As a historian, i approve this video, bias and accurate, well put together considering what we know and have so far about them, unlike other videos I've seen that push mostly for turkik ancestry Thank you
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
Chinese Han were first to record the name of this nomadic tribe in History, earlier than any other records from the West / Central Asia. Chinese Han recorded every foreign tribes they encounter along the silk road, like the "Tribe with colour eyes" or "Tribes with big beard". But Chinese Han never record Xiongnu Tribe looks different from themselves, yet they had a war over 300 years, even build a great wall to keep them away. Chinese Han should know their enemy very well who just live few hundred km aways. So, Proto-Turkic who were the decendent of Xiongnu, can not be anything else but Mongoloid Stocks.
In Cantonese (a wildly spoken dialect in Southern China), "Xiong-nu“/匈奴 is pronounced Hun-nou. It is also widely understood that Nu/Nou/奴, despite it current reference to slaves, meant tribe in ancient time. So, Xiong-nu/Hun-nou/匈奴 referred to the Xiong/Hun Tribe.
Hun-nu are our ancestors, hun means man in Mongolian, nu - moving, migrating, nomads, all the archeological findings and DNA prove it; Tumen means thousand and is a real Mongolian name used up until now too, chanyu is of course khan, ruler transcribed mistakenly ch-kh, Modun means wood, wooden in Mongolian, Donghu also were mongolic people, this is all our continuous history 🐎
The Xiongnu homeland became Chinese provinces, 2/3 of the Xiongnu population transformed into Han Chinese, 1/3 of the war refugees conquered Central Asia, western Asia
The chinese word xiongnu in classic chinese literally means the hun/hunnu which is mongolian word as all the elite xiongnu were proto-mongolic based on the DNA testings from xiongnu elite tombs in mongolia's noyon uul archeological sites
Han Wudi dispatched generals Wei Qing , Huo Qubing , Li Guang etc.. to fight the Xiongnu , reducing the Xiongnu into a divided tribe. Thus the Xiongnu did not have the strength to fight the Han empire and the Han empire dominated the silk road for almost two centuries until the end of the Han empire in 220AD
@@micahistory No I haven't. I rarely ever subscribe to any channel, so that's the reason. I'm glad I found your channel. I'm planning to binge watch your contents once I get time.
@@denizucar3947 7:30... the video makes it clear that no one knows the origin of Xiongnu... and their connection to either proto-Turks, Iranics, proto-Mongoloids or even the Chinese is hypothetical... it is what it is. I blame the Xiongnu for the controversy, they should have focused on learning to write, that way they could have left some clues behind...
@@morwickchesterham3875the video explicitly states they probably were the ancestors of the Turks and Mongols. It’s pretty obvious too. The Xionghu literally come from the Turkic and Mongolic homelands. They have titles just like Turkic and Mongolic peoples. They are nomads too. To pretend they aren’t proto-Turks is stupid and only proves you’re trying to push a racist or nationalist ideology. And this is coming from not a Turk but a Norwegian and Ghanian who couldn’t care less.
According to Hungarian legends, Menrot (aka Nimrod of Persia) had two sons, Hunor and Magor. Descendants of Hunor formed the Huns (Xiongnu) and descendants of Magor formed the Magyar nation aka Hungarians. Best regards from Pannonia.
The appearance of Xiongnu in history were recorded in Chinese Emperors official history record almost 200 bc. Those who claim to be Proto-Turks doesn‘t even have a writing system at the time to record anything significant in History. The timeline is rather simple, they were Mongoloid tribe from the Far East, after defeated by Han Emperor, they move West. Only then, the Central Asia and Europe see them and record them in history data.
DNA from a 2,000-year-old burial site in Mongolia has revealed new information about the Xiongnu, a nomadic tribe that once reigned in Central Asia. Researchers in France studied DNA from more than 62 skeletons to reconstruct the history and social organization of a long-forgotten culture. The researchers found that interbreeding between Europeans and Asians occurred much earlier than previously thought. They also found DNA sequences similar to those in present-day Turks, supporting the idea that some of the Turkish people originated in Mongolia. Skeletons from the most recent graves also contained DNA sequences similar to those in people from present-day Turkey. This supports other studies indicating that Turkish tribes originated at least in part in Mongolia at the end of the Xiongnu period. Keyser-Tracqui, C., et al. Nuclear and mitochondrial DNA analysis of a 2,000-year-old necropolis in the Egyin Gol Valley of Mongolia. American Journal of Human Genetics73, 247-260 (August 2003).
According to the 2021 Turkish DNA Project (a DNA testing project for Turks), 55% of Turks are of Anatolian indigenous descent, that is, of ancient Greek descent. 15% are of GokTurkic descent, 13.8% are of Balkan descent, another 7% are of Armenian descent; 6.4% are of Iranian descent; 3.6% are of Georgian descent，You are Turkified Greeks
@@Hacı-v7z The Xiongnu homeland became Chinese provinces, 2/3 of the Xiongnu population transformed into Han Chinese, 1/3 of the war refugees conquered Central Asia, western Asia
It's more likely that they were the Ancestry of the Turkic people and the Huns, they invaided west in third century and the evidence is there in Persian & Roman sources. Also the Seljuks who migrate to middle east at 8th century all come from central asia which has become dominated by Huns centuries earlier, we know that during the Roman-Persian time it was home to Indo-Iranian people, who either were killed or migrated by the time of the Huns. Most of evidance support that Xiongnu were the Ancestors of Turko-Mongols
Historically Chinese Han has the largest Population in the world, but these nomadic tribes lived few hundred km north of China are just too brave and strong, even to take on the larger Chinese Han. It took 300 years for Chinese Han to defeat Xiongnu and chase them away westward, even to build a great wall to save guard Han themselves.😁 200 years later, from the same grassland, these same nomadic tribes rised again. The mighty Mongols and their Ghigis Khan. Bad luck for Chinese Han Tribe. 😁
Slaves were more like "domestic servants", could you elaborate? Were they in a union or something? I'm I incorrect in thinking they would still be tortured or killed for not doing their job or trying to go home and psychological terror was still how they kept them inline? I can't imagine anyone batted and eye at the casual sexual assault of a slave or did their peers stop them and say, "hey don't do that, they're more like domestic servants"? Did they do slavery completely different than any other human group that ever lived?
The source that I used, used the same exact word, and I'm literally quoting the same exact phrase here "they were more like domestic servants", and it doesn't explain the word. So I think it means exactly what it says, 'domestic servants', not forceful slaves. They may be people who willing bound themselves to their masters because they couldn't sustain themselves financially, or they were working as slaves because they couldn't pay their debts, or they were runaway people from China, and these types of slaves were usually not treated badly. The closest example of this type of slaves that I could think of is how Jews were asked to treat their slaves in the Hebrew Bible. Of this is just me trying to explain away this word as I could understand, the final say that does matter is what does the author of my source mean when he/they wrote it. I hope you understand...
@@boringoldhistory I understand they aren't your words, but there is no "slave" without force. If they willingly bound themselves, they are not slaves. I have seen many academics and historians downplay a lot of historical slavery in different regions for popular faculty lounge political reasons. For instance, I have seen an "academic" argue that being a galley slave for the Barbary pirates wasn't as bad as a plantation slave in the American south because it was "just rowing a boat". It is a dumb argument to even have each existence is a vile horror only differentiated by the needs of the master not by any relative humanity in the regions practice. But American slavery was her sacred cow and she didn't like the competition. I have seen other instance where the academic was from the region speaking of past slavery there and they seem to gloss it over with a rose-tinted view of their own culture's past. It isn't just a trait indicative to 19th century Westen academics. "and these types of slaves were usually not treated badly. The closest example of this type of slaves that I could think of is how Jews were asked to treat their slaves in the Hebrew Bible. Of this is just me trying to explain away this word as I could understand, the final say that does matter is what does the author of my source mean when he/they wrote it. " I am of the opinion that the final say rests not with the author(s) but with the historical evidence of the region and time. I know what kind of slaves you and the original other think they were, but a slave is a slave. The ancient Hebrews might have broken whatever rules they wanted with the slaves they had as long as no one was looking and it wasn't on a Saturday. To appease the British the Ottomans outlawed slavery in the mid 1800's (on a lovely piece of paper) but didn't enforce it for fear of rebellion. Not every rule about slaves is kept by the traffickers of human flesh. Like taking a loan from the mob or shopping at the company store, it is not the deal you thought and there is no way out. Do you think any of the things I said in my original post didn't apply to the slaves referred to in the video? I think it applies to most slaves at most times.
I see you have a valid explanation, and I have seen it myself where historians and scholars have biases and do downplay slavery or anything for that matter. And as for your question, I personally do not know the author of the source very well, so I can't tell if he holds biases against/towards this topics, So I assume just because of this phrase used, that the treatment of the slaves may not have been that harsh. And I want to highlight 'I assume just because of this phrase used'. I hope you get my point.
How the long story can be explained in short. The Early Xiongnu were like the Siberian Tatars, Bashkirs and Altaians. The western branch is of the Scythian-Siberian Pazyryk type. Eastern - Paleo-Siberian. The Late Xiongnu were defeated and fragmented, in the North and South. Southern fell into slavery to the Han. They were absorbed into the far eastern Donghu-Xianbei and Han. And the northern ones split into Altaian and Western Huns-Xiongnu and formed the first wave Bulgar-Turkic diffusion. The Sarmatians switch to Hunnic language. There are already at least three different non-interconnected Hunnu groups. Accordingly, the Early Turks Ashina were not related to the Turks, they were Nanai, Tungus and other Mongols, as well as Chinese from the absorbed southern Xiongnu. At the same time, the Early Medieval Turks were relatively europeoid, the heirs of the Early Xiongnu and Scythian-Siberians, like the Bashkirs and Siberian Tatars. As well as the Volga Tatars, remaining at the base of the Sarmatians, with some contribution from the western Huns. As a result, the early medieval nomads are completely supplanted by the far-eastern nomads of the second wave like Kazakhs, Kirghiz, Uzbeks and Uyghurs - who essentially come from the far-eastern Donghu, Mongolian Xianbei-Xiongnu, the yellow river Chinese who absorbed the remaining settled Sogdians, moving from Han to Turkmenistan-Iran and Near East. Many northern tribes are fighting, but in the end they are broken by the Muscovites of Ivan the Terrible from the west and the Mongols of the Uzbek Timur from the east. So the history ends, 3000-4000 thousand years long. For individuals who tell why Turks and Mongols are dressed like Scythians, as well as drink milk. Because the Scythians originated the Xiongnu, but the Xiongnu originated the Huns. But modern CA Turks are far from both.
As a long-time history student, I admire your effort here to reformulate in few words a long historical period that usually takes volumes to describe. Thank you. Keep it up!
Thanks for your suggestion. I just found a great youtube channel because of you. Maybe I will collab with him but I don't think I'm ready for the colab yet. I will keep an eye on this channel though...
@@boringoldhistory 😎 Well I have 1 more request: So much of the history you cover takes place in Ukraine. Its a great failure of our history books that "the Pontic Steppe", "the area north of the Black Sea", etc., is never referred to by its proper modern name. If you could stick the word in occasionally it would really help people understand Ukraine's historical importance.
Every little town museum here has artifacts from almost all the cultures you cover, yet even Ukrainians have little inkling the pivotal role their own lands have played. I've studied the Migrations period for 30 years, but it never really hit me till I saw how common Chernyakov artifacts are here.
@@whyukraine Well! historian usually use the words to refers to an area that usually consists more than one country currently. So when they say for example, 'Pontic Steppe', it's not just Ukraine, but also other countries around it. So they resort to stating area names rather than several country names, it's more convenient and effective that way. I think I've used the word Ukraine wherever I had to, and I wouldn't hesitate to use it again when I get a chance again.
8:45 The Ostyak language, also known as Khanty, is a Uralic language. ≠ The Yeniseian languages sometimes known as Yeniseic or Yenisei-Ostyak. 11:01 Mongolian, Finno-Ugarian, or Indo-European affiliation. The Finno- part can be forgotten. it was spoken about 6000 kilometers away. and never had x- or... No less than seven Early Proto-Finnic consonant phonemes (viz. *č, *ś, *δ, *δ´, *γ, *ń, *ŋ) had already been eliminated by the Middle Proto-Finnic stage (Kallio 2007: 231-235), the Middle Proto-Finnic period would roughly have covered both the Pre-Roman Iron Age (ca. 500-1 BC) and the Early Roman Iron Age (ca. 1-200 AD).
AI narration mispronounces both English words, and Chinese words! Notice how "bow," as in. "bow and arrows," was sometimes pronounced bow, and sometimes, bough, even in the same sentence!
The English grammar was perfect, but your voice synthesizer could not properly pronounce the word ‘bow’. Just an FYI as it was otherwise perfect. Thank you!
Xiongnu and Huns have largely Slab Grave ancestry like Turkic and unlike Proto-Mongolic Donghu and Xianbei. Their words are mostly explained in Turkic (especially later Xiongnu). Especially Xiongnu elite has more Slab Grave ancestry and Western Xiongnu people tend to have large Western Eurasian genetics. Scholars think Luandi is the Turkic "ulayundlu" tribe. These are the main reasons why modern-day scholars largely accept the Xiongnu and the Huns as Proto Turkic.
There were no such things as Chinese. They called themselves Han. Chinese were a later concept. Just like there were no French duringRomantimes, but only Gauls, etc
No one in China now calls themselves Chinese either, coz that's a Western name. They called themselves Han people beginning of the Han dynasty. They called themselves people of the Middle Kingdom since the Shang dynasty to this day.
No sir! It existed for a thausand year. The English word china comes from Latin "Sin" borrowed from the Persian "Chin" from chinese "Qin". The name "Chin" was largely borrowed from host of the silk road who connected china to roman lands (the parthians & persians) since it was the obvious name of the first great empire of ancient China! Also the Chinese traders who moved throughout the silk road (from wuchan to Antioch) a good example is Ancient Iran where the name of mightiest empire "Persia" stock with them for thausands of years in Europe.
@@lkhbhydroponic6858Go study the ancient books of the Han, Tang, Liao, Ming, Qing dynasty, you will find all the information, number of tribes, ethnicity, history 👌
They were Mongoloid stocks before asmililated into Central Asia. By the time they appears in Official Chinese History Record, they weren‘t even mentioned in any other part of the world. Not even the Pronoun "Turk" exist at the time in Central Asia. The decendents claimed to be the ancestors is just absurd.
@@merrick6484 also we are looking to their root about it. Their roots are Turkic mostly, but there was a small amount of Mongol tribes. Turkic population was always higher than Mongoloid population. Because of that, Turks aren't coming from Mongols clearly, I can see you tried to say that.
@@boringoldhistory I am Chinese. Now there are records about the Huns, basically all of them come from China. I can tell you very clearly that the Huns were Uyghurs.😢
![[DRIP] ‘Woke Up In Tokyo (RUKA & ASA)’ PREVIEW](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QN44lcR_VkI/mqdefault.jpg)
As a historian, i approve this video, bias and accurate, well put together considering what we know and have so far about them, unlike other videos I've seen that push mostly for turkik ancestry
Thank you
The Xiongnu were an Iranic people.
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
Chinese Han were first to record the name of this nomadic tribe in History, earlier than any other records from the West / Central Asia.
Chinese Han recorded every foreign tribes they encounter along the silk road, like the "Tribe with colour eyes" or "Tribes with big beard".
But Chinese Han never record Xiongnu Tribe looks different from themselves, yet they had a war over 300 years, even build a great wall to keep them away.
Chinese Han should know their enemy very well who just live few hundred km aways. So, Proto-Turkic who were the decendent of Xiongnu, can not be anything else but Mongoloid Stocks.
In Cantonese (a wildly spoken dialect in Southern China), "Xiong-nu“/匈奴 is pronounced Hun-nou. It is also widely understood that Nu/Nou/奴, despite it current reference to slaves, meant tribe in ancient time. So, Xiong-nu/Hun-nou/匈奴 referred to the Xiong/Hun Tribe.
Hun-nu are our ancestors, hun means man in Mongolian, nu - moving, migrating, nomads, all the archeological findings and DNA prove it; Tumen means thousand and is a real Mongolian name used up until now too, chanyu is of course khan, ruler transcribed mistakenly ch-kh, Modun means wood, wooden in Mongolian, Donghu also were mongolic people, this is all our continuous history 🐎
Very well researched video. Thanks for watching? Thank you for making it!!!
I shared it on my social network. I seldom do that coz most youtube videos are far from accurate. With some exceptions like this one.
Thanks!!! I really appreciate that...
The Xiongnu homeland became Chinese provinces, 2/3 of the Xiongnu population transformed into Han Chinese, 1/3 of the war refugees conquered Central Asia, western Asia
The chinese word xiongnu in classic chinese literally means the hun/hunnu which is mongolian word as all the elite xiongnu were proto-mongolic based on the DNA testings from xiongnu elite tombs in mongolia's noyon uul archeological sites
Direct ancestor of Mongolians, /King/ Modun Shanyu. Good luck with the channel.
Very interesting & well done video.
Thank you very much!
Han Wudi dispatched generals Wei Qing , Huo Qubing , Li Guang etc.. to fight the Xiongnu , reducing the Xiongnu into a divided tribe. Thus the Xiongnu did not have the strength to fight the Han empire and the Han empire dominated the silk road for almost two centuries until the end of the Han empire in 220AD
nice, I have never seen anyone make a video about these people
Hey thanks! fellow creator. I just checked out your channel. Keep going brother...
@@boringoldhistory thanks man, did you sub?
@@micahistory No I haven't. I rarely ever subscribe to any channel, so that's the reason. I'm glad I found your channel. I'm planning to binge watch your contents once I get time.
@@boringoldhistory thanks
Can't wait for the comments from Turkish Nationalists...
Why you expect only turkish? There are many panturkists around actually
Xiongnu aka Huns are Turks !! 🇹🇷
@@denizucar3947 7:30... the video makes it clear that no one knows the origin of Xiongnu... and their connection to either proto-Turks, Iranics, proto-Mongoloids or even the Chinese is hypothetical... it is what it is. I blame the Xiongnu for the controversy, they should have focused on learning to write, that way they could have left some clues behind...
You are jealous of our ancestors pink skin
@@morwickchesterham3875the video explicitly states they probably were the ancestors of the Turks and Mongols. It’s pretty obvious too. The Xionghu literally come from the Turkic and Mongolic homelands. They have titles just like Turkic and Mongolic peoples. They are nomads too. To pretend they aren’t proto-Turks is stupid and only proves you’re trying to push a racist or nationalist ideology. And this is coming from not a Turk but a Norwegian and Ghanian who couldn’t care less.
According to Hungarian legends, Menrot (aka Nimrod of Persia) had two sons, Hunor and Magor. Descendants of Hunor formed the Huns (Xiongnu) and descendants of Magor formed the Magyar nation aka Hungarians. Best regards from Pannonia.
The appearance of Xiongnu in history were recorded in Chinese Emperors official history record almost 200 bc.
Those who claim to be Proto-Turks doesn‘t even have a writing system at the time to record anything significant in History.
The timeline is rather simple, they were Mongoloid tribe from the Far East, after defeated by Han Emperor, they move West.
Only then, the Central Asia and Europe see them and record them in history data.
We were not from far east
We were from ordus loop ➰
( Our mother land, fatherland)
We are using oads words till date🎉
DNA from a 2,000-year-old burial site in Mongolia has revealed new information about the Xiongnu, a nomadic tribe that once reigned in Central Asia. Researchers in France studied DNA from more than 62 skeletons to reconstruct the history and social organization of a long-forgotten culture.
The researchers found that interbreeding between Europeans and Asians occurred much earlier than previously thought. They also found DNA sequences similar to those in present-day Turks, supporting the idea that some of the Turkish people originated in Mongolia.
Skeletons from the most recent graves also contained DNA sequences similar to those in people from present-day Turkey. This supports other studies indicating that Turkish tribes originated at least in part in Mongolia at the end of the Xiongnu period.
Keyser-Tracqui, C., et al. Nuclear and mitochondrial DNA analysis of a 2,000-year-old necropolis in the Egyin Gol Valley of Mongolia. American Journal of Human Genetics73, 247-260 (August 2003).
Nothing to do with turks
According to the 2021 Turkish DNA Project (a DNA testing project for Turks), 55% of Turks are of Anatolian indigenous descent, that is, of ancient Greek descent. 15% are of GokTurkic descent, 13.8% are of Balkan descent, another 7% are of Armenian descent; 6.4% are of Iranian descent; 3.6% are of Georgian descent，You are Turkified Greeks
@@alexhu5491Tell me who the father is. If a person says he is Turkish, what else does that mean
@@Hacı-v7z The Xiongnu homeland became Chinese provinces, 2/3 of the Xiongnu population transformed into Han Chinese, 1/3 of the war refugees conquered Central Asia, western Asia
It's more likely that they were the Ancestry of the Turkic people and the Huns, they invaided west in third century and the evidence is there in Persian & Roman sources. Also the Seljuks who migrate to middle east at 8th century all come from central asia which has become dominated by Huns centuries earlier, we know that during the Roman-Persian time it was home to Indo-Iranian people, who either were killed or migrated by the time of the Huns. Most of evidance support that Xiongnu were the Ancestors of Turko-Mongols
Historically Chinese Han has the largest Population in the world, but these nomadic tribes lived few hundred km north of China are just too brave and strong, even to take on the larger Chinese Han.
It took 300 years for Chinese Han to defeat Xiongnu and chase them away westward, even to build a great wall to save guard Han themselves.😁
200 years later, from the same grassland, these same nomadic tribes rised again. The mighty Mongols and their Ghigis Khan.
Bad luck for Chinese Han Tribe. 😁
Xiongnu empire Turkic not mongol
Slaves were more like "domestic servants", could you elaborate?
Were they in a union or something?
I'm I incorrect in thinking they would still be tortured or killed for not doing their job or trying to go home and psychological terror was still how they kept them inline? I can't imagine anyone batted and eye at the casual sexual assault of a slave or did their peers stop them and say, "hey don't do that, they're more like domestic servants"? Did they do slavery completely different than any other human group that ever lived?
The source that I used, used the same exact word, and I'm literally quoting the same exact phrase here "they were more like domestic servants", and it doesn't explain the word. So I think it means exactly what it says, 'domestic servants', not forceful slaves. They may be people who willing bound themselves to their masters because they couldn't sustain themselves financially, or they were working as slaves because they couldn't pay their debts, or they were runaway people from China, and these types of slaves were usually not treated badly. The closest example of this type of slaves that I could think of is how Jews were asked to treat their slaves in the Hebrew Bible. Of this is just me trying to explain away this word as I could understand, the final say that does matter is what does the author of my source mean when he/they wrote it.
I hope you understand...
@@boringoldhistory I understand they aren't your words, but there is no "slave" without force. If they willingly bound themselves, they are not slaves. I have seen many academics and historians downplay a lot of historical slavery in different regions for popular faculty lounge political reasons. For instance, I have seen an "academic" argue that being a galley slave for the Barbary pirates wasn't as bad as a plantation slave in the American south because it was "just rowing a boat". It is a dumb argument to even have each existence is a vile horror only differentiated by the needs of the master not by any relative humanity in the regions practice. But American slavery was her sacred cow and she didn't like the competition. I have seen other instance where the academic was from the region speaking of past slavery there and they seem to gloss it over with a rose-tinted view of their own culture's past. It isn't just a trait indicative to 19th century Westen academics.
"and these types of slaves were usually not treated badly. The closest example of this type of slaves that I could think of is how Jews were asked to treat their slaves in the Hebrew Bible. Of this is just me trying to explain away this word as I could understand, the final say that does matter is what does the author of my source mean when he/they wrote it. "
I am of the opinion that the final say rests not with the author(s) but with the historical evidence of the region and time. I know what kind of slaves you and the original other think they were, but a slave is a slave. The ancient Hebrews might have broken whatever rules they wanted with the slaves they had as long as no one was looking and it wasn't on a Saturday. To appease the British the Ottomans outlawed slavery in the mid 1800's (on a lovely piece of paper) but didn't enforce it for fear of rebellion. Not every rule about slaves is kept by the traffickers of human flesh. Like taking a loan from the mob or shopping at the company store, it is not the deal you thought and there is no way out.
Do you think any of the things I said in my original post didn't apply to the slaves referred to in the video? I think it applies to most slaves at most times.
@@boringoldhistory BTW thanks for answering an internet crank, you're a good man for that!
I see you have a valid explanation, and I have seen it myself where historians and scholars have biases and do downplay slavery or anything for that matter. And as for your question, I personally do not know the author of the source very well, so I can't tell if he holds biases against/towards this topics, So I assume just because of this phrase used, that the treatment of the slaves may not have been that harsh. And I want to highlight 'I assume just because of this phrase used'. I hope you get my point.
You're welcome...
What is the source for the dragon that fell that they worship
How the long story can be explained in short. The Early Xiongnu were like the Siberian Tatars, Bashkirs and Altaians. The western branch is of the Scythian-Siberian Pazyryk type. Eastern - Paleo-Siberian. The Late Xiongnu were defeated and fragmented, in the North and South. Southern fell into slavery to the Han. They were absorbed into the far eastern Donghu-Xianbei and Han. And the northern ones split into Altaian and Western Huns-Xiongnu and formed the first wave Bulgar-Turkic diffusion. The Sarmatians switch to Hunnic language. There are already at least three different non-interconnected Hunnu groups. Accordingly, the Early Turks Ashina were not related to the Turks, they were Nanai, Tungus and other Mongols, as well as Chinese from the absorbed southern Xiongnu. At the same time, the Early Medieval Turks were relatively europeoid, the heirs of the Early Xiongnu and Scythian-Siberians, like the Bashkirs and Siberian Tatars. As well as the Volga Tatars, remaining at the base of the Sarmatians, with some contribution from the western Huns. As a result, the early medieval nomads are completely supplanted by the far-eastern nomads of the second wave like Kazakhs, Kirghiz, Uzbeks and Uyghurs - who essentially come from the far-eastern Donghu, Mongolian Xianbei-Xiongnu, the yellow river Chinese who absorbed the remaining settled Sogdians, moving from Han to Turkmenistan-Iran and Near East. Many northern tribes are fighting, but in the end they are broken by the Muscovites of Ivan the Terrible from the west and the Mongols of the Uzbek Timur from the east. So the history ends, 3000-4000 thousand years long. For individuals who tell why Turks and Mongols are dressed like Scythians, as well as drink milk. Because the Scythians originated the Xiongnu, but the Xiongnu originated the Huns. But modern CA Turks are far from both.
As a long-time history student, I admire your effort here to reformulate in few words a long historical period that usually takes volumes to describe. Thank you. Keep it up!
Useful survey. A bit difficult to follow because of lack of dates and sometimes lack of geography.
Dna should have been included in the video the dna part of this story adds another large layer to their history.
You & Wanax should do some collaboration. He does Greek history
Thanks for your suggestion. I just found a great youtube channel because of you. Maybe I will collab with him but I don't think I'm ready for the colab yet. I will keep an eye on this channel though...
@@boringoldhistory 😎 Well I have 1 more request: So much of the history you cover takes place in Ukraine. Its a great failure of our history books that "the Pontic Steppe", "the area north of the Black Sea", etc., is never referred to by its proper modern name. If you could stick the word in occasionally it would really help people understand Ukraine's historical importance.
Every little town museum here has artifacts from almost all the cultures you cover, yet even Ukrainians have little inkling the pivotal role their own lands have played. I've studied the Migrations period for 30 years, but it never really hit me till I saw how common Chernyakov artifacts are here.
@@whyukraine Well! historian usually use the words to refers to an area that usually consists more than one country currently. So when they say for example, 'Pontic Steppe', it's not just Ukraine, but also other countries around it. So they resort to stating area names rather than several country names, it's more convenient and effective that way. I think I've used the word Ukraine wherever I had to, and I wouldn't hesitate to use it again when I get a chance again.
Xiongnus are mostly Mongols.
Xiongnu empire Turkic not mongol
8:45 The Ostyak language, also known as Khanty, is a Uralic language.
≠
The Yeniseian languages sometimes known as Yeniseic or Yenisei-Ostyak.
11:01 Mongolian, Finno-Ugarian, or Indo-European affiliation.
The Finno- part can be forgotten.
it was spoken about 6000 kilometers away.
and never had x- or...
No less than seven Early Proto-Finnic consonant phonemes (viz. *č, *ś, *δ, *δ´, *γ, *ń, *ŋ) had already been eliminated by the Middle Proto-Finnic stage (Kallio 2007: 231-235),
the Middle Proto-Finnic period would roughly have covered both the Pre-Roman Iron Age (ca. 500-1 BC) and the Early Roman Iron Age (ca. 1-200 AD).
The term Turk was first used by Ashina Clan : Gokturk., which later to be known as Turk or Turkic. However this is NOT the same as Turkish.
These AI voices drive me crazy with their mispronunciations.
AI narration mispronounces both English words, and Chinese words! Notice how "bow," as in. "bow and arrows," was sometimes pronounced bow, and sometimes, bough, even in the same sentence!
The English grammar was perfect, but your voice synthesizer could not properly pronounce the word ‘bow’. Just an FYI as it was otherwise perfect. Thank you!
Xiongnu and Huns have largely Slab Grave ancestry like Turkic and unlike Proto-Mongolic Donghu and Xianbei. Their words are mostly explained in Turkic (especially later Xiongnu). Especially Xiongnu elite has more Slab Grave ancestry and Western Xiongnu people tend to have large Western Eurasian genetics.
Scholars think Luandi is the Turkic "ulayundlu" tribe. These are the main reasons why modern-day scholars largely accept the Xiongnu and the Huns as Proto Turkic.
We were not from donghu and xianbei or jianb
They are others cast
I'm like number 200!
They are the decendants of the intermarriages of neanthertal and igorots
Xiongnu... The new Chinese EV car maker 😅
I thought that was Xiaomi... the Porsche lookalike, only released a few months ago, already insurance claims for 20%, of them!
The AI voice is annoying
Xiongnu empire Turkic not mongol
There were no such things as Chinese. They called themselves Han. Chinese were a later concept. Just like there were no French duringRomantimes, but only Gauls, etc
No one in China now calls themselves Chinese either, coz that's a Western name. They called themselves Han people beginning of the Han dynasty. They called themselves people of the Middle Kingdom since the Shang dynasty to this day.
No sir! It existed for a thausand year. The English word china comes from Latin "Sin" borrowed from the Persian "Chin" from chinese "Qin".
The name "Chin" was largely borrowed from host of the silk road who connected china to roman lands (the parthians & persians) since it was the obvious name of the first great empire of ancient China! Also the Chinese traders who moved throughout the silk road (from wuchan to Antioch) a good example is Ancient Iran where the name of mightiest empire "Persia" stock with them for thausands of years in Europe.
@@KeyhaneBishomar "Qin" existed in China. "China" did not. Chinese people don't call themselves "Qin" people.
@@conho4898 they did call their rulers during the Qin dynasty, so did other nations of the time. I gave you a good example.
@@KeyhaneBishomar they called their rulers Huangdi, not the name of the dynasty...
The pronunciation hurts me real hard.
Hunnu were modern day Mongol ancestors. It is proven historically and scientifically proven
They are completely different ethnicities
@@alexhu5491 you know nothing about our ancestors
@@lkhbhydroponic6858Go study the ancient books of the Han, Tang, Liao, Ming, Qing dynasty, you will find all the information, number of tribes, ethnicity, history 👌
@@lkhbhydroponic6858 Do you know the difference between the tribes of Outer Mongolia and Inner Mongolia?
No its not. Stop lying.
Xiongnu to West = proto Turkic, Donghu to East = proto Mongolic
Prove your it.
khun Xion g nui nu
Jai HInd. According to historical record, the Xiongnu had split from the Chinese group after the Hsia dynasty.
Xiongnu was a Turkic Empire.
They were Mongoloid stocks before asmililated into Central Asia.
By the time they appears in Official Chinese History Record, they weren‘t even mentioned in any other part of the world. Not even the Pronoun "Turk" exist at the time in Central Asia.
The decendents claimed to be the ancestors is just absurd.
Turkic empire were created by decendents of Xiongnu Empire, not the other way around.
@@merrick6484 dude, before Cenghiz Khan there wasn't a word like "Mongol".
@@merrick6484 also we are looking to their root about it. Their roots are Turkic mostly, but there was a small amount of Mongol tribes. Turkic population was always higher than Mongoloid population. Because of that, Turks aren't coming from Mongols clearly, I can see you tried to say that.
@@merrick6484 but both of Turks and Mongols are clearly relative nations. But Turks aren't Mongol, it is something proven.
you are using AI images.😆
Yes, I am using ai images...
@@boringoldhistory I am Chinese. Now there are records about the Huns, basically all of them come from China. I can tell you very clearly that the Huns were Uyghurs.😢
🎉 don't say xiongnu
Don't abuse us
Xiongnu means----- dangerous slaves
Don't speak this words again and again
We were not tatar and Mongols
Use many pictures of ancient Chinese buildings when you introduce XiongNu 's culture. ?