While this is a fun question for once, I must correct you on ascribing Turks to be Huns. The Huns were a subgroup of the Mongolian steppes, while the original Turks were called Göktürks hailing from inner Asia. Similar cultures sure, horse nomads both yes, but not the same people and certainly not with the same deeds to their name.
Now as for the question; first you must specify what period of Vikings vs Huns. Being Viking in the famed sense of the word existed from the 8th century to the 11th century and they did evolve somewhat during this time. Are we talking about the disorganized few raiders who started out on Lindisfarne 793 AD, or the Vikings with greatly developed cultures of armaments, battle tactics and reach of influence who controlled Great Britain and fought Saxons in the Battle of Meretun 973 AD? The same goes for the Huns. The few nomads who grazed the steppes early on in their history or the organized armies of Attila invading Eurasia?
Given then that we take the prime of both cultures it can't be said for certain. Both were fierce warrior peoples. Some factors to consider is that the greatest challenge for the Vikings would be the horse archers of the Huns, pinning them down and picking them off. The greatest challenge for the Huns would be the shieldwall of the advancing Vikings capable of deflecting archery tactics, and their berserkers running rampant straight into their lines without fear. The Norse did employ cavalry, but were mainly infantry. Furthermore, the Huns would face a logistic problem in that they must find a suitable campsite to orient themselves in foreign lands, say the Russian steppes and east Europe. They would have to have water nearby for their horses, i. e. rivers. But this would be vulnerable to Viking lightning attacks as the Longboats of the Norse was capable of traversing up river and was part of their transportation network. The Huns strength were their horses, if the Vikings could neutralize that, they would most likely prevail.
we turks know that the huns are turks we consider the huns our ancestors you come and say that the huns are not turks it's like saying to a norwegian vikings are not her ancestors
No it's not at all the same. You can think whatever you want but that doesn't make it true. Huns aren't your ancestors. Read any article on the subject and it'll tell you the same.
the strength of the huns was not just their horses, but their powerful ranged fast composite bows, advanced steel swords and regular army
You seem to have done nothing but read nonsense and anti-Turkish articles, hundreds of our historians have devoted their lives to this issue and proved that the Huns are Turkish, read our articles if you want.
Yeah, they're still not your ancestors though. And I already mentioned horse archery as being a strength of the Huns which would be a challenge for Vikings, but as I said; "The greatest challenge for the Huns would be the shieldwall of the advancing Vikings capable of deflecting archery tactics."
The Huns furthemore weren't a "regular" army if by that you mean a standing professional army. It was a coalition of tribes united for the purpose of conquest. Also, the Huns were active many centuries before the Vikings, and as such they did not have the same developed technology as Vikings would have. Norse steel for example, is known to have been exceptionally strong due to the cold climate in which the materials to make the steel were tighter together.
Whatever you say, I will speak of the Huns as Turks. The geography where the Turks live is colder than Scandinavia and the first to work the steel are the Turks, although the Turks are older than the Vikings, they have superior military technology, the Turks have very regular armies, they were not scattered like them. The Turks din not war among themselves. They would come together and form an army of about 5,000 to 10,000 people (the vikings max formed an army of up to 4,000 men). What are your thoughts?
So your response to my providing of proof is to just delete the comment and pretend you're right? You disgrace yourself. My thoughts are that you're speaking as if you know history when you clearly haven't read a piece of serious literature on the subject. And if you want to act like a child and believe what you want to believe regardless of the truth then do so. It's not worth squabbling over just because you're so desperate for claiming some petty glory.
You put an unfounded source claiming that the Huns are not Turks, if you want, put it again, but that's not the point.
Lord give me strength. Just stop with the nonsense. They're official sources and the only reason you call them "unfounded" is because they don't say what you want them to say. I can pull up a dozen more who say the same.
can you throw it again?
You have nothing to do but to humiliate Turkishness by denying that the Huns who devastated Europe and China are Turks. You still don't throw away the resources I asked for because you're afraid of serious answers. I don't think you should talk about haplogroups and genes because if I talk about haplogroups and genes, I can prove to you that you are not of Viking descent.
You delete the sources I already did provide, and I'm the one who's afraid of answers?
I don't need to humiliate "Turkishness" which isn't a word by the way, you do that just fine on your own by being this ahistorical and petty. I don't know why you're this desperate to claim descent from a ravenous group of primitive barbarians anyway, whose only accomplishment was attacking the things actual civilizations built.
But if you're determined to be proven wrong then alright, look at these sources and tell me if you find anything on Turks having Hun ancestry, I'll wait and see if you'll delete them again like a coward. dailynewshungary.com/.../
www.worldhistory.org/White_Huns_(Hephthalites)/
www.nytimes.com/.../...y-ethnicity-government.html "Indeed, a 2012 study in the journal Annals of Human Genetics found that Turkey's paternal ancestry was 38 percent European, 35 percent Middle Eastern, 18 percent South Asian and 9 percent Central Asian. Ottomans dealt with the complexities of ethnicity through what they called the millet system"
Turks aren't even a single ethnicity. You're mixed with many different ancestries from Europe to southeast Asia.
www.frontiersin.org/.../full
Do you have any actual source whatsoever that says Turks are descendants of Huns?
And Huns furthermore, did not "devastate" Europe. They had great initial success in Eastern Europe and in Italy but were soon enough repelled.
Sözleri:
Hepimizin konuşulması gereken gerçekleri yok mu?
Kırılmamış kilitler için parıldayan küçük taşlar
Kargaşayı çöz, belirsizden
Wtf sory 🤦🏼
Almost all european sources deny that huns are turkish, even the pope begged the huns that you call primitive
I do not call the people of Turkey "Turk" and I don't want to say either. Yes, you made the right point. The "Turk" population in Turkey is only 1 million
I won't waste my time looking for a resource for you just read the English articles of our history professor named Ahmet Taşağıl
How can you call Turks savage, barbaric and greedy? The truly savage, barbaric and greedy are your ancestors who invaded England many times because they ran out of beer..
All real historical sources deny that they are Turkish. But since you wanna play a Hun so bad then get to it, I'm not going to bicker with someone whose only response to fact is to spout childish taunts and nonsense. A hopeless dispute not worth any further energy, good day.
🤣🤣 funny man. By by
I'm thinking the Huns with all their cavalry although I'm far from an expert on this subject.
That seems rather overconfident in terms of historical analysis to me. What were her arguments, only horse archery? If so that is actually, without meaning offense to her, ridiculous. As a historian myself at first glance I'm noting that the Roman legions had a level of military organization that was unparalleled globally. They also fought a wide array of foes from northern Germany to north Africa, to Syria and beyond, as such they were ready for virtually anything and did indeed already deal with Parthians who utilized horse archery. Samurai ever only fought each other in Japan, shogunate dominions between.
@AlexanderAnttila She didn't give me much at all and I'm no historian so I couldn't think what to ask. I'm on team Rome though. The samurai always seemed overrated and hyper-romanticized to me, and they never fought enemies outside their own home island (and mostly just fought each other).
@AlexanderAnttila >> [...] Samurai ever only fought each other in Japan [...]
Oops my bad, I missed that you said the same thing. They did defeat the Mongols multiple times although with major home advantage and what appears to be a lot of luck. Maybe she was factoring that in, but from my standpoint, the home advantage was more the deciding factor than anything else.
@AlexanderAnttila - the Romans weren't that great, anyone who is an actual historian would know that. I mean for an entire Legion to disappear in Scotland to a bunch of "barbarian celts" that are described in the ancient Roman texts as screaming warriors who fought in the bare minimum of clothing is little more than embarrassing. Most of the Roman soldiers that did well weren't even Roman but people they subjected... such as the Gaels. So that makes the Romans inferior by battle and superior by number.
@GentleLittleLady That was a disgraceful excuse of a take on the Romans presented like a layman's thoughts. You're clearly a troll or simply a wannabe historian trying to appear intellectual by taking the marginal opinion on everything. The Roman army is counted among the greatest forces of human history whose tactics are still in operation today, i. e. the testudo formation among S. W. A. T. teams. Their strength was an enormous adaptability, they could be knocked down but come back again and adjust their tactics to prevail. Such was the battle of Carrhae for instance.
The entire system of the Roman army was developed by the Romans themselves and there wouldn't even have been any mercenaries at all hadn't they been subjugated entirely by Romans first. No other army of the antiquities fought such a wide array of foes from all over Europe and beyond. Further, your claim that "Romans weren't even the best", is unfounded speculation at best, irrelevant musings at worst.
No serious historian would look at one of the greatest empires of history and say; "they weren't that great", absolutely absurd.
No brainer. Huns or "Turks". @TheTurksLeader... Who depending on what study you consider was a Turkic tribe, seeing as the language of the Mongol Empire was Turkic. And in the reverse some view Turkic people of a Mongolian root
And, since @alexanderanttila knows little about ancient fighting or societies, the Vikings would've been picked off like fleas on a dog.
Why?
They'd have no horses. Vikings predominantly had to steal mounts and the Huns would've protected their mounts like a figurative dragon protects their gold. The Hun horses also would've been fast, fleet of foot, etc. which the Vikings in their lumbering armor & shields would've been disadvantaged against.
As example a group of Hun are riding from the west. The Vikings know of the archers so they set up their shield wall. Good, good. The Hun are coming closer & closer & closer. But rather than waste their arrows they split around that shield wall, turn their mounts, and open fire on the Vikings who are desperately scrambling to get their shield wall turned around in defense.
Like said picked off like fleas on a dog.
This site really is a magnet for arrogant people who write much without really saying anything.
Well "gentlelittlelady" I don't know where you have studied history or in what capacity, but you seem to really have a bias going in this debate considering your colourful and demeaning language. And that makes for poor credibility in history.
Now, as you ignored the fact of the logistical issue the Huns would face allow me to present a different perspective; that is the Viking expertise in ambush. Knowing what enemy they were facing, a Viking army would in many cases not opt for open combat directly but instead use the element of surprise, pelt the passers by with arrows and spears and then lock into shieldwall formation once a cavalry based foe was in disarray.
Furthermore, since you're treating horse archers as invincible unites of war for some reason when they really never were: To quote an excerpt from another historian: There are three ways to defeat them (horse archers):
Ignore them
Outshoot them
Practice area denial
‘Horse archer armies’, i. e. horse nomad armies, are basically skirmishers. Their intention is not to cause actual casualties but to irritate, harass an infuriate the enemy into rash charges and breaking their formation. They can be especially dangerous against a heavy infantry army with no missile power (like the Hellenist pike monsters or Republican Romans) or against poorly disciplined peasant foot (like the early Medieval Polish).
The best way to treat with them is simply to ignore them and press on. To do this, you need heavy armoured foot in close order and to protect your own cavalry. This is something the Crusaders learned very quicklly against the Turkomans. Once the light horse have exhausted their mounts and quivers, then charge.
The second best way is to employ foot archers or crossbowmen and outshoot them. Foot archers are poison to mounted archers because of the greater fire density and Lanchester’s Square Law. Moreover, foot archers can be armoured much better than the horse archers. And as cherry on the cake, an unarmoured horse and an unarmoured man is a much more bigger and vulnerable target than an armoured foot archer.
Neden hakarete başvurduğunuzu anlamıyorum hanımefendi? Ahmet Taşağıl'ın yazılarını okumak yeterlidir. Diğer söylediğin her şey doğru.😉
I don't understand why you're resorting to insults, ma'am? It is enough to read the articles of Ahmet Tasagil. Everything else you said is true.
@AlexanderAnttila The Huns had Turkish swords sharp as a katana, daggers and long spears. If there's one side to ambush, it's the Vikings, not the Huns. Most likely, they would use the turan tactic and take the Vikings, who were drunk with the instinct of victory, by surprise. They would upset the psychology of the Vikings with their whistling arrows. For the first time, the Vikings would be afraid of the Huns who had seriously harmed them, and they would add fear to their fears with gossip.
@AlexanderAnttila Birçok Çin kaynağında Hunların sarışın olduğu yazılıdır. Vikinglerle sarışın olmak bir onurdur, yani bu Hunların bir avantajıdır.
@AlexanderAnttila In many Chinese sources it is written that the Huns were blond. Being blonde with Vikings is an honor, so this is an advantage of the Huns.
@AlexanderAnttila As someone who studied, with an entire Bachelors Degree, in history I can only laugh at your ignorance. And laugh hard. Extremely hard. As in my sides about to split hard.
1) Vikings were not ambush warriors. Try to educate yourself instead of using wikipedia. Vikings "ambushed" villages under the cover of early dawn, late dusk. And likewise ambushed, or at least attempted to ambush, their enemy camps through the use of woodlands along established pathways as many warriors have done. Nothing special.
2) You're lack of comprehension at the speed of mounted experienced riders such as the Hun is amusing. The minute the Vikings start pelting with arrows do you think the Hun would sit with their mouths hanging open like turkeys? They would immediately retreat. The element of surprise the Vikings originally had is gone. They've given themselves away. And are sitting ducks for a counterattack.
3) Your lack of comprehension in the fact that the Vikings wouldn't have mounts is also amusing. The Romans were lucky to have their own horses. Vikings never did. So the Vikings would not have a calvary. They were predominantly foot soldiers, a number of which were enslaved warriors from previous encounters and/or local Scandinavian peasants that were lured onto the ships by the promise of riches and glory compared to flinging cow dung at the farm and/or mercenaries.
@TheTurksLeader I really am through talking to you as you really have no grasp of how a discussion on this subject even works.
@cookiesandcream2 So now there's an additional account trying to decry me eh? Someone must think I was born yesterday. It is only pitiful to make multiple accounts for the sole purpose of trying to appear as if several people support the same narrative, that is just below pathetic and only serves to showcase how little you believe your own words.
You really think it makes you less incorrect just because you try to belittle me by detailing how hard you're laughing? That's the mark of a weak debater who tries to reinforce their already meager point with low cunning, in all their insecure glory. Allow me to enlighten you; nothing some random pink anon account says can belittle me, especially not in history.
But if I am to indulge myself with this new "cookiesandcream" character;
1. That is the exact definition of being versed as a people in ambushes so why you're going against yourself in the same breath I do not know.
2. You're using the word "lack of comprehension" like a child who learned a new phrase and now exhausts it in every conversation. You also seem to not grasp the nature of a real ambush. It would not provide the option of a speedily retreat as exits would be blocked and the initial barrage would occur very close to their targets. This is to liken with how the Mamluks ambushed the Mongols in the desert mountains at the Battle of Ain Jalut, horse archery made no difference there, they aren't the unbeatable, OP units that you and these others treat them as for some weird reason. And an infantry based army facing off against one of cavalry, is by no means an automatic done deal and victory for cavalry, that shows a glaring lack of military knowledge on your part.
@CookiesAndCream2 3. See you're making the same rookie mistake as the asker, so this reflects poorly on your supposed Bachelor's degree. What culture of Vikings and what period we are speaking of determines greatly whether a certain degree of cavalry would be present or not. They were mainly infantry that much is true, but they weren't *without* cavalry. Neither were they unfamiliar with fighting cavalry, they invaded and fought the Franks on numerous occasions who were famed for their mounted warriors, precursors to the European knights.
All in all, my initial point was that you can't be dead certain about these matters because it never really happened that a viking force and Huns clashed. Anyone who claims to represent undeniable fact which they base on speculation is not a historian, sorry, but they're not. And as this is a transparent case of multiple accounts, maybe all from this asker even, I'm not taking it seriously at all.
@AlexanderAnttila Let's put this way. The Vikings of old have degraded to a bunch of bending-over background Scandinavians with no balls & no spines. Cowards that snivel to immigrants and other individuals instead of standing up for their country. They're spineless. Turks or Huns are still real men cause they don't snivel to immigrants & what not that contribute nothing but crime, etc.
Opinion
1Opinion
You can also add your opinion below!
Holidays 
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions