>Huns conquered Europe all the way to France.
Wow, and none of the Roman Empire. Because it turned out they lost, they lost in Gaul, they were beaten out of Italy, they became incapable of fighting in the Balkans to the point where Roman armies were sent beyond the Danube to fight in their territory. They lost.
Mega cope. They conquered WRE cities, razed Gaul, then headed into Italy.
2 years ago
Anonymous
And then they were defeated in Campi Catalunici, moron
2 years ago
Anonymous
Meme battle made no difference to the Huns who kept razing France then went into Italy, moron.
2 years ago
Anonymous
moron they were nothing within a year or two after that battle
2 years ago
Anonymous
That battle was a stalemate with countless Roman deaths while Huns kept razing Gaul and other Roman territories for years. If you weren't a moron who can't read you would've stopped posting after your first loss lol.
2 years ago
Anonymous
It wasn’t , you revisionist moron, the battle was won
2 years ago
Anonymous
If the battle was won, the Huns could not have kept raping French women, and invading Europe.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>They conquered WRE cities
And kept none of them. Not so much a conquest. >razed Gaul
What their campaign trail? They hardly got that far into Gaul. Even the Alan people settled in Northern Gaul did more damage than the Huns ever did in the region. >then headed into Italy.
And lost.
That battle was a stalemate with countless Roman deaths while Huns kept razing Gaul and other Roman territories for years. If you weren't a moron who can't read you would've stopped posting after your first loss lol.
>That battle was a stalemate with countless Roman deaths
We know that the Roman army was largely left intact after the battle >while Huns kept razing Gaul and other Roman territories for years
The Italian campaign was the last effort the Huns ever made into the Roman Empire, and they didn't 'continue' to raze Gaul, they retreated out of the province when they were defeated.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>And kept none of them.
They still conquered WRE cities and towns. >And lost.
By sacking Roman cities and getting paid to do it? >We know that the Roman army was largely left intact after the battle
Nope. The Roman army was in tatters and couldn't even follow one army of the Huns as it razed Gaul. >The Italian campaign was the last effort the Huns ever made into the Roman Empire,
So their last campaign was Humans striking at the heart of the WRE while destroying any Romans that challenged them? >they didn't 'continue' to raze Gaul,
They spent a year razing Gaul and taking whatever they wanted.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>They still conquered WRE cities and towns.
They conquered cities, despite not conquering them. Did Marcian conquer the Huns because he sent an army past the Danube to fight them? Did Theodosius II conquer the Huns because he fought them? >By sacking Roman cities and getting paid to do it?
If making campaign was the definition of success than every single army to ever exist won. The Hunnic army was defeated in Gaul, and they left. They did not achieve their goals, therefore they lost. >while destroying any Romans that challenged them?
Didn't happen >They spent a year razing Gaul and taking whatever they wanted.
Didn't happen
You can spout your head canon but we all know you don't actually have any proof
2 years ago
Anonymous
>They conquered cities,
You want people to believe it doesn't count because the Huns didn't hold it for 10 years? They captured cities and there's no amount of crying you can do to change that. >If making campaign was the definition of success than every single army to ever exist won.
No idiot the Huns spent their time razing Gaul while the army that supposedly defeated them cowered in fear of another battle with the Huns. The Huns goal was to sack and raze Roman territory. They accomplished that 100%. >Didn't happen
Were the Romans cucks then? Huns spent years afterwards razing Roman territory. >Didn't happen
It did and the remaining Roman army was afraid of fighting the Huns again which let the Huns continue razing Gaul before they moved onto Italy.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>No idiot the Huns spent their time razing Gaul while the army that supposedly defeated them cowered in fear of another battle with the Huns
proof? >The Huns goal was to sack and raze Roman territory
proof? >Were the Romans cucks then? Huns spent years afterwards razing Roman territory.
proof? >It did and the remaining Roman army was afraid of fighting the Huns again
proof? > let the Huns continue razing Gaul before they moved onto Italy.
proof?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Whether the battle was strategically conclusive remains disputed: the Romans possibly stopped the Huns' attempt to establish vassals in Roman Gaul. However, the Huns successfully looted and pillaged much of Gaul and crippled the military capacity of the Romans and Visigoths.
Seethe more homosexual. Huns wanted to loot and raze Gaul which they did. Romans and their Frankish slaves cowered in fear after the battle and refused to go after the Huns.
2 years ago
Anonymous
What even is your source?
the battle was strategically conclusive remains disputed
So, we don't know if they won, is what it's saying. >Huns wanted to loot and raze Gaul which they did
Do you actually have any evidence that states that it was their goal? > their Frankish slaves
The majority of the Franks fought for the Huns. It was a smaller contingent which fought with the Romans. > cowered in fear after the battle and refused to go after the Huns.
That's impossible to be able to verify, therefore a worthless statement.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>So, we don't know if they won, is what it's saying.
Yes and this is about the battle they supposedly "lost". >Do you actually have any evidence that states that it was their goal?
Their goal everywhere was to loot and raze. On the other hand you didn't know what their goals were. >The majority of the Franks fought for the Huns. It was a smaller contingent which fought with the Romans.
I don't particularly care if it was Frankish slaves, Visigothic slaves, or Saxon slaves. >That's impossible to be able to verify
No it isn't. The Roman army and their Frankish slaves did not try to stop the Huns from razing the rest of Gaul. Despite their supposed "victory" they cowered in fear and refused to go after the Huns.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Yes and this is about the battle they supposedly "lost".
Your source (which you haven't named) doesn't say anything about the battle being lost or won so you also have no reason to say that the Huns won it. >Their goal everywhere was to loot and raze
proof? >I don't particularly care if it was Frankish slaves, Visigothic slaves, or Saxon slaves.
So what you are saying is you don't care about being accurate with your claims? >No it isn't. Despite their supposed "victory" they cowered in fear and refused to go after the Huns.
Can you prove that they were motivated by a fear of the Huns not to fight? Otherwise your statement is at best unprovable
2 years ago
Anonymous
The Huns fought one battle and they ceased to be influential after that battle.
The Huns are not related to the xiongnu. Thats an old meme theory based ob flimsy linguistics. You'll only see it talked about in bottom of the barrel shit like youtube channels and podcasts
They werent there is literally no evidence other than xiongnu supposedly sounding like hunna (huns). This is a bushit theory because the xiongnu isnt what they called themselves. We dont even knkw what they called themselves. Anyway xiongnu means angry slave or something in fricking chinese.
We've supplemented it with archeogenetic data from the timeperiod throughout Mongolia and Central Asia. The theory fits with the data and can't be ruled out. It's not certain but it's a more likely than not
2 years ago
Anonymous
>We've supplemented it with archeogenetic data from the timeperiod throughout Mongolia and Central Asia
Complete utter bullshit
2 years ago
Anonymous
Cope and seethe buddy
2 years ago
Anonymous
You made a wild claim and showed zero evidence. You're moronic
TheFive Barbarians, orWu Hu(Chinese:五胡;pinyin:Wǔ Hú), is a Chinese historicalexonymfor five ancient non-Hanpeoples who immigrated to northern China in theEastern Han dynasty, and then overthrew theWestern Jin dynastyand establishedtheir own kingdomsin the 4th–5th centuries.[1][2][3][4]The peoples categorized as the Five Barbarians were:[1][3][5]
factually incorrect >Huns that destroyed Rome
they didn't destroy rome >running away from the Chinese
the same steppe peoples speculated to be attacking Rome had invaded China in the 4th century beginning the chaotic 16 kingdoms era, much of northern China was occupied by proto-mongols, in the 5th century it was united under northern wei by a proto-mongol tribe
>LE R*DDIT COPE MEME >COPECOPECOPECOPECOPECOPECOPECOPECOPECOPE >COPECOPECOPECOPECOPE >COPECOPECOPECOPECOPECOPECOPECOPECOPECOPECOPECOPECOPECOPECOPECOPE
frick off
>The Huns that destroyed Rome were running away from the Chinese lmao
Well, actually, after the empire weakened as a result of internecine strife, the Xiongnu, Xiangbi and other northern barbarians ruled the Huang-he valley for about 300 years. In the first century, no nomads of the Roman Empire would have threatened, after 300 years of degradation and internal wars, Rome no longer had the strength to repel them. It's the same with the Chinese empire, under the Han they fought back, when the Han fell, the barbarians did not miss their chance.
>a migration not invasion
REFUGEESWELCOME
Yes, this was the case in most cases: the barbarians knocked on the wall (both the Romans and the Chinese) and asked to be given the opportunity to settle on the lands of the empire and serve faithfully. Well, then 20-50 passed, emperors changed, a civil war began, and all the miserable beggars became the most formidable force.
Mingation can also be called the outflow of the population from the Huang He Valley to the Yang Tzu Valley, when a large settled population moved in search of free land, away from the barbarians. Although for the local southern tribes it might not have been such a peaceful process.
>The Huns that destroyed Rome
The Huns lost you moron and neither were can they even be compared to the Xiongnu a people literally 300 years removed.
Typical cope posts because romecucks literally have no argument.
The Han:
>were more technologically advanced than Rome
>had a bigger population and economy
>had a much bigger, better trained and equipped army
And smaller penis
Why don't you try and argue the point about the Huns and Xiognu rather than spout shit unrelated to either peoples?
It's such a nonsensical uneducated """argument""" that it's not even worth adressing. It can only be classified as a copepost.
I accept your admission of defeat
He’s baiting people into replying to his shill thread.
>trxhnologically advanced
Lol they used fricking bronze swords
>more population
They had no cities as big as Rome, moron
>le epic chinese paesant soldiers were better trained than legionaires
In What MMORPG server, you moronic manchild?
>chinese paesant soldiers
Myth.
Rome would Smash China.
China has inferior weapons, less unit diversity, and their professional army was numerically inferior to that of Rome.
>tech
Rome has way more tech than fallin behinya
>bigger population
nope
>better trained army
lol
han and rome have never been anything but friends and romes done by 100ad
schizoanglo is dead
Huns conquered Europe all the way to France.
>Huns conquered Europe all the way to France.
Wow, and none of the Roman Empire. Because it turned out they lost, they lost in Gaul, they were beaten out of Italy, they became incapable of fighting in the Balkans to the point where Roman armies were sent beyond the Danube to fight in their territory. They lost.
Mega cope. They conquered WRE cities, razed Gaul, then headed into Italy.
And then they were defeated in Campi Catalunici, moron
Meme battle made no difference to the Huns who kept razing France then went into Italy, moron.
moron they were nothing within a year or two after that battle
That battle was a stalemate with countless Roman deaths while Huns kept razing Gaul and other Roman territories for years. If you weren't a moron who can't read you would've stopped posting after your first loss lol.
It wasn’t , you revisionist moron, the battle was won
If the battle was won, the Huns could not have kept raping French women, and invading Europe.
>They conquered WRE cities
And kept none of them. Not so much a conquest.
>razed Gaul
What their campaign trail? They hardly got that far into Gaul. Even the Alan people settled in Northern Gaul did more damage than the Huns ever did in the region.
>then headed into Italy.
And lost.
>That battle was a stalemate with countless Roman deaths
We know that the Roman army was largely left intact after the battle
>while Huns kept razing Gaul and other Roman territories for years
The Italian campaign was the last effort the Huns ever made into the Roman Empire, and they didn't 'continue' to raze Gaul, they retreated out of the province when they were defeated.
>And kept none of them.
They still conquered WRE cities and towns.
>And lost.
By sacking Roman cities and getting paid to do it?
>We know that the Roman army was largely left intact after the battle
Nope. The Roman army was in tatters and couldn't even follow one army of the Huns as it razed Gaul.
>The Italian campaign was the last effort the Huns ever made into the Roman Empire,
So their last campaign was Humans striking at the heart of the WRE while destroying any Romans that challenged them?
>they didn't 'continue' to raze Gaul,
They spent a year razing Gaul and taking whatever they wanted.
>They still conquered WRE cities and towns.
They conquered cities, despite not conquering them. Did Marcian conquer the Huns because he sent an army past the Danube to fight them? Did Theodosius II conquer the Huns because he fought them?
>By sacking Roman cities and getting paid to do it?
If making campaign was the definition of success than every single army to ever exist won. The Hunnic army was defeated in Gaul, and they left. They did not achieve their goals, therefore they lost.
>while destroying any Romans that challenged them?
Didn't happen
>They spent a year razing Gaul and taking whatever they wanted.
Didn't happen
You can spout your head canon but we all know you don't actually have any proof
>They conquered cities,
You want people to believe it doesn't count because the Huns didn't hold it for 10 years? They captured cities and there's no amount of crying you can do to change that.
>If making campaign was the definition of success than every single army to ever exist won.
No idiot the Huns spent their time razing Gaul while the army that supposedly defeated them cowered in fear of another battle with the Huns. The Huns goal was to sack and raze Roman territory. They accomplished that 100%.
>Didn't happen
Were the Romans cucks then? Huns spent years afterwards razing Roman territory.
>Didn't happen
It did and the remaining Roman army was afraid of fighting the Huns again which let the Huns continue razing Gaul before they moved onto Italy.
>No idiot the Huns spent their time razing Gaul while the army that supposedly defeated them cowered in fear of another battle with the Huns
proof?
>The Huns goal was to sack and raze Roman territory
proof?
>Were the Romans cucks then? Huns spent years afterwards razing Roman territory.
proof?
>It did and the remaining Roman army was afraid of fighting the Huns again
proof?
> let the Huns continue razing Gaul before they moved onto Italy.
proof?
>Whether the battle was strategically conclusive remains disputed: the Romans possibly stopped the Huns' attempt to establish vassals in Roman Gaul. However, the Huns successfully looted and pillaged much of Gaul and crippled the military capacity of the Romans and Visigoths.
Seethe more homosexual. Huns wanted to loot and raze Gaul which they did. Romans and their Frankish slaves cowered in fear after the battle and refused to go after the Huns.
What even is your source?
the battle was strategically conclusive remains disputed
So, we don't know if they won, is what it's saying.
>Huns wanted to loot and raze Gaul which they did
Do you actually have any evidence that states that it was their goal?
> their Frankish slaves
The majority of the Franks fought for the Huns. It was a smaller contingent which fought with the Romans.
> cowered in fear after the battle and refused to go after the Huns.
That's impossible to be able to verify, therefore a worthless statement.
>So, we don't know if they won, is what it's saying.
Yes and this is about the battle they supposedly "lost".
>Do you actually have any evidence that states that it was their goal?
Their goal everywhere was to loot and raze. On the other hand you didn't know what their goals were.
>The majority of the Franks fought for the Huns. It was a smaller contingent which fought with the Romans.
I don't particularly care if it was Frankish slaves, Visigothic slaves, or Saxon slaves.
>That's impossible to be able to verify
No it isn't. The Roman army and their Frankish slaves did not try to stop the Huns from razing the rest of Gaul. Despite their supposed "victory" they cowered in fear and refused to go after the Huns.
>Yes and this is about the battle they supposedly "lost".
Your source (which you haven't named) doesn't say anything about the battle being lost or won so you also have no reason to say that the Huns won it.
>Their goal everywhere was to loot and raze
proof?
>I don't particularly care if it was Frankish slaves, Visigothic slaves, or Saxon slaves.
So what you are saying is you don't care about being accurate with your claims?
>No it isn't. Despite their supposed "victory" they cowered in fear and refused to go after the Huns.
Can you prove that they were motivated by a fear of the Huns not to fight? Otherwise your statement is at best unprovable
The Huns fought one battle and they ceased to be influential after that battle.
> Huns conquered Europe all the way to France.
Huns and their cousisn also conquered Asia all the way to China.
They also got exterminated by Germs after Attila died
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Nedao
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bassianae
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Nedao
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bassianae
obligatory reminder that these articles used to be much larger and more detailed, but were edited by Chink shills
rice rice rice rice rice rice rice rice
Ok Zhang.
Cope
"Quantity has a quality of its own"- not me
The Huns are not related to the xiongnu. Thats an old meme theory based ob flimsy linguistics. You'll only see it talked about in bottom of the barrel shit like youtube channels and podcasts
They were most likely related Xiongnu>Hepthalites>Huns
They werent there is literally no evidence other than xiongnu supposedly sounding like hunna (huns). This is a bushit theory because the xiongnu isnt what they called themselves. We dont even knkw what they called themselves. Anyway xiongnu means angry slave or something in fricking chinese.
We've supplemented it with archeogenetic data from the timeperiod throughout Mongolia and Central Asia. The theory fits with the data and can't be ruled out. It's not certain but it's a more likely than not
>We've supplemented it with archeogenetic data from the timeperiod throughout Mongolia and Central Asia
Complete utter bullshit
Cope and seethe buddy
You made a wild claim and showed zero evidence. You're moronic
TheFive Barbarians, orWu Hu(Chinese:五胡;pinyin:Wǔ Hú), is a Chinese historicalexonymfor five ancient non-Hanpeoples who immigrated to northern China in theEastern Han dynasty, and then overthrew theWestern Jin dynastyand establishedtheir own kingdomsin the 4th–5th centuries.[1][2][3][4]The peoples categorized as the Five Barbarians were:[1][3][5]
Xiongnu,Jie,Xianbei,Qiang,Di.
Chinabros...
they could never fight cause of supply/distance issues
factually incorrect
>Huns that destroyed Rome
they didn't destroy rome
>running away from the Chinese
the same steppe peoples speculated to be attacking Rome had invaded China in the 4th century beginning the chaotic 16 kingdoms era, much of northern China was occupied by proto-mongols, in the 5th century it was united under northern wei by a proto-mongol tribe
>LE R*DDIT COPE MEME
>COPECOPECOPECOPECOPECOPECOPECOPECOPECOPE
>COPECOPECOPECOPECOPE
>COPECOPECOPECOPECOPECOPECOPECOPECOPECOPECOPECOPECOPECOPECOPECOPE
frick off
huns obliterated byzantines rome and franks in a 1v3
atilla scourge of god not seen again until mongol temujin sabutai timur
back behind your firewall bug
no one cares Chang
Rome is eternal, mongrel
archers counter infantry birthmistakes
no fricking clue
>The Huns that destroyed Rome were running away from the Chinese lmao
Well, actually, after the empire weakened as a result of internecine strife, the Xiongnu, Xiangbi and other northern barbarians ruled the Huang-he valley for about 300 years. In the first century, no nomads of the Roman Empire would have threatened, after 300 years of degradation and internal wars, Rome no longer had the strength to repel them. It's the same with the Chinese empire, under the Han they fought back, when the Han fell, the barbarians did not miss their chance.
xianbi hit south far sooner it was a migration not invasion and they interwove
>a migration not invasion
REFUGEESWELCOME
Yes, this was the case in most cases: the barbarians knocked on the wall (both the Romans and the Chinese) and asked to be given the opportunity to settle on the lands of the empire and serve faithfully. Well, then 20-50 passed, emperors changed, a civil war began, and all the miserable beggars became the most formidable force.
Mingation can also be called the outflow of the population from the Huang He Valley to the Yang Tzu Valley, when a large settled population moved in search of free land, away from the barbarians. Although for the local southern tribes it might not have been such a peaceful process.