The Huns are the GOAT Barbarians

It says a lot about you and your nihilistic view of man that you actually admire ancient mystic savages whose only excuse for a cultural accomplishment was to destroy the remnants of what thinking, civilized men had created in Rome, and even then only managed to do so after it was far down the road to economic and military decline. Atilla was the Obama of antiquity.

I think you may need to give more consideration to the Mongols. They didn't just bring one civilization to its knees. They wiped whole civilizations off the map. Places like Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Pakistan, and Afghanistan once had massive cities--some with populations over a million--but the Mongols obliterated their cities and turned much of the agricultural land of Central Asia into steppe. Furthermore, they destroyed civilization in Mesopotamia, not only killing millions, but destroying the irrigation canals that had supported life since the days of the Sumerians.

The Huns, on the other hand, shook down the Romans for a lot of money, but were generally thwarted by walled cities.

Yes, the Mongols would be GOAT no contest if only they had gone back to Mongolia after the great Khan died. But administering the empire tainted their barbarianism.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Yes, the Mongols would be GOAT no contest if only they had gone back to Mongolia after the great Khan died. But administering the empire tainted their barbarianism.

Mongols win hand down. There wasn't a major empire that wasn't brought to its knees by the Mongols.

Plus-- I seem to recall that they did go back to Mongolia after Genghis and at least the first (Ogedi??) and the second khans after him died.

Once in Mongolia, they picked a new Khan, who promptly rode forth and brought yet another civilization to its knees...

The Barbarians of Rome and Barbarians of Greece surely got f u c k e d by many other barbarians.

The Vikings did not disappear. They were basically iron age Scandinavian farmers who found out that they could make a profit by attaking and looting other peoples and cities.

When Scandinavia became Christian in the 10/11th century, they realized you could make even more profit from trading with other cities instead of destroying them.

I think the point was that the barbarian Huns remained true to their barbarian ethos, in the face of opportunities to change--which is probably why they didn't actually last very long as an effective force.

I am a direct descendant of those peoples, and I've got to tell you, to this day, there are many Hungarians who still embody this sort of free-living, individualist mentality. One segment of the population seems to me to somewhat curiously lack the need for modern amenities, including civil society.

It is no fluke that they are the ones who put up a wall first, in the face of tremendous social opposition and pressure.

The older I get, the more I realize that I have in common with those people. I'm on the very of moving there, I am now in a financial position to do so. I have come to realize that I, too, embody many of these same traits and attitudes. It's hard to explain what is a somewhat individualistic, largely tribal, even predatory attitude. I understand the merits of civil society and participate, but not from deep conditioning--it is a conscious, aware participation, that is all to keenly aware of the limits, to the point where I became a lawyer to better understand what I was going through mentally and emotionally.

I'm on the civilized end of the spectrum, though--but there are many who are not, who still really enjoy what life has to offer, but who often pay the price with an early death, or ill health. They are far removed in time from the Huns, but not that far removed in either geography or basic needs.

IMO the only thing that really separates them from the Huns is the relatively recent introduction of sour cream into the culture. Offering a Hungarian sour cream is like offering an Indian shiny beads--they will never refuse, and it acts like a pacifier, especially when followed by a good shot of palinka, or maybe some Tokaji wine.

The Mongols were into genetic replacement, but first the Mongis always vanquished wholesale the males of those conquered. The Mongols were not barbarians. The Mongols made Europe and Asia into a far better place by introducing cleanliness, culture, morals, etc.

The Huns played the game when the league was weak. They wouldn't stand a chance against Tamerlane in the modern era.

The English are the GOAT barbarians. England had the largest oceanic empire until the Japs and Krauts ruined it.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Yes, the Mongols would be GOAT no contest if only they had gone back to Mongolia after the great Khan died. But administering the empire tainted their barbarianism.

+1. There was no clear cut line of succession, so after the Khan died the entire army either returned to Mongolia to pick a Khan, or waited for further instruction. This act alone saved Europe from being overrun. Dan Carlin (Hardcore History) has a fantastic series on the subject:

Bad Wigins wrote:

A great barbarian should meet at least one of several criteria

1) bring a civilization to its begging knees

2) not become civilized itself in the process

3) retain a good honest barbarian lifestyle

4) eventually disappear into the mists of time as things evolve naturally

Yah, but are they real men?

I'm sorry to tell you, but Hungarians are in no relation to the ancient Huns. That might be some myth of Hungarian nationalists but has nothing to do with reality. Ask any serious archeologist, historian or evolutionary anthropologist.

Unfortunately, you're not even a direct descendant of the original Magyars that came somewhere from Ural. Genetic tests have confirmed that modern Hungarian population is basically Slavic people, who were there before the arrival of Magyars and who adopted the Magyar language at some point.

Top Barbarian Empires (by Percentage of the Human Population killed):

1) Mongolia

2) Britain

3) United States

4) China

Not an American wrote:

The Vikings did not disappear. They were basically iron age Scandinavian farmers who found out that they could make a profit by attaking and looting other peoples and cities.

When Scandinavia became Christian in the 10/11th century, they realized you could make even more profit from trading with other cities instead of destroying them.

After which, they weren't Vikings anymore. So the Vikings disappeared.

The true Vikings aren't the ancestors of today's Scandinavians, or even Icelanders or Russians. Those people are descended from rejects who weren't brave or strong enough and were left behind. Those who inherited the true Viking genes kept going farther and farther until there was nowhere left to go, but things had evolved and they weren't Vikings anymore, and as you say, they had adopted the roman religion.

When Roald Amundsen reached the South Pole, Viking exploration was done. They had sailed to literally every frozen wasteland on Earth.

I was going to ask you if you have ever heard of the Mongols, but other posters beat me to it.

Look up the siege of Baghdad.

Stagger Lee wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

Yes, the Mongols would be GOAT no contest if only they had gone back to Mongolia after the great Khan died. But administering the empire tainted their barbarianism.

+1. There was no clear cut line of succession, so after the Khan died the entire army either returned to Mongolia to pick a Khan, or waited for further instruction. This act alone saved Europe from being overrun. Dan Carlin (Hardcore History) has a fantastic series on the subject:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGT0cPukJ4o

Great link. Carlin is a great lecturer, but I want some dramatic recontructions.

The Khanate of Muscovy was the most dispicable example of human farming ever in the history of mankind.

What's with the Huns?