AssylbekovaZh.
M.-A., doctor of historical sciences,
Al-FarabiKazNU
professor,
050043 Republic of Kazakhstan, Almaty,
micro district Taugul-1, building 51, apt 9
THE PROBLEMS OF THE
HUNS HISTORY
IN THE WESTERN HISTORIOGRAPHY
An outstanding French orientalist Rene Grousset wrote:Attila,
Jenghiz Khan, and Tamerlane: their names are in everyone's memory. Accounts of
them written by western chroniclers and by Chinese or Persian annalists have
served to spread their repute. The great barbarians irrupt into areas of
developed historical civilizations and suddenly, within a few years, reduce the
Roman, Iranian, or Chinese world to a heap of ruins [1]
Historians
of different generations have tried and tryto explain their origin, the reasons
for their greatness, grand achievements and extinction, so this topic is a
subject of many researches.
This
article gives a brief overview of some works of generalized, monographic level,
published in English and Russian.These are the elected historical studies that
have made the most outstanding contribution to the Western historiography ofthe
history of the Huns.
One
of the leading researchers of the history of Central Asia is a French historian
Rene Grousset. Grousset first published his masterpiece on Central Asia in 1939
on the eve of the Second World War. Its English edition was published in 1970
by the publishing house of RutgersUniversity, New Jersey, USA. In this work R.
Grousset tells the story of steppe empires stretching from Manchuria to
Budapest.The French historian could summarize all material accumulated by that
time and explored a big number of questions dedicated to the history of Central
Asia.This book, based on the wide array of sources gives a detailed description
of the life of the Great Steppe from ancient times to the XVIII century. The
narrative is based on the research of the author himself, who attracted a large
number of sources of European, Chinese, Persian and other backgrounds.The
novelty of this composition is seen in the point of view of the outstanding
Western European scholar on the well-known events, whose opinion is devoid of
prejudices, biases and conjuncture approach.
In his book “Empire of the Steppes” R. Grousset
provides a very detailed account of the subject which interests us - the Huns.He
leads his narrative of the history of the Huns from 300 BC, before their
invasion of Europe, led by Attila in V. BC. Relying on the texts of the Chinese
historian Ssu-ma Chien Grousset displays the origins of the Huns from
Hsiung-nu, the people who lived in the north of China. Talking about the
linguistic belonging of the Huns, he says: “As regards the linguistic position
of the Hsiung-nu among the Turko-Mongol group of peoples, certain writers, like
KurakichiShiratori, are inclined to class them with the Mongols. Pelliot, on
the contrary, from the few opportunities of cross-checking afforded by Chinese
transcriptions, believes that on the whole these people were Turkic, especially
their political leadership”. [2]Thus R. Grousset only mentions the well-known
views on the linguistic classification of the Huns, but he does not state which
of them he supports.
R.
Grousset writes about the art of the Huns,Ordos animal style. He bases thisresearch on numerous
archaeological studies and concludes that Ordos art had deeply influenced the
Chinese style known as that of the Warring States, which had flourished from
the fifth century B.C.
Describing
the people Hsiung-nu, Grousset tells about their political hierarchy, physical
appearance. He finds parallels in the economic structure, lifestyle, clothing,
traditions, military strategy and tactics of the Huns and the Scythians.The
French historian focuses mainly on their military and political history; he
compares the role and importance of Attila the Hun in world history with Jenghis
Khan and Tamerlane. R. Grousset’s book“Empire of the Steppe” has been highly
praised by historians. L. Gumilev considered this work the culmination pointin
the European Orientalism of the first half of the XX century.
One
of the most authoritative researchers of the Huns is a British classicist and
medievalist Edward Arthur Thompson. In his studies he relied on the Marxist
approach to the historical process. His monograph “History of Attila and the
Huns”, published in 1948 in the UK, was a notable contribution to the Western orientalism
of the first half of the XX century.
In
1999 the book was reprinted withthe title “The Huns” Later thisEnglish edition
was translated into Russian and published in 2008 under the title “The Huns.
Formidable warriors of the steppes”. E.A. Thompson was primarily a scholar of
ancient and medieval history of Europe. He believed that history of the Huns
themselves was certainly interesting, but he was more interested in their
relationship with the Roman Empire [3].
E.A.
Thompson tells the history of the Huns in Europe from their first attacks on
the Goths from the north of the Black Sea to the collapse of the Hun Empire
after the death of their legendary leader Attila. This monograph consists of 8
chapters. In the first chapter the British professor gives a critical analysis
of the major sources. Then in chapters
2 – 6 he describes the history of the Huns before Attila, their social order in
this period, their military victories and defeats, diplomatic relations with
the Romans. Chapter 7 narrates about the Huns under Attila’s ruling. Chapter 8
is dedicated to the foreign policy of the Roman Empire and the place of the
Huns in it. In conclusion he gives a generalized characteristic of importance
of the Huns in European history and the role of Attilaas a
military leader and ruler.
What
significantly differs Thompson’s research from previous analogous works is a
critical evaluation of sources, he analyzes them in detail and discusses the
limitation of archeological evidence.However the British professor uses only
the European written documents and he exaggerates their importance:“It is clear
that in studying the history of the Huns we can solely rely on the evidence of
the Greek and Roman travelers and historians”[4].
In
selecting sources, EA Thompson follows a well-trodden path of R. Grousset, and
as a French researcher widely uses the “History” ofAmmianusMarcellinus, of
which he was a very high opinion: “Before him there were not works that are
comparable in scale with his “History”.It is surprisingly that E.A. Thompson considered
this composition ofAmmianusMarcellinus the most reliable and trusted source, althoughhe
writes:“It is apparently that roman historian had never seen the Hun and could
not rely on his own observations. Therefore, the pages of his “History”,
dedicated to the Huns, summarize the information received from the second hand”[5].
But, despite this, the evidence ofPriscus of Panium, who was an eyewitness of
many Roman- Hunnic contacts and who directly communicated with the Huns, E.A.
Thompson uses only after the “History” ofAmmianusMarcellinus.
The
novelty of the British professors’ researchis seen first of all in the fact
that before him almost nobody in the Western historiography of the problem
attempted to speak about the social history of the Huns. E.A .Thompson explores
the material organization and the social structure of the Hun society in the
dynamics,what it was before Attila headed it and how it was under his rule. The
author tells the history of the Huns in much more detail than it has been done
in other studies. For example although such researchers as Edward Gibbon (“Decline and fall of the
Roman Empire”), Hodgkin (“Italy and its invaders”), Bury, authors of “The
Cambridge Medieval History” and otherstold about the Huns, but their main goal was the history of the Roman
Empire. In these works description of Attila’s life and his state was not very
important [6].
EA
Thompson avoids a discussion about possible Chinese origin of the nomadic
people of the Huns.
The
British historian’s point of view on a number of issues of the Hun history is markedly
different from the one that was quite common in the Western Orientalism. He refutes
the commonly held view of Attila as a brilliant military leader, diplomat and
governor, and that “the great Hun Empire was only because of his outstanding
qualities”. He argues that this empire already existed before Attila.Attila
considerably differed fromJenghis Khan because he received from his
predecessorsalready finished (or nearly finished) empire, while the Mongols
were small, separated pastoral tribes [7]. E.A. Thompson questions the military
genius of Attila. He believes that the legendary leader of the Huns was almost
always accompanied by military success only because he did not meet a decent
resistance or he won at the expense of large losses[8].
There
are certain drawbacks in this book, for instance- an apparent lack of primary
sources. The author builds his research on several works of the Roman origin,
mainly on the writings of AmmianusMarcellinus andPriscus of Panium. To him
archaeological materialwas not of much importance: “Recent discoveries and
a thorough study of subjects have made so many ambiguities in the
question studied that an experienced archaeologist, if he started writing about
the Huns, he could hardly draw any benefit from the findings revealed” [9].
One
of the most fundamental works ever published on the history of the Huns, is the
book of an Austrian orientalist, historian, writer and traveler Otto J. Maenchen-Helfen“The
World of the Huns. Study of their history and culture”. Professor Otto
Maenchen-Helfen developed a large-scale problem of the history of the Huns and
related peoples for many years. After his death he left an unfinished
manuscript. It was a source of the book“World of Huns. Study of their history
and culture” which was published in 1973 by Berkeley, University of California
Press.
Maenchen-Helfen
differed from other historians of Eurasia in his unique competence in
philology, archaeology, and the history of art. He did not need to guess the
identities of tribes, populations, or cities. He knew the primary texts,
whether in Greek or Russian or Persian or Chinese. This linguistic ability is
particularly necessary in the study of the Huns and their nomadic cognates,
since the name “Hun” has been applied to many peoples of different ethnic
character, including Ostrogoth, Magyars, and Seljuk. Even ancient nomadic
people north of China, the Hsiung-nu, not related to any of these, were called
“Hun” by their Sogdian neighbors. Maenchen-Helfen knew the Chinese sources that
tell of the Hsiung-nu, and thus could evaluate the relationship of these
sources to European sources of Hunnic history [10].
Another
special competence was his expertise in the history of Asian art, a subject
that he taught for many years. Maenchen-Helfen’s description of technical and
stylistic consistencies among metal articles from Hunnic tombs in widely
separated localities dispels the myth of supposed Hunnic ignorance of
metal-working skills. Maenchen-Helfen emphasizes what distinguishes his studies
from previous treatments is the extensive use of archaeological material: “In
recent years archeological research has been progressing at such speed that I
had to modify my views repeatedly while I was working on these studies” [11].
To Maenchen-Helfen archeological evidence
played a critical role in the determination of the origin of the Huns and their
geographical distribution in ancient and early medieval times, as well as the
extent of Hunnic penetration into Eastern Europe and their point of entry into
Hungarian plain [12].
He
underlines the necessity for sharp and well-reasoned criticism of the sources
of the Huns:“From the beginning these peoples were denigrated and demonized by
European historians and dismissed as avatars of the eternal but faceless
barbarian hordes from the east, against whom vigilance was always necessary,but
whose precise identity was of little importance.” Otto Maenchen-Helfen
criticizes hatred, fear of many Western European authors towards to the Huns:“The
same fierce hatred burned in AmmianusMarcellinus. He and the other writes of
the fourth and fifth centuries depicted the Huns as the savage monsters which
we still see today. Hatred and fear distorted the picture of the Huns from the
moment they appeared on the lower Danube. Unless this tendentiousness is fully
understood – and it rarely isthe literary evident is found to be misread” [13].
So he begins his study with its reexamination.
According
to some authoritative scholars Otto Maenchen-Helfen in his book: “World of
Huns. Study of their history and culture” presented to us “The epic character
of the great drama that took place on the Eurasian stage early in our era, the
clash of armies and the interaction of civilizations. This book is a standard treatise
not likely to be superseded in the predictable future.” [14]. In his research Otto
Maenchen-Helfen expresseshumanity in such a racially charged field as Hunnic
studies, it was a rare phenomenon in the German historiography of 30th
years of XX century. The novelty and distinctive characteristic of
Maenchen-Helfen’s research is seen in his ability to create a reliable account
of the ancestors of the Turks and Mongols, free of the usual Western prejudice
and linguistic limitations.
One
of recent and the most notable works on the history of the Huns is the study of
the British historian Christopher Kelly “The End of Empire: Attila the Hun and
the fall of Rome” Norton, New York, 2009. The book is divided into four
sections. The first section consists of 5 chapters; it is called “Before Attila”
and tells about the appearance of the Huns in Europe. The second section –“The
Huns and the Romans”, includes six parts, it narrates thehistory of the Roman
foreign policy from the beginning to the middle of the 5th century, relations
between Rome and the Huns. Section III – “Dinner with Attila” in its six
chapters describes the Embassy to the court of Attila. The last, fourth part is
titled “The Fall of the Empire”. Here K. Kellyanalyzes the Hunnic invasion of
Gaul in 451, and Italy in 452, the death of Attila and the collapse of his
empire.
K.Kelly
builds his research entirely on the compositions of the two Roman authors -AmmianusMarcellinus
andPriscus of Panium.He also recognizes the importance of archaeological
material. The British historian shares Otto Maenchen-Helfen’s opinion on the
issue of the origin of the Huns. As an Austrian scholar he denies any
connection of the Hsiung-nu with the Huns.
The
novelty of Kelly’s monograph is seen in the attempt to restore the image of Attilaas
a politically ingenious leader bent more on making strategic alliances to
benefit his people than conquering neighboring tribes by savage attacks. Thus,
the author tells about his long-term contacts with the Roman general, about the
promise of Honoria, the sister of Roman Emperor to marry Attila. Hitherto, before Kelly’s studiesthese events
were not practically described in the historical literature.“Attila the Hun and
the Fall of Rome” reframes the warrior king as a political strategist and
skillful, talented diplomat, who respected the established diplomatic order in
Europe and whowas able to successfully establish political relations with
consolidating Constantinople and disintegrating western branch of the Roman
Empire.The British researcher stresses that Attila perfectly combinedmilitary
actions and gifted diplomacyin his political art.
The
studies of these historians are distinguished by the authors’ approach to the problem.On
the one hand it is a balanced, calm analysis in combination with a certain
admiration of the greatest personalities of Central Asia – Attila, Jenghis
Khan, and Tamerlane. We see it in the works of R. Grousset, Otto Maenchen-Helfen.
But on the other hand it is an assessment of the Huns as a parasitic robbers,
marauders and extortionists [15].Despite certain differences in their opinion
R. Grousset, E.A. Thompson,Otto Maenchen-Helfen and K. Kelly like other western
orientalists are unanimous in their understanding that the Huns played an
important role in European history, that, in spite of a short stay on the
European historical stage, their appearance had serious consequences for the
future development of Western Europe, and probably had a significant impact on
the East [16].
The
Western orientalists with high linguistic, archaeological competence researched the
military-political history of the Huns from the first mention of them to the
collapse of Attila Empire in V B.C., their social structure, economic order and
art.
The
considerable amount of studies on this topicis regularly published in different
languages. Apparently, these mysterious nomads - the Huns, their age and the
impact on the course ofworld history, the personalities of their legendary
leader Attila the Hunwill be still interesting for the Western researchers.
1.
Grousset Rene.
The Empire of the steppes. A history of Central Asia. Rutgers university press,
1970. p. V.
2.
.pp.
23-24.
3.
Thompson E.A.Hunny.
Groznyevoinystepey.M.:Centrpoligraph, 2008, p. 11.
4.
.p. 14.
5.
.p. 16.
6.
.p. 9-10.
7.
.p. 243.
8.
.p. 244-245.
9.
. p. 14.
10.
Maenchen-HelfenOtto.
TheworldoftheHuns. Studies in their history and culture. University of
California press, Berkeley, 1973, p. XV.
11.
.pp.
XVI-XVII
12.
.p.
XVI.
13.
.p.
XXIV.
14.
.p.
XVII.
15.
Thompson E.A.Hunny.
Groznyevoinystepey.M.:Centrpoligraph, 2008, p. 255
16.
.