Raphael’s The Meeting between Leo the Great and Attila depicts Pope Leo I, escorted by Saint Peter and Saint Paul, meeting with the Hun emperor outside Rome

 

To get where I want to be, I’m being forced to Go West – Backwards.

From China to Eastern Europe.

From NC:

 

The “ancient” Chinese Hungarians.

The nation of the Huns was quite prominent in the “ancient” history of China. L. N. Gumilev even wrote the famous book entitled “Huns in China”. However, Scaligerian history reports that the very same Huns were active in Europe and the Mediterranean region in the beginning of the new era. Modern historians are forced to assume (and actually assume) that the Huns separated into two tribes, one of which ended up in the Mediterranean region, and the other, in China.

This is what L. N. Gumilev writes on this subject: “In the first century A. D. the kingdom of the Huns was split in two as a result of certain internal processes. One part submitted to the Chinese rule, and the other fought its way back to the West, having become mixed with the Ugrians and the Sarmatians” ([215], page 5).

It is easy enough to understand why the Huns have “become mixed with the Ugrians” when they arrived in Europe. This only happened on paper, in the reports of historians. As we mentioned in CHRON4, referring to Sigismund von Herberstein, mediaeval Hungarians (or Ugrians) were known as the Huns.

Hungarians also manifest in Chinese history under their European name, as Ugrians, or Ouigurs, which is virtually the same name ([212], page 165).

The progeny of the European Huns (in particular, their alleged Chinese roots) keeps the learned historians on edge. The Huns have recently become known as the Sunnians, in accordance with the modern Chinese pronunciation ([319], page 113).

For instance, S. S. Minyaev reports the following: “Finally, let us mention the historical destiny of the Sunnians [the Huns – Auth.] and the possibility of their advent to Europe . . . The primary reason that could have led to the possible migration of the Sunnians [the Huns – Auth.] and their transformation into the European Huns is usually named as . . .” ([339], pages 123-124).

1. S. Minyaev suggests a version that doesn’t even seem satisfactory to himself: “It is obvious that the suggested model doesn’t solve the problem of the Huns’ origins – au contraire, it emphasises its complexity” ([339], page 125).

We can therefore see that the “ancient” China was inhabited by Hungarians, but not just them – after all, a great many nations inhabited Europe in the Middle Ages, which is known to the readers perfectly well.