that lived north and northwest of China in the first centuries before and after the common era. Several dozen words used by the Xiongnu were recorded in Old Chinese texts such as Shiji (or the Records of the Grand Historian) and the Book of Han, and based on these few words, contemporary scholars have speculated on what language the Xiongnu may have spoken. Various hypotheses were put forward during the 20th century, yet the assumption that the Xiongnu, or at least some of them, were affili ated with Turkic-speaking groups has gained the widest acceptance among scholars (Ramstedt 1922; Basin 1948; Gabain 1949; Šervašidze 1986). This affiliation is based on direct linguistic evidence, i.e., comparing the Xiongnu words in Old Chinese texts with Proto-Turkic, supplemented by historical data that connects the Xiongnu and the subsequent Turkic peoples. Recently, the most reliable Xiongnu words that are comparable with reconstructed Proto-Turkic stems have been outlined by Dybo (2007). Janhunen (2015) also recognizes this affiliation. In short, although we can never exclude that the Xiongnu were a multi-ethnic confederation, it is very likely that their core was Turkic-speaking.2 Different historical and archaeological sources give clues about the subsistence patterns of the Xiongnu. Old Chinese histories (including Shiji) emphasize that the Xiongnu were nomadic pastoralists that bred different kinds of domestic ungulates, namely horses, cattle, sheep and camels (Watson 1961). On the other hand, there are multiple indications in Chinese chronicles (including Shiji, Hou Hanshu (or the Book of the Later Han) and notes on the Han annals by Yen Shi-ku) that the Xiongnu were familiar with agriculture, including millet farming (Bičurin 1950; Davydova & Šilov 1953; Davydova 1985). The written sources, however, do not indicate clearly whether it was the Xiongnu themselves or their Chinese captives who were involved in agricultural activities. From an archaeological perspective, although there is about 1000 years of nomadic life in Mongolia beforehand, the Xiongnu period is the first time we have any evidence of agriculture in the region. Agricultural tools and millet grains dating to this period have been found, as well as some isotopic evidence for millet consumption (William Taylor, p.c., Jena, May 2017). It is commonly agreed that the Xiongnu economy was based on pastoralism and had an agricultural component. However, the question of how important the latter was remains open (see Wright et al. 2009; Kradin & Kang 2011; Machicek 2011; Spengler et al. 2016 for further discussion). Given all these observations, it is interesting to examine whether historical linguistic analysis of Turkic subsistence terms can support the association of Proto-Turkic with the Xiongnu. 2. Dybo (2007) shows that the Turkic affiliation is valid, first of all, for the late Xiongnu, while some early "Xiongnu" words may have belonged to an Eastern Iranian (Khotan Saka?) language. There is also a hypothesis by Pulleyblank (1962), which was supported by Vovin (2000, 2002), that the Xiongnu were a Yeniseian-speaking people. An agnostic view of the linguistic affiliation of the Xiongnu is presented in Doerfer (1973). 3. Pastoralist vocabulary in Proto-Turkic Below I list some of the most relevant Turkic pastoralist terms. To give a more de tailed picture, I distinguish between Proto-Turkic and Common Turkic levels. The former label is used when a root occurs in both major subdivisions of the family: the "Standard" Turkic languages, like Turkish, Uyghur, Kazakh etc., and the very specific Bulgar branch, which is represented by its only living language, Chuvash, as well as rather poor lexical data from the extinct Bulgar dialects preserved mainly as loanwords in Hungarian. The label "Common Turkic" means that the word is not attested in Bulgar and hence should be technically attributed to the time after the split of Proto-Turkic. However, due to scarcity of evidence from the Bulgar branch, it is common practice in the field to equate such roots with the Proto-Turkic ones unless a source of borrowing into Turkic has been established. Robbeets, M. and Savelyev, A., n.d. Language Dispersal Beyond Farming. pp.136,137, 138.

[@papazataklaattiranimam]

@@Willxdiana Xiongnu haplos were N>R>Q typical which is Turkic Dna :-) not typical Mongolic (C>O>N)

[@sansan2591]

Ancient Mongol history is so interesting

[@Timurid1370]

They were turkic as well

[@brightburnedits4278]

@@Timurid1370 lol turks claim everyting🤣im tired of you history stealers some sources say they are even Iranic chinese or monogolic or turkic so no one know about their origin

[@Engjuehan]

@@Timurid1370 they ain't Turkic, and you are not turks, you are Greeks

[@papazataklaattiranimam]

They were Turkic peoples

[@papazataklaattiranimam]

Mongolic peoples have no history before Genghis Khan

[@biscolataman]

Collisions and trade with the Xiongnu , fierce Turkic-speaking nomads of the north and west, began in the life- time of Confucius. “The Emergence of an International System in East Asia.” East Asia at the Center: Four Thousand Years of Engagement with the World, by WARREN I. COHEN, Columbia University Press, NEW YORK, 2000, pp. 1-61. which is about the Han Dynasty general Su Wu, who was captured in 100 b.c. while on a diplomatic mission to the Xiongnu , a Turkic clan in central Asia. “FROM LUN ON AND LUN HOP TO THE GREAT CHINA THEATER, 1922-1925.” Chinatown Opera Theater in North America, by Nancy Yunhwa Rao, University of Illinois Press, Urbana; Chicago; Springfield, 2017, pp. 152-184. The principal invaders in the north were no longer the Turkic Xiongnu , whose confederation had broken up but a nomadic proto- Mongol people known as the Xianbei, who set up states in Gansu on the west and Hebei and Shandong on the east. “Reunification in the Buddhist Age.” China: A New History, Second Enlarged Edition, by John King Fairbank and Merle Goldman, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England, 2006, pp. 72-87. They aii belong to the Yugus branch of the western Xiongnu group of the Turkic languages, which are part of the Altaic language family. “The Frontier Ground and Peoples of Northwest China.” Familiar Strangers: A History of Muslims in Northwest China, by JONATHAN N. LIPMAN, University of Washington Press, SEATTLE; LONDON, 1997, pp. 3-23. Prof. Dr. Nicola Di Cosmo in: The Turks: Early ages, Part 4. Huns (Xiongnu): The Origin and Rise of the Xiongnu Empire, Y. T., 2002, pp.217-227, University of Michigan, ISBN 9756782552, 9789756782552 "There is not much doubt among historians about the Turkish nature of the Great Hun Empire, which ruled between 318 B.C. and 216 A.D., as well as that of its predecessor proto-Huns, whose presence was confirmed by Chinese sources. The Great Hun Empire, the Western Hun Empire and especially the European Huns were examined comprehensively by Western historians." Land conl icts were also a factor in the frequent clashes from the third century BC onwards between the Chinese Qin and Han Dynasties and the alliance of Turkic nomads, called the Xiongnu people. In the third century BC, the Xiongnu bordered the northwest frontier of Chinese imperial lands, and controlled many of the key trading centers along the land-based routes of the Silk Roads all the way to the Caucasus Mountains. Barbier, E. (2010). The Rise of Cities (from 3000 BC to 1000 AD). In Scarcity and Frontiers: How Economies Have Developed Through Natural Resource Exploitation (pp. 84-156). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511781131.004 It was the Hsiung-nu, a Turkic tribe , who first exerted pressure on the Chinese rulers in the north by capturing Lo-yang in 311 and Ch'ang-an in 316. From this period on, north China was under the sway of non- Chinese rulers. “INITIAL CONTACT AND RESPONSE: BUDDHISM UNDER THE EASTERN CHIN DYNASTY.” Buddhism in China: A Historical Survey, by KENNETH K. S. CH’EN, Princeton University Press, PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY, 1964, pp. 57-93. The northern one was exposed to war¬ ¬ lurgy (bronze is rarely found in late Lungshan), writ fare and aggression from the Turkic Hsiung-nu , Mon¬ ¬ ing, and excellent art. “ASIA.” The History and Geography of Human Genes: Abridged Paperback Edition, by L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza et al., Princeton University Press, PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY, 1994, pp. 195-254. The proto - Turkic Hsiung - nu were now challenged by other alien groups - proto - Tibetans , proto - Mongol tribes called the Hsien - pi, and seperate proto-Turks called the T’o-pa (Toba). China's imperial past : an introduction to Chinese history and culture / Charles O. Hucker. Stanford, Calif. : Stanford University Press, 1975. The Xiongnu became politically dominant in the steppes around 300 BC, and although the linguistic affiliation of the Xiongnu proper is still a matter of dispute, their political confederation certainly contained a significant Turkic component. By both ethnohistorical and linguistic considerations this component may in the first place be identified with the Bulgharic (Bulghar Turkic) branch of Turkic, today represented by the Chuvash language in the Volga region. The Turkic component of the Xiongnu is, however, unambiguously signalled by a number of Bulgharic loanwords in Proto-Samoyedic. Review: J. Janhunen (ed.),The Mongolic languages, London, New York : Routledge, 2003 An earlier date for the separation of proto-Turkic, preceding 209 BC would support the identification of Xiongnu language with proto-Bulgharic or one of its subgroups, while a later date of separation would make its association with proto-Turkic more plausible. Alexander Savelyev, Martine Robbeets, Bayesian phylolinguistics infers the internal structure and the time-depth of the Turkic language family, Journal of Language Evolution, Volume 5, Issue 1, January 2020 Xiongnu (Pre-Proto-Bulgharic, in Mongolia). Mongolian Vowel Harmony in a Eurasian Context In: International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics Authors: Ian G. Barrere 1 and Juha A. Janhunen University of Helsinki Online Publication Date: 18 Jun 2019 As this time depth coincides with the beginning of the Xiongnu empire (209 BCE-100 CE), the association of Xiongnu with Proto-Bulgharic does not seem unreasonable. However, given the relatively large credible interval involved in the Bayesian dating, the breakup of proto-Turkic may also be connected with the first disintegration of the Xiongnu confederation under influence of the military successes of the Chinese in 127-119 BCE (Mudrak 2009). In sum, the time depth of the breakup of Proto-Turkic can be estimated between 500 BCE and 100 CE. Martine Robbeets, Remco Bouckaert, Bayesian phylolinguistics reveals the internal structure of the Transeurasian family, Journal of Language Evolution, Volume 3, Issue 2, July 2018 The language of the European Huns is sometimes referred to as a Bulghar Turkic variety in general linguistic literature, but caution is needed in establishing its affiliations. The predominant part of the Xiongnu population is likely to have spoken Turkic (Late Proto-Turkic, to be more precise). Cite this article: Savelyev A, Jeong C (2020). Early nomads of the Eastern Steppe and their tentative connections in the West. Evolutionary Human Sciences 2, e20, 1-17. The predecessors of Huihe were Xiongnu. Because, customarily, they ride high-wheeled carts. They were also called Gaoche during the Yuan Wei times, or also called Chile, mistakenly rendered as Tiele. - Xin Tangshu, 232 only the Turkic Gaoju origin of the Hephthalites should be retained as indicative of their primary ethnicity.[82] Weishu, vol. 103 txt: "高車，[...] 其語略與匈奴同而時有小異，或云其先匈奴之甥也", tr: "The Gaoju, [...] their language and the Xiongnu's are similar though differ a little; or to say it differently, they are the sororal nephews/sons-in-laws of the Xiongnu " According to the Book of Wei, the Yuebans' language and customs were the same as the Gaoche, who were Turkic speakers. Yuebans(Weak Xiongnu) cut their hair and trimmed their ghee-smeared, sun-dried, glossy eyebrows evenly, and washed before meals three times everyday.[18][19] Chinese sources link the Tiele people and Ashina to the Xiongnu, According to the Book of Zhou and the History of the Northern Dynasties, the Ashina clan was a component of the Xiongnu confederation.[84][85] Uyghur Khagans claimed descent from the Xiongnu (according to Chinese history Weishu, the founder of the Uyghur Khaganate was descended from a Xiongnu ruler).[86] Both the 7th-century Chinese History of the Northern Dynasties[87] and the Book of Zhou,[88] an inscription in the Sogdian language, report the Göktürks to be a subgroup of the Xiongnu.[89][90] Tiele are originally Xiongnu's splinter stocks. As Tujue are strong and prosperous, all Tiele districts (郡) are divided and scattered, the masses gradually dwindled and weakened. Until the beginning of Wude [era], there have been Xueyantuo, Qibi, Huihe, Dubo, Guligan, Duolange, Pugu, Bayegu, Tongluo, Hun, Sijie, Huxue, Xijie, Adie, Baixi, etc. scattered in the northern wastelands. - Jiu Tangshu, 199, lower The Romans were in turn laid low by Turkic Eurasian pastoral nomads from the east-the Huns, or Juan-Juan in Chinese sources. “From Slavs to Rus.’” The Russian Moment in World History, by Marshall T. Poe, Princeton University Press, Princeton; Oxford, 2003, pp. 10-27.

[@xanshen9011]

My ancestors! Greetings from Kyrgyzstan! 🇰🇬

[@biscolataman]

🇹🇷 My ancestors too!

[@Attila646]

Same here

[@猛男-t6g]

@@biscolataman But xiongnu have been extinct for at least 1500 years😆，Turk DNA is very close to Greek DNA！ Your ancestors came from the West！！！🤣，

[@猛男-t6g]

@@biscolataman Talk to me chicken！

[@islammehmeov2334]

@@猛男-t6g what up A bat eater)

[@Ranting4Rent]

Xiongnu->Huns (Hunnu Guren)->Mongol Empire-> Mongolia. Of course some tribe/tribes went south to China some west towards Europe and Russia even Iran and India. If you go through many empires/kingdoms of India and Iran were ruled by a group of foreign decent that came from modern-day Mongolia and Altai Mountains. Many established and conquered the areas they went to and eventually assimilated

[@yo2trader539]

Xiongnu (匈奴) could've been a generic term referring to all northern barbarians, including various Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic clans. The nomadic horsemen in Mongolian steppe did not just disappear from history. The Xianbei (鮮卑) who dominated northern China and established the Northern Wei (北魏) dynasty, The Gokturk Khaganate (突厥), the Uyghur Khaganate, or the Jou-jan/Rouran (柔然) Khaganate...all these various Turkic and Mongolic nomadic clans who ruled the Mongolian steppe appear and reappear in history under various names.

[@lesleytenshigaming8149]

The xianbei were not xiongnu. The xiongnu were believed to fled Asia to Europe and became the huns. Even mongol are xiabei not xiongnu

[@salvatorenostrade3331]

​@@lesleytenshigaming8149No thats extremely incorrect. There were European Huns and Asian huns. Xiongnu actually went by the name: "Hunnu" they likely both originate from the same place and were similar culturally but one isnt a continuation of another.

[@user-ib1do7vt2p]

是的，北方蛮族有很多的部落，有自己的名称，生活方式语言有小差异，但基本相似。某一个部落强大后，就会征服整个草原，整个北方就会以该部落的名字命名。这些蛮族由于好战的性格，游牧民族的属性，往往在领土扩张方面相当高效，对周边国家造成威胁。据中国史书记载，匈奴人，突厥人，蒙古人在强大时都会控制中亚的小国家。中亚西亚印欧人受到了东亚游牧部落文化影响。形成了许多带有游牧文化色彩的国家。

[@VeronicaCawelti]

As always you impress me with the really fun things I learn from you. Thanks again and never stop!

[@HistorywithCy]

Thanks so much for the kind words, and don't worry, no plans of stopping! Stay safe!

[@kaiadams3636]

Great work as always, I don't know much about East Asian history so this is a welcome introduction, hope to see more on these cultures, as well as on Mesoamerican ones. If you ever make videos on Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic eras one day, that would be cool too.

[@HistorywithCy]

Thanks so much for the feedback, really appreciate it. Oh don't worry, more on Mesopotamia to come. Paleolithic might be a bit too far back from where I'm heading, but occasionally may delve into some Neolithic stuff (probably to do with Europe or prehistoric Americas). Thanks for stopping by, really appreciate it. More to come, stay safe!

[@AltaicTroll]

Good as always

[@HistorywithCy]

Thank you!

[@michaellewis7959]

This was a pleasant change of pace Cy! Really enjoyed it.

[@HistorywithCy]

Yeah, it's nice to get away from Mesopotamia some times. This was fun to, especially as a collab and hopefully will be able to more more soon. Thanks again for the support, really appreciate it. Stay safe my friend!

[@motherlessgoat72]

Wow! You have an incredible amount of variety on this channel and each video is so captivating and informative. The writing is phenomenal and your attention to detail as well as the big picture is balanced and easy to follow. You're doing a great job and I can't wait to see what you put out in the future! You definitely have my subscription! 😄

[@HistorywithCy]

Hi, thanks so much for stopping by, really appreciate it and so glad that you've found stuff here that interests you! Also thanks for the detailed feedback as it helps me to know what I'm doing well and where I can improve... seriously, it helps a lot! There will definitely be a lot more coming out in the next few months- more on ancient Greece, the Near East, India, China and Mesoamerica. If you have any requests, please don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks again, all the best for 2021 and stay safe!

[@_berat.ugur_3089]

Xiongnu is turkic. not mongol.

[@alessandrodelogu7931]

This mixed video of two channels I like is simply awesome. Now you could make something about the Hunnic peoples who invaded India, Persia and the Roman Empire. In Hungary Medieval historians considered the Huns to be the ancestors of the Hungarian people. There was even a legend according to which Attila spared Rome because an angel told him that, if he did it, God would have given a kingdom to his descendants: the Hungarians. Now you could make something about Caucasus or Indochina. Who is the first known civilization of Southeast Asia? I've read something about the Pyu city-states, but not very much. They could be a good topic.

[@HistorywithCy]

All great suggestions! I will definitely do something on the Caucasus because that's an area of great fascination for me, but also the Huns and Alans one day. I just wish that I had more time to cover all of these! Thanks for the support, appreciate it...stay safe!

[@amethyst5538]

History Bros brought me here. One of the best recommendations I have clicked on!

[@HistorywithCy]

And his is one of the best channels out there, really love his stuff and hope to collaborate with him again! Thanks for stopping by, really appreciate it. More to come, stay safe!

[@redhidinghood9337]

I'm glad theres finally a youtuber who at least tries to pronounce chinese names correctly. Some read qin as kin or read the 'x' as ks.

[@HistorywithCy]

haha yeah I try but still have a ways to go. I'll keep working on it as I plan to put out more on the region in the not-so-distant future. Thanks for stopping by, really appreciate it. Stay safe!

[@talon5985]

Agreed!

[@waibibabu7420]

200BC Xiongnu: say hello to my horse archers! 100BC Han: well say hello to my large onagers!

[@HistorywithCy]

LOL yeah pretty much. Thanks for stopping by, really appreciate it. More to come, stay safe!

[@LOLMAN9538]

The only time I have heard about the Xiongnu Empire is during the prelude to the Three Kingdoms period. Liu Bao, a powerful figure within the Xiongnu ranks, had taken Cai Wenji, the daughter of influential Han Imperial Court member Cai Yong, in as his concubine, and he bore 2 children from her. Later on, when none other than the Hero of Chaos himself, Cao Cao, came to his quarters and demanded that Wenji be released, Liu Bao obediently sent her back to him. After this turn of events, Cai Wenji felt as though she owed a life debt to Cao Cao for saving him, and she officially entered his service before the Battle of Red Cliffs.

[@kingoftheworld22]

Long live the Mongols and Turks!

[@AverageAmerican]

Happy to be your Sub and staunchest critic !

[@HistorywithCy]

Thanks, really appreciate it! Lots more to come, stay safe!

[@aarorahkola8676]

Keep up the good work

[@HistorywithCy]

Thanks so much, appreciate it! Stay safe!

[@ajithsidhu7183]

@@HistorywithCy yes pls do one on the nanman people ,ancient Indian and arabia

[@davidfigueroa6351]

Cy is no joke! Excellent work as always.

[@HistoricalRealitys]

Huns in Central Asia B.C. It emerged in the early 3rd century and dates back to B.C. They are a tribe that emerged on the stage of history as the oldest Turkish state in the early 1000s. The Huns founded the largest nomadic khanate in Asia. During this period, the Huns formed a strong federation by bringing together many different Turkish tribes. Mete Han is known as the Hun ruler and has great importance in Turkish history. During Mete Khan's reign, the Huns brought the first modern state and army concept. Mete Han organized a disciplined army and made innovations in war strategies. He is also known as a leader who emphasizes the sanctity of love for nation and homeland. Under his leadership, the Huns conquered large territories and became an influential power in Central Asia.

[@nikot4410]

They were proto mongols 🎊

[@Error111]

YOU SAID HUNS AND THE TURKIC PEOPLE BUT THE HUNS WERE TURKIC TO

[@biscolataman]

It is for sure

[@s0ry_4bad_inglish19]

it is only a theory, it is not proven yet bc there is not much evidience. european huns just may have got their names through relationships with xiongnu/asian huns, like slavic bulgarians who got their name from turkic bulgars but not related at all, also we know european huns had an multiethnical structure so you cant really say that

[@Error111]

@@s0ry_4bad_inglish19 💀we know that huns were turkic and Bulgars were Turkic tribes from Central Asia . They later mixed with Slavs

[@s0ry_4bad_inglish19]

@@Error111 💀 you can say you dont know it is okay

[@Error111]

@@s0ry_4bad_inglish19 it’s okay , look at the Chinese sources

[@dadlight3783]

now Buryats live in Russia. they are direct descendants of the Xiongnu . their ancestors Bayarku and Kurykan are described as direct descendants of the Huns or Xiongnu. they are Mongolian, but have more than 30% of the vocabulary from the southern samoyed tribes

[@papazataklaattiranimam]

Kurykan was Turkic tribe🤣

[@papazataklaattiranimam]

Buryats have 40% Turkic blood btw

[@dadlight3783]

@@papazataklaattiranimam In a number of Central Asian sources of the 10th-9th centuries. (Takhir Marvazi, Gardizi, "Khudud al-Alam", etc.) the people "Kuri" or "Furi" are mentioned, living next to the Yenisei Kyrgyz. It is said about this people that the Kyrgyz do not understand their language. Other details, for example, in Hudud al-Alam: “Furi [Quri ?], the name of a tribe that also belongs to the Khirkhiz, but lives to the east of them and does not mix with other parts of the Khirkhiz. They are cannibals (mardum-khwar) and have no pity. The other Khirkhiz do not know their language (zafan-i ishan digar Kh. nadanand), and they are like savages (va chun wahshiyand).” Kurykan were mongolian tribes

[@troigcyusa]

​@@papazataklaattiranimam anatolian greek/Arab hybrid who has zero central Asian or Turkic DNA thinks he is some steppe horse nomad. Stop coping, 🦃

[@Rorschachqp]

I believe Han Gaozu was Liu Bang’s posthumous title.

[@ofallmyintention9496]

I didn't look at my subscriptions yesterday, and today, I see a video from Kings and Generals AND History with Cy? Yes, please.

[@HistorywithCy]

Haha thanks, glad you got it! Yeah, my feed has been recently filled with election stuff but I also started getting normal videos just today. Stay safe my friend!

[@gododoof]

One of the diplomatic missions meant to find allies to fight the Xiongnu brought Sima Qian all the way the the Greek Kingdom of Bactria, which he described in his history. Just a cool little cross cultural interaction.

[@HistorywithCy]

haha you're going to love Cool History Bros next video then on Sima Qian... make sure that you subscribe to his channel! Yes, he sought allies as far as Parthian-controlled Mesopotamia if I remember correctly. Thanks for stopping by, really appreciate it. More to come, stay safe!

[@gododoof]

@@HistorywithCy That's fantastic. Can't wait to watch it.

[@seanbeadles7421]

Another cool fact: the Abbasids and Tang Dynasty China fought battles in what is now Kyrgyzstan for control over Central Asia.

[@billdehappy1]

or rather khusan...

[@billdehappy1]

such a shame people forget that saka and khusan silkroad connected east and west was a huge empire at the time

[@Haijwsyz51846]

CJ is talking nonsense. During the Chinese Han dynasty, the Han Chinese under Han Wu Di defeated the Xiongnu. The southern Xiongnu submitted to the Han, and the northern Xiongnu migrated West, called "the Huns" by the Romans and the Germanic tribes. Also, Qin Shi Huang Di started the centralized ruling in China, not because of Xiongnu, but because of the Spring and Autumn Warring States that were all under the rulings of the descendants of the Zhou dynasty, fighting each other after 500 years of feudalism. Qin Shi Huang Di was a Si ma of the Zhou emperor. When the Zhou emperor moved his capital to the east, the emperor gave the capital in the west to his Si ma. Then he defeated all the Zhou kingdoms and the last Zhou emperor gave him the Key of the city gate where the emperor lived. Si ma started the Qin dynasty and the centralized ruling of China, which continues to present.

[@biscolataman]

Xiongnu Empire😍😍😍

[@HistorywithCy]

Thank you!

[@_berat.ugur_3089]

Xiongnu is turkic. not mongol.

[@taigalaar]

@@_berat.ugur_3089 They were probably lived together at this age untill Xioungnu seperated. Both nomad tribes

[@_berat.ugur_3089]

@@taigalaar may be.

[@Sarke2]

Great choice, glad to see ou are covering some different region, i recommend to create the video about Yuezhi who were the arch rivals of Xiongnu, defeated by Xiongnu they migrated to Tarim Basin and later to India to create Kushan Empire, also you can cover Wusun interesting people who live near the Sogdians existed till the 5th century ad. This region is interesting and full of mystery. As for Xiongnu their ethnogenesis is more complicated i think they were confederation of more tribes and that the large part migrated west and became the Huns for sure.

[@HistorywithCy]

Yes, the Yuezhi, especially the Kushans, are on the way as is something on Sogdian and Bactria. Actually, I can't wait to put out those videos for you all, most likely in the first quarter of 2021. Stay tuned my friend, it's all coming!

[@grantbrown1695]

@@HistorywithCy a great episode would be one on all the various groups that are tied to the name "Huns". You have Attila's huns, the White Huns of central asia and I'm sure a few others

[@deathsheadknight2137]

"a cold" as if there wasn't a single Almighty cold these days lol

[@mdstanton1813]

🤧🤫😷

[@HistorywithCy]

True, very true...

[@AverageAmerican]

aa...aCHoo❗️Excuse me, probably allergies.

[@sergeikhan2268]

Pretty good narrative I like how it’s not biased

[@khansarts4298]

Xiongu İs Confederafion But Leader of Government is Turkic People.

[@spacebunny4335]

Great video I wouldn’t go and say that they were Turkic as this is still in debate. However it is undeniable that they had a large Turkic speaking component. In my view they were a heavily multi-ethnic confederation that included Turkic, Iranic and maybe some Mongolian peoples.

[@Raidon8537]

Bro what? Do you have a brain? It was definitely Turkic and less Mongol.

[@Raidon8537]

It was an empire not confederation. Xiongnu was 1500 years old.

[@tmir6975]

Liked your video. But wonder why you didn't mention Mongols & Manchurians are descendants of Xiongnu...

[@muhammeddolcu2987]

Xiongnu was Proto turkic

[@muhammeddolcu2987]

Xianbei is proto mongolic. The Gokturks are the continuation of Xiongnu

[@AbC-pj2op]

​@muhammeddolcu2987 technically you are correct. But Hunnu (xiongnu or whatever) are the common ancestors of mongolic , turkic , and many other nomadic tribes.

[@jaads7910]

Mongols

[@tuzukatsanyu4569]

Turks and mongols

[@enesbeter9815]

We, the glorious Turkish people, are a society separated from the Mongols

[@ssxu1168]

Thank You guys.. (Cy and CJ).. I have always have deep interest in history if ancient silk road and the ancient chinese history... You guys made it so easy to understand and connect the dots...

[@HistorywithCy]

Thanks for stopping by, and check out CJ's channel too (Cool History Bros), you'll love it! Stay safe!

[@Rivaldix12]

Such a cool history, i believe that they are my ancestors as a hun.

[@bestmovies1987]

Main nation(Founders): Mongol tribes confederation Vassals(Conquered area’s people):Turkic tribes Enemy: China Expansion: until Europe including White Huns, Attila Huns. Great Xiongnu empire 👏👏👏

[@Ye_fan.]

The Han Empire, not China, was there a country called China in the 2nd century??

[@013aanikhfds]

Never expected you to cover East Asia. If you have, I guess I didn’t see that. Pretty good video though, definitely make some more on this side of Asia.

[@HistorywithCy]

Thanks my friend, hope to do more on the region as soon as I'm a bit more comfortable with the pronunciation of various names haha. That's actually one of the reasons I've held off on it...I love the rich history of the region, I just want to be able to do it right. Thanks for stopping by, really appreciate it, stay safe!

[@_berat.ugur_3089]

Xiongnu is turkic. not mongol.

[@013aanikhfds]

@@_berat.ugur_3089 I never said it wasn’t turkic and no one really knows who the xiongnu were.

[@_berat.ugur_3089]

Do you mean BRAVE TURKS Prof. Dr. Nicola Di Cosmo in: The Turks: Early ages, Part 4. Huns (Xiongnu): The Origin and Rise of the Xiongnu Empire, Y. T., 2002, pp.217-227, University of Michigan, ISBN 9756782552, 9789756782552 "There is not much doubt among historians about the Turkish nature of the Great Hun Empire, which ruled between 318 B.C. and 216 A.D., as well as that of its predecessor proto-Huns, whose presence was confirmed by Chinese sources. The Great Hun Empire, the Western Hun Empire and especially the European Huns were examined comprehensively by Western historians." The term Turkic represents a broad ethno-linguistic group of peoples including existing societies such as Altai, Azerbaijanis, Balkars, Bashkirs, Chuvashes, Crimean Karaites, Gagauz, Karachays, Karakalpaks, Kazakhs, Khakas, Krymchaks, Kyrgyz people, Nogais, Qashqai, Tatars, Turkmens, Turkish people, Tuvans, Uyghurs, Uzbeks, and Yakuts and as well as ancient and medieval states such as Dingling, Bulgars, Alat, Basmyl, Onogurs, Shatuo, Chuban, Göktürks, Oghuz Turks, Kankalis, Khazars, Khiljis, Kipchaks, Kumans, Karluks, Bahri Mamluks, Ottoman Turks, Seljuk Turks, Tiele, Timurids, Turgeshes, Yenisei Kirghiz, and Huns, Tuoba, and Xiongnu.[24][25][26][27][28] The predecessors of Huihe were Xiongnu. Because, customarily, they ride high-wheeled carts. They were also called Gaoche during the Yuan Wei times, or also called Chile, mistakenly rendered as Tiele. - Xin Tangshu, 232 only the Turkic Gaoju origin of the Hephthalites should be retained as indicative of their primary ethnicity.[82] Weishu, vol. 103 txt: "高車，[...] 其語略與匈奴同而時有小異，或云其先匈奴之甥也", tr: "The Gaoju, [...] their language and the Xiongnu's are similar though differ a little; or to say it differently, they are the sororal nephews/sons-in-laws of the Xiongnu " According to the Book of Wei, the Yuebans' language and customs were the same as the Gaoche, who were Turkic speakers. Yuebans(Weak Xiongnu) cut their hair and trimmed their ghee-smeared, sun-dried, glossy eyebrows evenly, and washed before meals three times everyday.[18][19] Chinese sources link the Tiele people and Ashina to the Xiongnu, According to the Book of Zhou and the History of the Northern Dynasties, the Ashina clan was a component of the Xiongnu confederation.[84][85] Uyghur Khagans claimed descent from the Xiongnu (according to Chinese history Weishu, the founder of the Uyghur Khaganate was descended from a Xiongnu ruler).[86] Both the 7th-century Chinese History of the Northern Dynasties[87] and the Book of Zhou,[88] an inscription in the Sogdian language, report the Göktürks to be a subgroup of the Xiongnu.[89][90] Tiele are originally Xiongnu's splinter stocks. As Tujue are strong and prosperous, all Tiele districts (郡) are divided and scattered, the masses gradually dwindled and weakened. Until the beginning of Wude [era], there have been Xueyantuo, Qibi, Huihe, Dubo, Guligan, Duolange, Pugu, Bayegu, Tongluo, Hun, Sijie, Huxue, Xijie, Adie, Baixi, etc. scattered in the northern wastelands. - Jiu Tangshu, 199, lower English Hunnish Turkish Apple Alma Elma Khan Han Han Wolf Böri Börü/Kurt Hear İşit İşit God Tengri Tengri/Allah Mother Ana Ana/Anne Daddy Ata Ata/Baba Day Kün Gün Horse At At Moon Ay Ay Real Öz Öz Soldier Er Er White Ak Ak Black Kara Kara Eye Köz Göz Islak Yaş/Yeş Yaş Nine(9) Toğuz Dokuz Thirty(30) Otuz Otuz Sky Kök Gök Boy Oglan Oğlan Arrow Ok Ok Clan Bog Boy Man Beg Bey East Dogu Doğu Nice Kozal Güzel Water Su Su Go Kit Git Golden Altun Altın Diamond Almaz Elmas Thorn Tigin Diken Rose Kül Gül Head Baş Baş İron Timur Demir

[@013aanikhfds]

@@_berat.ugur_3089 still irrelevant. never said the xiongnu weren’t turkic, along with the fact that saying it’s controversial doesn’t need any proof. Just look up “Wikipedia Xiongnu Confederacy”

[@adhamabulhassan6059]

Hello brother really love your work but I really want you to talk about the nabatens it was an arab civilization in modern day Jordan they were the people that built petra I would love that you talk about them ( sorry for the bad English)

[@shanecarubbi7864]

Great video Cy, and Cj. I haven't heard of the history bros channel, I'll have to give it a look. Thanks for the videos guys, keep up the good work👍👍

[@HistorywithCy]

Oh you'll love it, he has an amazing channel ... I've been learning so much from it. Thanks so much for stopping by, really appreciate it. More to come, stay safe!

[@_berat.ugur_3089]

Xiongnu is turkic. not mongol.

[@acharonim4659]

Quality Content... Keep it up bro.

[@HistorywithCy]

Thanks my friend, appreciate it! Stay safe!

[@Turan_Taktigi]

Xiongnu aren’t ancestor of China.Xiongnu is Turkic and Mongolian.

[@Ye_fan.]

The capital of the Xiongnu was called Dragon City, and the Xiongnu worshipped the dragon totem many years earlier than the Han

[@Ye_fan.]

Secondly, currently all the texts excavated from the Xiongnu ruins are in Chinese

[@Ye_fan.]

I'm not sure about the Turks, but the Xiongnu and the Mongols have no connection at all.

[@Ye_fan.]

The ancestors of the Mongols were the Donghu, which belonged to the same period as the Xiongnu and were later conquered and enslaved by the Xiongnu

[@Ye_fan.]

Mongols had nothing to do with xiongnu, and the Mongol ancestor donghu was conquered by the Xiongnu Empire

[@backyD]

匈奴人不是蒙古人祖先，也特么不是土耳其人的野爹。真无语

[@jaxyoung8846]

这帮人就是到处认爹。谁强谁就是他爹。。。火鸡人，南抄县人都说匈奴是他们爹呢。。。

[@Toktobay987]

im crimean tatar turk huns is my turkic ancestors

[@user-qd8pl6es8f]

Xiongnu Empire was the ancestors of the Mongolian tribes than anyone else. It's just the language is not yet deciphered. Every Empire that followed the Xiongnu (Xianbei, Touba Xiwei, Northern Wei, Ruaran, Kitan, Khamag Mongols) were of Mongolic origin and all spoke Mongolic language with an interval in 6-9th centuries of Turkic, Uygur Empires (even the latter is nowadays disputed with new findings). Graves of Xiongnu period are being studied, genetical samples of those individuals are matching with the modern day Mongolians, in 80% of the cases. To be serious.

[@Ye_fan.]

No, there is no such statement. On the contrary, all the texts unearthed from the Xiongnu ruins are Chinese characters

[@user-qd8pl6es8f]

@@Ye_fan. There was also a runic script of the Xiongnu. I wonder why they cannot decode that. Time will show, I guess. Recently, they deciphered a couple of 6th-century Brahmi monuments which turned out to have been by Ruruans and in a Middle Mongolic language.

[@Ye_fan.]

I cannot send web links, they will be deleted. Go to Google and Google the Mongolian Xiongnu Chanyu ruins

[@Ye_fan.]

The writing is in Chinese characters, like all Xiongnu artifacts in China. The characters unearthed in all the sites are all Chinese characters.

[@Ye_fan.]

@@user-qd8pl6es8f Google "jin xu 徐津 dragon city" goes to X to see more details

[@recepvolkanturan8030]

Very good video thanks for works

[@HistorywithCy]

Thank you, appreciate it and glad that you stopped by! More to come, stay safe!

[@mihailotejic3044]

I have a suggestion for you,if you are intrested in Chinese history,you can make a video about only female empress of China Wu Zetian🙂

[@HistorywithCy]

Thanks for the suggestion, it's on the list! Thanks also for stopping by, really appreciate it. Stay safe!

[@KimseKimsesiz1948]

Greetings from Türkiye 🇹🇷 to China 🇨🇳… My ancestors used to be fierce Warlords who threatened and dominated you for many centuries 😎

[@thoirdhomhfiosrachadh]

@ata They run away from the chinese army again and again If the nomadic tribes want peace and build a state or enything else like the mongols (karakorum) than destroyed the chinese the citys in few years Xoungnu was the most time running away from the chinese armys 😂😂😂😂

[@张哲段]

no,The whole of Eastern Turks was slaughtered by the Tang Dynasty, the Turkic khans were captured and sang, what are you daydreaming, the Turks have never defeated China. It was the Eastern Hu, Mongolia, Jurchen and others who defeated China

[@jackgoodnight2]

Guess what, the Han still in today's world. The xiong nu who defeated by Han and run away from their home. The war between Han and xiong nu really taught them a lesson that will never be forgotten, even now these pisslam greeks are not chinese opponents at all.😎 Fun fact: 90% of the turkish are greek actually.❤😆

[@wetot2]

Selam from China ! My ancestors were the Xianbei who have been assimilated into Han Chinese in 6th century

[@user-wg1em7gt4q]

Turk?Hahaha, by contrast, we chinese dominated you in ancient time! You guys and your ancestor were slaughtered by chinese army during Han and Tang dynasty! Remember your place, you guys did not match the power of chinese army!

[@robbabcock_]

Fascinating! Thanks, Cy!

[@HistorywithCy]

Glad you liked it, more on east Asia to come, stay tuned!

[@theboys830]

not mongolia

[@middlepath4458]

Location of the chinese wall you show is partially incorrect. The eastenn location of the Great Wall did not reach the Manchurian region. Also the territory of Cao Wei, showing that he occupied part of the Korean Peninsula, is wrong. The Wei Dynasty controlled only a portion of Manchuria.

[@cegesh1459]

Very cool colab and a great topic!

[@HistorywithCy]

Thank you, was great working with Cool History Bros. It's a great channel, you'll love the other vides there. Thanks for stopping by, stay safe!

[@Engjuehan]

There's only Xiongnu union, empire never existed

[@George-oq9by]

My ancestors Bulgarians were also a part of Xiongnu. Greetings to all from Bulgaria 🇧🇬

[@MRT-co1sd]

Hungarians are mixed of Xiongnu and Finnish bloodlines.

[@George-oq9by]

@@MRT-co1sd I don`t know about Hungarians, I`m Bulgarian They are finno ugric as far as I know so Finnish yes ,but not Xiongnu, plus Xiongnu is not one nation, it was an empire of many tribes so it doesn`t make sense

[@Engjuehan]

No, you are not Xiongnu, Xiongnu have already all mixed with Hans

[@arzep6369]

Well well well, neither Xiongnu nor Xianbei nor Gok Turk exists nowadays...they all vanished in history...only China still stands firmly.

[@suleimanthemagnificent1494]

Xiongnu and Göktürks are Turkic and there is 6 Turkic states this time and they ancestors are Xiongnu and Göktürks? Xianbei is Mongol and Mongolia is now a country?

[@bugsytv6852]

Mongols are dope but the Samurai’s of Tsushima are awesome as well. :)

[@HistorywithCy]

Yeah, want to do a video on that one day... it's further down the timeline though. Thanks for stopping by, appreciate it and glad you liked the video! Stay safe!

[@ComeradeVelaryon]

the link to see the "The link for "Sources and Suggested Reading" is not working :(

[@IBMboy]

Epic collab

[@HistorywithCy]

Thanks, was fun to do and glad that you liked it! Hopefully more such collabs in the future!

[@tjw9985]

It's fun to learn more about ancient China

[@HistorywithCy]

Agreed, will be putting out more content on Chinese history in the near future. Thank so much for stopping by, really appreciate it. Stay safe!

[@user-fl7by8in5o]

👍 good video

[@HistorywithCy]

Thank you!

[@elkingoh4543]

"The air is filled with Smoke and Blood"

[@mongolheritage]

You can't rely solely on one-sided historical materials. If you are a serious researcher, you should also consult Mongolian historians to get a more complete understanding of the topic.

[@yoloi2470]

Mongolian historian is rare these days.

[@johan-lh9ej]

Sejarah mongolia kuno tidak memiliki bukti peninggalan sejarah seperti manuskrip atau tulisan tulisan china yg sdh ada saat itu, jadi intinya xiong nu jelas bukan orang han

[@DungeonerHarold]

CJ!

[@HistorywithCy]

Yeah! So glad he was able to make a cameo in this video. Thanks for stopping by, really appreciate it. More to come, stay safe!

[@Kaan_is_myname97]

xiongnu are huns

[@beninwarrior4579]

What is the name of the first song in the video? Your really killing it with this music man!

[@HistorywithCy]

It's called "A Strange Shadow" by Damon Greene on Epidemic Sound. Thanks for stopping by, stay safe!

[@muslenawolffang2186]

Edited this comment because I know now these ARE my ancient cousins from an ancient time. Being half "Native American" mesoamerican and Amazonian i know we have a deep rooted history many don't understand including archeologists. Bless to the ancient ones they watch over is today. True Gods 🙏🏽❤🐺

[@ericamorales7740]

Wow yes on mytrueancestry can you tell me what this means Late Xiongnu Ulaanzuukh Mongolia

[@ericamorales7740]

I matched to that*

[@muslenawolffang2186]

@@ericamorales7740 I recently found out my mtdna haplogroup is really C which is found in the Americas and Asia. Somehow related to Mongolian tribes. I think because Native Americans and Mongolian tribes share some distant ancestors from over 10,000 years ago. Pretty cool. If you're of Native decent then most likely you may have long long distance cousins from these ancient tribes. Especially MTDNA haplogroup bloodlines that carry similar genes.

[@asil6770]

XIONGNU TURKIC EMPIRE 🇹🇷🇦🇿🇰🇬🇰🇿🇹🇲🇺🇿

[@ShamanOGHUZ3]

+ 🇲🇳 👍

[@Timurid1370]

@@ShamanOGHUZ3 yes

[@mohicantheluststar2550]

Xiounu is pronounced as Hun-nu like huns

[@_berat.ugur_3089]

Xiongnu is turkic. not mongol.

[@troigcyusa]

You're an anatolian greek. Stop picking fights with Mongolians. Mongolians have more in common with central Asian Turks.

[@jackgoodnight2]

Cried hard. 90% of turkish are greek actually. Wow❤

[@AbC-pj2op]

Im using great apes here for example. Lets say mongols are humans and turks are oranguntans. Both shares the same ancestors

[@johan-lh9ej]

​@@jackgoodnight2greek not turkeyi stupid, greek and turkiye is rival or enemies each other

[@MertYT0]

Xiongnu is Turkic.

[@hishot1078]

Yeah thanks for clarifying that Xiongnu was a confederacy not a specific race controlled "empire". Tired of watching comments from over-nationalistic history twisters (you know who) claim Xiongnu as their direct ancient kingdom or empire lol.

[@katmannsson]

I think this is the only one of your video's since I subbed that I somehow didn't watch within the week of its upload. Weird.

[@HistorywithCy]

Haha no worries, it's a different subject than my usual but was fun to make and collab with CJ from Cool History Bros. I'll do some more on ancient China and also Japan in 2021. Thanks again for stopping by, really appreciate it... stay safe!

[@bredmond812]

If you have to say Chinese names in the future, send me a list and i will tell you reasonable ways to pronounce it. I could help you say it nearly perfect, but a reasonable equivalent is fine too if you want that. 5 minutes in and your pronunciation is basically fine, but still somewhat wrong. Not enough to really get too upset about but it could be slightly better. EDIT: Ok, I have watched the whole video. CJ's pronunciation is of course perfect. I couldn't get as perfect as him, but I could give you a better reasonable western approximation that what you already did, not that your current version was bad.

[@HistorywithCy]

Yeah, it's definitely a difficult language for me...hard to get the tones right, but there's hope. About three years ago, my Akkadian was horrendous, but after putting some work in, it's much better now. So, let's see with Chinese... hopefully it'll improve as well. Thanks again for stopping by, always great to hear from you. Stay safe!

[@bredmond812]

@@HistorywithCy Are you really learning Chinese? I can help you with that. Let me know if you want help.

[@HistorywithCy]

@@bredmond812 No, not really learning it, but working on the pronunciation. I just know a few basic phrases and words from Duolingo haha.

[@mdstanton1813]

The Han were just as snobby as the greeks, Roman's and Egyptians in regards to their attitude of the nomadic people's surrounding their empires. Interesting Thanks Cy

[@mdstanton1813]

And thanks CJ!

[@mdstanton1813]

@The Ming Warrior good point. I suspect I'd be more judgemental regarding those actions and not their nomadic lifestyles, clothes they wear and food they eat

[@HistorywithCy]

My pleasure, glad you liked the video. I'll do more on the Han soon, and maybe a podcast on their daily life/views if I can get more information on it, which I'm sure there is, just have to find it. Thanks again, stay safe!

[@TheBucketSkill]

@The Ming Warrior Snobby is not necessarily bad. Being snobby for a REASON is what the greeks/romans/han were.

[@nole8923]

The story about the first emperor of the Xiongnu where his father wanted to kill him when he was a child because he was jealous of him seems a bit unbelievable. I don’t know of any father who would want to kill his own son as a boy. So, I believe this story is at best inaccurate.

[@julievazquez3839]

CJ needs to learn how to use his mask (should cover the nose), maybe that's why he got sick. he he

[@josebenardi1554]

good point, lol

[@HistorywithCy]

Haha luckily he was 6ft away from us!

[@madderhat5852]

Well, if He Qin can do it, I am also the rightful inheritor of the Qin dynasty. Can I have Xian now? It's a pretty city.

[@HistorywithCy]

Yeah, I want visit and see the museum in Xi'an. I heard it's great. Thanks for stopping by, really appreciate it. Stay safe!

[@michaelhowze8198]

You sure can if you can outfight the PLA. That's probably going to be an issue though.

[@scrumpy8192]

This has gotta be one of the best channels on youtube. I hope you do some more videos on ancient China/Asia someday. By the way, xiong is pronounced like "shyong".

[@HistorywithCy]

Hi, thanks so much for kind words and stopping by, really appreciate it! Yeah, I need to work on my pronunciation of Chinese names and places. It's a bit of a struggle for me but I'm working on it... else perhaps I'll get a native Chinese speaker to narrate parts of the next one. Yes, there will be more on ancient and medieval China later on in the year, you can count on that! Thanks again for the support, really appreciate it! Stay safe!

[@pastelbulut7648]

Xiongu is a turkic Empire

[@AbC-pj2op]

Common ancestors of both mongolia and turks and other nomadic people

[@tulparid]

Xiongnu is not Mongol is Turkic

[@HistorywithCy]

They are likely the ancestors of many groups - after all, they were such a large confederation that covered a huge area. Tribes that went west are believed to have been Turkic, yes. Thanks for stopping by, appreciate it. Stay safe!

[@bxyhxyh]

Yeah, i'm very annoyed they say xiongnu is turkic while it is ascendant of many steppe tribes. And we can't change the fact that most of xiongnu territory is on today's Mongolia. Definitely one of main ascendants of Mongols

[@tulparid]

@@bxyhxyh there was Turks before mongols you said it _today's mongolia_

[@tulparid]

@@HistorywithCy I agree but still mostly Turkic and all leaders was Turkic too (Teoman,Mete Han etc.)

[@biscolataman]

@@bxyhxyh Mongols have Xianbei origin not Xiongnu

[@gabrielfaure9091]

“Coming to ransack a city near you”

[@HistorywithCy]

Lol... thanks for stopping by, really appreciate it. More to come, stay safe!

[@gabrielfaure9091]

@@HistorywithCy I really enjoy your videos. Keep up the amazing content!

[@HistorywithCy]

@@gabrielfaure9091 Thank you, will do!

[@dinmalikogli5983]

Arg’imaq atlarim . 🐎🐺Türük elim ana tilim .

[@viracocha6093]

Will you go into detail on how the Achaemenid empire functioned administratively, sometime?

[@viracocha6093]

Also props for the accurate coastline

[@HistorywithCy]

Yes, I plan to do that and other, non political aspects of the Achaemenids, just need the time to put it out. Hopefully by early 2021. Thanks, stay safe!

[@usharasaveen1987]

cy is the best

[@HistorywithCy]

Thanks, glad you liked the video! More on the region to come, stay safe!

[@maykonjunkes6027]

Thanks for such great content

[@HistorywithCy]

My pleasure, glad that you enjoy it! More to come, stay safe!

[@yoda105]

Watching this before bed! Great thing to send me to sleep lol.

[@yoda105]

Not that's its boring oop😳 it's very interesting keep up the good work

[@HistorywithCy]

Lol no worries, I know what you mean. I also sometimes listen to podcasts while trying to sleep. May the Force be with you!