匈奴原本是活跃在中亚蒙古大草原上的游牧民族，他们从公元3世纪开始了漫长的西迁。匈奴人是骑在马背上的民族，匈奴的骑兵擅长使用长矛和弓箭作战。为了找到新的适合放牧的草原，匈奴人带着家眷和大量的马匹牲口开始了迁徙。匈奴军队有着强大的力量和严明的纪律，他们以不可阻挡之势扫清了西迁路上的所有障碍。当地的民族为了躲避恐怖的敌人而不得不离开自己的家园，从而掀起了一阵巨大的迁徙浪潮。这一连锁反应由君士坦丁堡和东罗马帝国一直延伸到多瑙河和莱茵河流域，最终在公元476年淹没了西罗马帝国。
匈奴人终于发现了所喜爱的土地，他们定居在匈牙利平原，在蒂萨河畔的塞格得城建立了自己的大本营。匈奴人需要广阔的草原来放牧他们的马群和牲口，从这一片区域开始，匈奴人通过同盟或是征服的方式控制了由俄罗斯的乌拉尔山直到法国的莱茵河之间的区域。
匈奴人是马术精湛的骑手，从少年时期就开始接受训练，一些历史学家相信正是匈奴人发明了马镫，增强了骑兵在持握长矛冲锋时的战斗力。匈奴骑兵的机动能力使敌人带来感到恐惧，他们每天要更换几匹战马以保持这一优势。匈奴人的第二个优势是他们使用的复合弓，远远超过了西方的任何同类武器。站立在马镫上，他们能够向前后左右各个方向发射弓箭。匈奴人的战术是令人惊异的闪电般的突袭，并因此而带来恐怖。他们是一支由轻骑兵所组成的军团，他们的行政体系需要一名伟大的领袖来统率整个部落。
当伊朗人种的游牧民（斯基泰人和萨尔马特人）占据着草原地带西部即南俄罗斯时，无疑地还包括图尔盖河流域和西西伯利亚；草原地带的东部是处于突厥－蒙古种民族的统治之下。其中在古代史上占统治地位的民族是以"匈奴"一名而被中国人所知。匈奴一名与后来罗马人和印度人称呼同一蛮族的名称（Huns〔Hunni〕和Huna）是同词源的。可能这些匈奴人（直到公元前3世纪的秦朝，才在中国编年史上清楚地记载了匈奴一名）在公元前第9和第8世纪时已经被中国人称为严狁。更早一些的时候，他们可能被称为"草粥"，或更含糊地被叫作"胡人"。在历史的黎明时期，汉人所知的胡人是指那些当时居住在中国边境上，即在鄂尔多斯、山西北部和河北北部的那些民族。马斯佩罗推测：所谓北戎即"北部之戎"，分布在今天的北京西部和西北部，是一支胡人部落。其他的部落在公元前第4世纪时已经归降于赵国。赵武灵王（大约公元前325－298年在位）甚至从他们那里夺取了山西最北部（大同地区），实际上还夺取了今鄂尔多斯北部地区（约公元前300年）。正是为了有效地防范这些游牧民的进攻，秦国（陕西）和赵国（山西）的汉人都改他们的重车兵为灵活的骑兵。这一军事改革带来了中国服装上的彻底变化；弓箭时代的长袍被从游牧民那里学来的骑兵裤子所取代。从游牧民哪里，中国武士们还模仿了羽毛装饰的帽子、"三尾服"和后来对名为"战国时期"的艺术起到很大作用的"带扣"。也正是为了防御匈奴，赵国及其邻近诸国的中国人开始沿其北部边境垒起最初的城墙，后来秦始皇统一和完成了城墙的建筑，成为了长城。
据司马迁记述，正是在公元前3世纪后半叶，匈奴似乎成为一支统一的、强大的民族，他们由一位名叫单于的首领统帅着，单于的全名汉文译音是撑犁孤涂单于，中国人把这些词解释为"像天子一样广大的首领"。在这些词中可以发现突厥－蒙古语词根，特别是"撑犁"是突厥－蒙古语词（Tangri，天国）的译音。在单于之下，有两个最大的官职，即屠耆王，意为左右贤王。汉文译音"屠耆"与突厥字（doghri）有关系，意思是"正直的"、"忠实的"。就基本上以游牧生活为主的民族所能谈到的固定居住地而言，单于住在鄂尔浑河上游的山区，以后成吉思汗蒙古人的都城哈拉和林就建在这儿。左贤王--原则上是单于的继承人--住在东面，可能在克鲁伦高地。右贤王住在西面，可能像阿尔伯特·赫尔曼认为的那样，在杭爱山区、今乌里雅苏台附近。接下去，匈奴统治集团内依次有：左右谷蠡王、左右大将、左右大都尉、左右大当户、左右骨都侯，然后是千夫长、百夫长，十夫长。这个游牧民族，在行进时被组织得像一支军队。一般行进的方向是朝南，这在突厥－蒙古种各民族中已成为习惯；类似的现象在匈奴的后裔、6世纪的突厥人中，以及成吉思汗的蒙古人中都可以看到。
汉人描绘的匈奴肖像上的特征，我们在他们的继承者突厥人和蒙古人身上也可以看到。威格尔概括道："他们的身材矮而粗壮，头大而圆，阔脸，颧骨高，鼻翼宽，上胡须浓密，而领下仅有一小撮硬须，长长的耳垂上穿着孔，佩戴着一只耳环。头部除了头顶上留着一束头发外，其余部分都剃光。厚厚的眉毛，杏眼，目光炯炯有神。身穿长齐小腿的、两边开叉的宽松长袍，腰上系有腰带，腰带两端都垂在前面，由于寒冷，袖子在手腕处收紧。一条短毛皮围在肩上，头戴皮帽。鞋是皮制的，宽大的裤子用一条皮带在踝部捆扎紧。弓箭袋系在腰带上，垂在左腿的前面，箭筒也系在腰带上横吊在腰背部，箭头朝着右边。"
上述服装的一些细部，特别是裹齐踝部的裤子，对匈奴人与斯基泰人来说都是共同的。有许多习惯也是相同的：如葬礼上的牺牲。匈奴和斯基泰人都是在酋长（或首领）的墓上，割开其妻子及随从们的喉咙，至于匈奴人，其人数达到上百或者上千。希罗多德（IV．65）记载，斯基泰人将敌人的头盖骨在沿眉毛平处锯开，在外面用皮套蒙上，里面嵌上金片，作为饮器使用。《前汉书》证实了匈奴人中有同样的习惯。这一习惯特别是从老上单于用月氏王的头盖骨来饮酒的例子中可以看到。确实，匈奴和斯基泰人都是把头看作战利品的。希罗多德（IV．64）曾提到斯基泰人在战利品中展示他们砍下的敌人的头颅以及挂在马缰绳上的头皮，以示夸耀。
在匈奴的后裔，即公元第6世纪的突厥人中，一个战士坟墩上的石头，其数目是与他一生中所杀敌人的数目成比例。这种嗜血性的风俗也同样盛行于印欧种和突厥－蒙古种的游牧民中。斯基泰人用敌人的血洒在插在一个小土堆上的神圣的短弯刀上，以及喝一杯被他杀死的第一个敌人的血。匈奴人在订盟约时，要用人头盖骨制成的容器喝血。在悼念死者时，斯基泰人和匈奴人用小刀把脸划破，"让血和泪一起流出来"。
像斯基泰人一样，匈奴人基本上是游牧民，他们生活的节奏也是由他们的羊群、马群、牛群和骆驼群而调节。为寻找水源和牧场，他们随牧群而迁徙。他们吃的只是畜肉（这一习惯给更多是以蔬菜为食的中国人很深的印象），衣皮革，被谢裘，住毡帐。他们信奉一种以崇拜天（腾格里）和崇拜某些神山为基础的、含混不清的萨满教。他们的单于或者最高君主，在秋季召集全体匈奴人（这个季节马最壮）课校人畜。所有的中原汉人著作家都把这些野蛮人描述成顽固的掠夺者，他们会出其不意地出现在耕地边缘，侵袭人畜和抢劫财产，然后在任何还击可能来到之前带着战利品溜走。当他们被追赶时，他们的战术是引诱汉人军队深入大戈壁滩或是草原荒凉之地，然后在自己不遭埋伏的情况下，以雷雨般的箭惩罚追赶者，直到他们的敌人被拖垮，被饥渴弄得精疲力竭，他们才一举而消灭之。由于他们的骑兵的机动性以及他们的弓箭技术，这些方法相当有效。在从最初的匈奴到成吉思汗时期的所有草原居民中，这些方法都很少变化。对于所有那些由马上弓箭手组成的部落，无论是东方的匈奴人或是西方的斯基泰人，这些方法都是共同的。正如希罗多德所陈述的，斯基泰人对付大流士就是采用同样的策略。大流士及时地意识到这种危险，并且在这种"退出俄罗斯"可能终止灾难的来临之前就撤退了。有多少汉人将领后来因为缺乏这种谨慎，他们受到匈奴人佯装逃逸的蒙蔽而进入沙漠荒凉之地，在那儿遭到了屠杀呢？
至于匈奴在突厥－蒙古种各民族中的语言位置，一些作者，如白鸟库吉倾向于把他们归入蒙古种人。相反，伯希和从汉文译本所提供的反复核对的几次巧合中，认为全面来看，这些匈奴人应该属于突厥种，特别是他们的政治领导人。中国古代北方游牧民族。其族属尚无定论，主要有突厥、蒙古等说。无文字。战国末，常扰掠秦、赵、燕北边，三国相继筑长城以拒之。冒顿单于在位（前209～前174）时，统一各部，建立国家，统有大漠南北广大地区。老上单于（约前174～前160）时，匈奴势力东至辽河，西越葱岭，北抵贝加尔湖，南达长城，成为历史上第一个草原游牧帝国。汉初，匈奴不断南下侵掠。公元前200年，围汉高祖刘邦于白登山（今山西大同东北），遂迫汉朝实行和亲，且岁奉贡献，并开关市与之交易。然而，匈奴仍屡屡背约南侵，成为汉朝一大边患。汉武帝时国力强盛，曾3次(前127、前121、前119）大举出兵反击匈奴，匈奴势力渐衰。汉代，匈奴由于天灾、人祸及汉军的打击，发生过两次分裂：一次是公元前57年左右出现的五单于并立局面。结果是公元前53年呼韩邪单于归汉，引众南徙阴山附近。公元前36年，汉西域副校尉陈汤发西域各国兵远征康居，击杀与汉为敌的郅支单于，消灭了匈奴在西域的势力，公元前33年，汉元帝以宫人王嫱（昭君）嫁呼韩邪单于，恢复了和亲。另一次是王莽篡汉后，匈奴的势力有所发展。但到东汉光武帝建武二十四年（公元48年），匈奴日逐王比被南边八部拥立为南单于，袭用其祖父呼韩邪单于的称号，请求内附，得到东汉允许。匈奴又一次分裂，成为南北二部。南下附汉的称为南匈奴，留居漠北的称为北匈奴。
南匈奴屯居朔方、五原、云中（在今内蒙古自治区境内）等郡，东汉末分为五部。至西晋，南匈奴人在逐步转向定居农耕生活，但除了上层贵族生活习惯和文化教养受汉文化影响较深外，匈奴仍然聚族而居，社会结构变化不大。304年，匈奴刘渊建立政权，民族共同体开始瓦解，逐渐汉化。除刘赵政权外，十六国中的夏（赫连氏）和北凉（沮渠氏）也是匈奴支裔建立的。
公元91年，汉军出居延塞(今内蒙古西部额济纳旗一带)，围北匈奴单于于金微山（今阿尔泰山）。北匈奴战败后部分西迁，余众后来归附于兴起的鲜卑。多数学者认为，西迁的北匈奴就是欧洲史上的匈人。
起源
中国部分史籍记载，匈奴人是夏朝的遗民。《史记·匈奴列传》记载∶“匈奴，其先祖夏后氏之苗裔也，曰淳维。”。《山海经·大荒北经》称∶犬戎与夏人同祖，皆出于黄帝。《史记索隐》引张晏的话说∶“淳维以殷时奔北边。”意即夏的后裔淳维，在商朝时逃到北边，子孙繁衍成了匈奴。还有一说认为，移居北地的夏之后裔，是夏桀的儿子。夏桀流放三年而死，其子獯鬻带著父亲留下的妻妾，避居北野，随畜移徙，即是中国所称的匈奴。部分学者根据《史记》记载的後半段文字，认为匈奴原是山戎、猃狁、荤粥。王国维在《鬼方昆夷猃狁考》中，把匈奴名称的演变作了系统的概括，认为商朝时的鬼方、混夷、獯鬻，周朝时的猃狁，春秋时的戎、狄，战国时的胡，都是後世所谓的匈奴。还有一说，把鬼戎、义渠、燕京、余无、楼烦、大荔等史籍中所见之异民族，统称为匈奴。还有人认为匈奴与先秦时期的北方少数民族不可混为一谈，匈奴应是西方草原的一个游牧民族，战国末期之前，还未游牧至中国北部。上述看法，在近现代学者中并未取得统一。由于匈奴的起源问题不能解决，匈奴的族属与匈奴的语系也都成为悬案。
周朝
自西周起，戎族开始威胁中原王朝，周幽王烽火戏诸侯后，犬戎部落攻陷镐京，迫使平王东迁。战国时林胡、楼烦多次侵扰赵国，赵武灵王胡服骑射驱逐林胡、楼烦，在北边新开辟的地区设置了云中等县。林胡、楼烦北迁融入新崛起的匈奴。战国末期赵将李牧曾大败匈奴。
秦朝
前3世纪匈奴统治结构分为中央王庭、东部的左贤王、和西部的右贤王，控制着从里海到长城的广大地域，包括今蒙古国、俄罗斯的西伯利亚、中亚北部、中国东北等地区。
秦始皇统一中原后，命蒙恬北击匈奴，收河套，“却匈奴七百余里，胡人不敢南下而牧马”（《过秦论》）。
西汉
真正与匈奴进行大规模战斗是在汉朝。汉初前201年，韩王信投降匈奴。次年，刘邦亲率大军征讨，在白登（今山西大同东北）被匈奴冒顿单于30余万骑兵围困七昼夜。后用计逃脱，之后开始与匈奴和亲。其后的文、景诸帝也是沿用和亲政策以休养生息。到汉武帝时，汉朝从战略防御转为战略进攻。元朔二年(前127年)派卫青占领河套地区，前121年派霍去病夺取富庶的河西走廊，前119年卫、霍分东西两路进攻漠北。霍去病击匈奴至今蒙古国境内狼居胥山，卫青东路扫平匈奴王庭。右贤王率领四万余人投归汉朝，单于及左贤王逃走。汉朝在东部联合乌桓，西部以和亲（前105年，汉武帝封细君公主下嫁乌孙国王）、通商的方式联合西域诸国，压缩匈奴的空间。
前73年，汉与乌孙联兵20万进攻匈奴，直捣右谷蠡王庭。前57年匈奴分裂，郅支单于获胜据漠北，呼韩邪单于前51年南下投靠汉朝。后来郅支单于则率部众退至中亚康居（今巴尔喀什湖与咸海之间，即阿富汗、乌兹别克斯坦、哈萨克斯坦一带），呼韩邪单于占据漠北王庭。前36年，为了清除匈奴在西域的影响，甘延寿、陈汤远征康居的匈奴，击杀郅支单于。前33年呼韩邪单于娶王昭君与汉修好。
西汉时期的单于有： 头曼单于、冒顿单于、老上单于、军臣单于、伊稚斜单于、乌维单于、儿单于、呴黎湖单于、且鞮侯单于、狐鹿姑单于、壶衍鞮单于、虚闾权渠单于、握衍眴鞮单于、呼韩邪单于、郅支单于。
东汉
48年，东汉初年，匈奴分裂为两部，呼韩邪单于之孙日逐王比率4万多人南下附汉称为南匈奴，被汉朝安置在河套地区。留居漠北的称为北匈奴。89年到91年南匈奴与汉联合夹击北匈奴，先后败之于漠北和阿尔泰山，迫使其西迁，从此北匈奴就从中国古书中消失。
187年，东汉末年黄巾起义、董卓专权之际，南匈奴发生内讧。195年，南匈奴参与了中原混战，东汉蔡邕之女蔡文姬被掳掠去匈奴。202年，南匈奴首领归附汉丞相曹操，蔡文姬归汉。曹操将南匈奴分成五部。
汉朝之后
南匈奴南下汉化，一直居住在河套一带，三国时期曹操把匈奴分成五个部。4世纪初，匈奴族的五部大都督刘渊在成都王司马颖手下为将。乘西晋八王之乱之后的混乱时期，刘渊起兵占领了北中国的大部分地区，自称汉王，311年攻占洛阳，316年攻占长安，灭西晋。史称前赵或汉赵。
匈奴的一支地位低下的族群称为羯人。汉赵的大将羯人石勒自立，建立赵国，史称石赵或后赵，351年被汉族人冉闵所灭。
融入匈奴人中的月氏人，称为匈奴别部卢水胡。其中沮渠家族推后凉汉官段业为主，在现甘肃地区建立北凉。后沮渠蒙逊杀段业，自立为北凉主。后被鲜卑人拓跋氏北魏所灭。
匈奴与鲜卑的混血后代称为铁弗人。铁弗人刘勃勃被鲜卑拓跋氏击败后投奔羌人的后秦。后自认为是末代的匈奴王，改姓赫连，在河套地区创立夏国，史称胡夏。后被北魏所灭。
匈奴融入靠近高丽的鲜卑的宇文氏部落，进入朝鲜半岛。后来宇文氏篡西魏建立的北周政权，后被汉族外戚杨坚所篡。杨坚创立隋朝，统一中原。
以上是五胡十六国及南北朝时期，匈奴在中国历史舞台上进行了最后一场演出。之后，亚洲部分的匈奴最后一点残余部族，作为一个独立民族的身份从中国历史中彻底宣告终结，和其他一些民族一起消融于汉族为主体的华夏族。
匈奴后裔汉化后，据说有一些目前还生活在今天的陕西、山西等地。
匈奴在东北亚之外的影响
北匈奴远走欧洲，一部分在高加索，一部分在中伏尔加河地区（今天的俄罗斯鞑靼自治共和国），一部分在下多瑙河（今天的保加利亚），一部分在中多瑙河（今天的匈牙利）。中亚匈奴，一部分与图兰低地民族融合（中亚两河地区），一部分在阿富汗山区，一部分在印度旁遮普邦。 在3世纪末，这个几乎消失了的劫掠民族突然又出现在人们的视野内，东征西讨建立了一个庞大的“帝国”。匈奴人于350年左右侵入了欧洲，随后在称为“巴兰比尔王”的酋长领导下开始了他们的野蛮侵略战争，第一个目标便是当时称为阿兰的突厥人国度。
阿兰人的灭亡
350年，当时的阿兰国堪称强国，阿兰王倾全国之兵与匈奴军战于顿河沿岸，却遭惨败，阿兰王被杀，阿兰国灭，阿兰余部最终臣服于匈奴。匈奴在西方史书第一次出现即伴随著阿兰国的灭亡，整个西方世界为之震动。灭亡阿兰国后，匈奴在顿河流域附近逗留了几年，然后在他们年迈的酋长巴兰比尔的带领下继续开动他们极具毁灭性的侵略铁蹄，踏向西方。
对日耳曼民族的侵略
374年时，位于黑海北岸、日耳曼人所建立的东哥特王国是一个成立不久的国家。它辽阔的疆土东起至顿河，与阿兰人接壤；西至德聂特河与西哥特人为邻；南起黑海北至德聂斯特河的支流，普利派特河沼地；匈奴联同被征服的阿兰人，大军进入东哥特领土，被曾被东哥特人征服的部落乘机造反，内乱以致东哥特人屡战屡败，终于375年投降。东哥特人灭国后，匈奴人接著继续向西，西哥特人以德聂斯特河为险，布兵防守，试图击匈奴军于半渡。匈奴军一边在河对岸作势佯攻，大部却从上游乘夜偷渡再回攻。这边西哥特人在河岸构筑工事备战正酣，却不料被拦腰一顿痛打，数十万人马渡过多瑙河逃入罗马帝国境内，并于378年在阿德里雅堡大败罗马皇帝瓦伦斯，由此动摇了罗马的根基，罗马再也没法控制管辖下的诸侯和领土。 匈奴人再征服北方的诸日耳曼部落，夺取了匈牙利平原。由此，起自黑海至多瑙河以北的大片地土，尽入匈奴人之手。
对拜占庭和色雷斯各省的进攻
395年冬，匈奴人攻入色雷斯，大掠而返。400年，匈奴人再次攻入色雷斯，以后对色雷斯连年侵扰。431年，东罗马帝国不得已，答应每年向匈奴交纳页税，并允许他们在境内的几个城镇同进行互市。 435年左右，阿提拉杀死与自己共同掌政的兄弟而大权独揽。他对南俄罗斯和波斯帝国发动了一系列的突袭。不久他将目光投向了拜占庭，逼使东罗马缴纳更多的贡税，并且不继插手西罗马帝国的外交事务。罗马自然无法满足这年年高升的贡税，匈奴人则以此为借口于441年向拜占庭宣战，大肆洗劫巴尔干半岛，442年才被东罗马的阿斯帕尔将军阻截于色雷斯地区，被迫后撒。 443年，匈奴攻到东罗马首都君士坦丁堡城外，东罗马全军覆没，不得已签城下之盟，与匈奴订立和约。
阿提拉的统治时期，盛极时的匈奴帝国
由448年至450年，匈奴帝国的版图到了盛极的地步：东起自咸海，西至大西洋海岸；南起自多瑙河，北至波罗的海。这广大区域的一带附属国，都有自己的国王和部落酋长，平日向阿提拉称臣纳贡，战时出兵参战。
对西罗马的侵略和匈奴帝国的瓦解
罗马军队在教皇里奥一世的率领下，打败阿提拉带领的匈奴人。451年，在意大利本土，入侵的匈奴人被击退。
450年，阿提拉转而进攻西罗马帝国，他带著大约十万名战士渡过了莱茵河。在向前推进的一百英里内，匈奴军团洗劫了位于现今法国北部的大部分村庄。罗马将军阿提纽斯组织了一支高卢罗马军团以抵抗正在围困奥尔良城的阿提拉。在查隆丕尼的大决战中，阿提拉终于被打败。尽管匈奴人的战力没有被完全毁灭，这埸战役被认为是历史上最具决定性意义的重大战役之一，它阻止了整个基督教的覆灭和游牧民族控制欧洲的严重后果。 453年，阿提拉在迎娶日尔曼公主的第二天被发现死于动脉破裂。在失去了强有力的领导人之后，曾经称雄一时的匈奴帝国面临著崩溃的边绿。异族的奴隶纷纷起来反抗，不同的派系为了争夺统治权而激战不休。匈奴帝国最终由于汪逹尔部落等新敌人的入侵而灭亡，从历史的长河中消逝不见了。
蒙古（匈奴）自唐朝就是中国领土
唐，辽，元（忽必烈称皇帝，行汉法，主张汉化，定都北京，这一切都说明：元朝是汉化王朝，不是外族统治），清唐朝疆域图:蒙古自唐朝就是中国领土，包括民国前期：蒙古一直属于中国领土！
影响
匈奴人在欧洲建立了一个庞大的帝国，但他们的帝国是短命的。他们的帝国很快被瓦解后，甚至整个民族也消失在欧洲的历史和文化当中。匈奴人促成了欧洲历史的发展，他们把丛林里的日耳曼人推上了历史舞台，并与后者一起摧毁了罗马人的时代。帝国的历史消失后，多元化的封建国家政治开始了，一个几乎延续至今的欧洲国家的主要划分格局形成了。
匈奴后裔
有些学者认为匈奴4世纪西迁到了欧洲东部，并入侵欧洲，与第4、5世纪侵入欧洲的匈人有血缘关系或系同一民族。匈人驱逐日耳曼人等野蛮民族使得蛮族大迁徙，从而灭亡罗马帝国。
《三国志》为：“又有奄蔡国一名阿兰，皆与康居同俗。西与大秦东南与康居接。其国多名貂，畜牧逐水草，临大泽，故时羁属康居，今不属也。”在中国古书中，“大秦”即为罗马帝国。《史记》为：奄蔡在康居西北可二千里，行国，与康居大同俗，控弦者十余万。临大泽，无崖，盖乃北海云。”《北史》中那段记录的是该国遣使节到北魏。匈奴灭其国的“已三世矣”即75年，而遣使节到北魏为西元445年，正好为西元370年左右，与欧洲记录一致。
另外，有少量的匈奴邦彻底消失在异国，在东、西罗马帝国军队服役的匈奴军人不少，大多驻扎在北叙利亚、北非洲与南英格兰地区，有几个匈奴邦随西哥特人进入法国与西班牙，有一个匈奴部落随东哥特人进入意大利。有人认为今天的匈牙利人就是匈奴的后裔，这个问题现在仍是个疑问。
匈奴语
《后汉书》中有一首《匈奴歌》，不少学者用蒙古语、突厥语、叶尼塞语言等进行过分析和解读，都没有得到理想的结果。
除此之外，匈奴的人名、部落名、地名和称号都可以用来研究匈奴语。例如：“撑犁孤涂单于”据说在匈奴里有“天子”的意思，其中的“撑犁”（上古汉语*thrang rii）和“单于”（上古汉语*dar wa）分别和蒙古语的tngri“天”和daruγa“君主”相似。
关于匈奴语的来源，由于资料阙如，很难得到肯定的结论，有些认为匈奴人讲蒙古语，而其他则认为他们的语言属于叶尼塞语系。
匈奴战马
阴山等地的岩画中出现的牵马图和骑马图表明在5000年左右，北方草原民族已顺利完成了对马的驯化。正是由于对马驯化的成功，带来了草原划时代的变革，使草原经济逐渐由畜牧转变为游牧，点燃了灿烂的草原游牧文化的火炬。由于马的乘骑，彻底改变了草原先民的生产、生活，以及思维方式。尤其是马的迅捷和灵活，给草原民族的军事带来了空前的活力和优势，也赋予了骑马民族战斗的人生，马成为草原民族生死与共的朋友。
外贝加尔、蒙古和内蒙古地区发掘的上千座匈奴墓葬显示，用马头陪葬是匈奴民族的重要习俗，马不仅是财富的象征，更是匈奴民族竞争力的源泉。马匹在匈奴人的生活中扮演着双重角色，和平时期它更多是作为交通工具，战争时期，它就成为战马。从出土实物看，匈奴马匹身体略矮，头部偏大，应属于蒙古马。蒙古马虽不十分高大，但体能充沛，耐力持久，行动迅速，非常适应高原环境，因此，蒙古马作为草原战马更较其他马种占有优势。这些优良的战马再配上先进的御马工具——马笼头和便于乘骑的马鞍，大大增强了匈奴军队的战斗能力。《史记·匈奴列传》记载匈奴兵种“尽为甲骑”， 表明战马是匈奴军事的重要组成元素。“控弦之士三十余万”充分显示了匈奴帝国强大的军事实力。
匈奴兵器、头饰
《史记·匈奴列传》记载匈奴兵器“其长兵则弓矢，短兵则刀鋋”，考古发掘资料与此正相吻合。匈奴墓地发掘情况显示，兵器一般出土于男性墓葬中，以铜、铁、骨、木质地为主，主要有弓、箭镞、刀、剑、矛、斧、等。
匈奴的弓多木质，上有华丽的装饰构件。由于木头容易腐朽，目前还没有发现完整的匈奴弓，大多是一些残留的弓饰件，具体形制无法得知。但根据弓腐朽后残留的痕迹看，其长可达1.3米。
匈奴箭镞形制多样，有铜、铁和骨三种质地，其中包括著名的发信号用的匈奴鸣镝。目前虽然还没有发现可确认的匈奴鸣镝，但我们可从稍晚的契丹族鸣镝得到启发。其他的作为兵器的匈奴箭镞出土数量众多，尤其是在外贝加尔南部、蒙古北部和中部地区出土的箭镞特征鲜明，散发着慑人的力量。看着它们至今依然锐利的前锋，再假以弩机或剽悍的神射手弯弓发射时的威力，人们仍能真切地感受到它们巨大的杀伤力和穿梭于刀光剑影中生命的脆弱。
匈奴刀剑多以铁制成，还有少量的铜刀。刀大多安装有木柄，分直背弧刃、弧背直刃、直背直刃等几种形制，刀鞘带有装饰物。匈奴短剑多发现于鄂尔多斯地区，具有较明显的鄂尔多斯式短剑的风格，双刃，柄末端常装饰有动物纹饰，有的为铃首或环首。长剑一般长1米左右，双刃，有的有柄，有的无柄，多锈蚀严重，难见其原来面目。匈奴墓葬中出土的斧、矛和戈应是对中原兵器的引进和借鉴。这些匈奴短兵器在辽阔的帝国疆域内表现出较强的一致性，具有鲜明的匈奴族特点，与其他民族的兵器有较明显的区别。
综观匈奴的兵器，可以看出具有鲜明匈奴特色的为弓矢和长剑，刀子和短剑多是在继承鄂尔多斯式青铜器遗风的基础上，进行了改进。另外，对中原优良兵器的吸收和引进无疑大大提高了匈奴兵器的杀伤能力。
内蒙古出土的匈奴妇女头饰，非常华丽。头上饰有云形金片、包金贝壳和水晶珠等。每一件饰物上都有小孔，以便缝或系在头巾上。耳坠很大，分上下两部分：上部是长方形金牌，下部是包金玉坠和金串珠。颈部还有用水晶珠和玛瑙珠制成的大项链。从这些头饰可以看出，匈奴族的手工艺水平较高。
匈奴盔甲
在需要近身搏斗的冷兵器时代，士兵装备的坚实与否会极大地影响着军队整体的战斗力。匈奴人深谙此道，非常重视士兵的保护，他们不像中原士兵靠盾牌保护自己，而代之以更省劲、更坚固的盔甲来装备自身，形成“尽为甲骑”、机动灵活而又庞大的匈奴骑兵。
出土的匈奴头盔继承了北方草原的传统，与北京昌平西周白浮木椁墓及内蒙古赤峰市宁城南山根出土的东胡族青铜头盔形制相仿，匈奴的头盔仍为青铜质地，素面无沿，盔顶有方钮，两侧护耳下方有系穿带子的小洞，两面开口，佩戴可不分前后。从其形制看，我们可以了解匈奴头盔的系戴方式，同时也可体会到这样的头部防护在激烈的肉搏战中对士兵所起到的良好保护作用。匈奴铠甲比起头盔来更少见，高勒毛都M32出土的匈奴甲残片青铜制成，呈鱼鳞状密布，显得非常坚实。内蒙古自治区博物馆利用匈奴青铜甲片复原了一件匈奴铠甲，尺寸约为65×50㎝，分前后两片，由众多的圆形青铜甲片组合而成。甲片之间原应用皮条连系，但皮条已腐朽，因此只剩下甲片。
综上所述，匈奴民族有完善的军事装备。优良的战马，矫健的骑士，坚固的盔甲，加上锋利无比的兵器，勾勒出了匈奴军队的威武风姿，用“兵利马疾”形容匈奴军队，当是最恰当的概括。《史记·匈奴列传》记载：“其攻战，斩首虏赐一卮酒，而所得卤获因以予之，得人以为奴婢。故其战，人人自为趣利，善为诱兵以冒敌。故其见敌则逐利，如鸟之集……战而扶舆死者，尽得死者家财。” 这说明匈奴军队有良好的激励措施。此外，匈奴墓葬出土物表明，匈奴人以开放的视野和胸怀对比其先进的文明加以吸收和引进也是使其不断强大的一个因素。所有这些构成了草原第一帝国的军事基础，为匈奴族角逐草原霸主提供了坚强的军事保障。
匈奴大事年表
公元前 二一五年 秦始皇发兵三十万，使蒙恬北攻匈奴。
公元前 二一四年 蒙恬败匈奴，略河南地，设县四十四。增修民城， 西起临挑，东至辽东，御匈奴。
公元前 二零一年 九月，韩王信降匈奴。冒顿进兵太原，至晋阳。
公元前 二零零年 十月，刘邦击韩王信，信败走匈奴。曼丘臣等扶赵利为赵王。合韩王信及匈奴兵反击汉军。汉军被围于平城七日。十二月，匈奴攻代。
公元前 一九八年 冬，汉使人至匈奴结和亲。
公元前 一九七年 九月，代相陈豨结匈奴自立为代王，刘邦自攻之。
公元前 一九五年 三月，燕王卢绾亡入匈奴，被封为东胡卢王。
公元前 一九二年 汉以宗室女饰为公主，嫁匈奴。
公元前 一八二年 匈奴入狄道，攻阿阳。
公元前 一八一年 十二月，匈奴至狄道，略二千余人。
公元前 一七七年 五月，匈奴右贤王入居河南地，略上郡。
公元前 一七四年 春，冒顿致书汉文帝，约和。冒顿死，老上（稽粥）即“单于”位。汉文帝遣宗室女为公主至匈奴和。
公元前 一六九年 匈奴略狄道。
公元前 一六六年 冬，匈奴入汉朝那、彭阳，侯骑至甘泉宫，月余乃退。中行说降匈奴，劝稽粥勿爱汉物。
公元前 一六二年 匈奴连年扰汉边，云中、辽东最甚。汉文帝致书单子，匈奴亦使人报聘，又和亲。
公元前 一五八年 冬，匈奴入上郡、云中、月余始退。稽粥死，军臣即位。
公元前 一五六年 四月，汉与匈奴和亲。
公元前 一五五年 秋，汉与匈奴和亲。
公元前 一五四年 正月，汉七王与匈奴结兵造反，未遂。
公元前 一五二年 汉公主嫁匈奴。匈奴与汉通市。
公元前 一四八年 二月，匈奴兵迫燕地。
公无前 一四四年 六月，匈奴兵至雁门，入上郡，取汉苑马。
公元前 一四二年 三月，匈奴兵至雁门。
公元前 一三三年 六月，汉武帝使四将军，兵三十余万，诱击匈奴，无功。
公元前 一二九年 匈奴入上谷，汉使卫青等四将军各率万骑分道出击。青至龙城斩获。秋，匈奴入汉塞，韩安国屯渔阳。匈奴生擒李广。
公元前 一二八年 秋，匈奴入辽西、渔阳、雁门。卫青等击退之。
公元前 一二七年 匈奴入上谷、渔阳。卫青击退之于河南，逐匈奴 白羊王、楼烦王，取河南地，设朔方郡，筑朔方城。修秦时所筑塞。
公元前 一二六年 冬，军臣死，伊秩邪立，内战，太子于禅出降汉。匈奴入汉代郡。又入雁门。
公元前 一二五年 夏，匈奴入汉代郡、定襄、上郡。
公元前 一二四年 春，匈奴右贤王兵临汉朔方，汉以卫青等十余将往征。秋，匈奴入汉代郡。
公元前 一二三年 二月，汉卫青统六将军击匈奴。
公元前 一二二年 五月，匈奴入上谷。
公元前 一二一年 三月，霍去病击匈奴。夏，去病再击匈奴。匈奴入代、雁门。秋，匈奴浑邪王杀休屠王，并其众降汉。汉分徙匈奴前后降者子陇西、北地、上郡、朔方、云中等五郡外为五属国。
公元前 一二零年 秋，匈奴入右北平、定襄。
公元前 一一九年 春，汉大攻匈奴。匈奴漠南无王庭。
公元前 一一五年 汉于原浑邪王地设酒泉郡，休屠王地设武威郡。
公元前 一一四年 匈奴伊秩邪死，乌维立。
公元前 一一二年 西羌结匈奴攻汉安故，围抱罕。匈奴入五原。
公元前 一一一年 汉二将军率骑入匈奴二千里，无功。
公元前 一一零年 十月，汉武帝北巡、登单于台、向匈奴挑战，匈奴单于杀主张接见汉使者，拘汉使。
公元前 一零七年 秋，匈奴数扰汉边。
公元前 一零五年 乌维死；詹师庐即单于位。匈奴王庭益西北。匈奴境大雨雪。国中不安。
公元前 一零四年 汉筑受降城于塞外。
公元前 一零三年 汉二万骑侵匈奴，被歼，赵破奴被擒。匈奴入双边。
公元前 一零二年 詹师庐死，句犁湖即单于位。汉于五原塞外数百里至千里，筑城障。秋，匈奴入汉定襄、云中、酒泉、张掖等郡。
公元前 一零一年 汉使楼兰王侯伺匈奴。冬，匈奴尽归向所拘汉使，使人聘于汉。
公元前 一零零年 三月，汉使苏武送匈奴使之留在汉者。武以密谋匈奴事发，被拘。句犁湖死，且鞮侯立为单于。
公元前 九九年 五月，汉击匈奴于天山。军还，为匈奴所围，大败。李陵败降匈奴。汉以匈奴叛王介和王成娩将．楼兰兵击车师，为匈奴救兵所败。
公元前 九八年 秋，匈奴入雁门。
公元前 九七年 正月，汉分路击匈奴，无功。
公元前 九六年 且鞮侯死，狐鹿姑即单于位。
公元前 九一年 秋，匈奴入上谷，五原。
公元前 九零年 三月，汉李广利击匈奴，败降。匈奴介和王率六国兵攻车师。狐鹿姑致书汉武帝、约边界。
公元前 八七年 冬，匈奴入朔方。
公元前 八五年 狐鹿姑死，壶衍鞮即单于位。匈奴争乱。
公元前 八一年 匈奴与汉议和，释苏武归。
公元前 八零年 匈奴入汉边，大败。
公元前 七九年 匈奴备汉进攻，筑余吾水桥。
公元前 七七年 乌桓发匈奴先单于墓棘。匈奴与乌桓战。
公元前 七二年 匈奴伐乌孙，汉救之。
公元前 七一年 五月，汉攻匈奴军罢。冬，匈奴击乌孙。匈境大雨雪。西、北、东邻国进攻。属国瓦解。
公元前 六八年 壶衍鞮死，虚闾权渠立为单于。匈奴发屯兵备汉。秋，匈奴投属之辱居种居左地者起兵，与瓯脱战，败而降汉。
公元前 六七年 汉郑吉破车师，其王奔匈奴。
公元前 六四年 匈奴攻车师，郑吉被围，汉以车师地归匈奴。
公元前 六零年 匈奴日逐王先贤掸将众降汉。匈奴罢西域僮仆都尉。
公元前 五九年 匈奴击车师。匈奴使人奉献于汉，贺汉明年正旦。
公元前 五八年 丁零掠匈奴。单于使弟朝于汉。匈奴庭内争， 呼韩邪立。
公元前 五七年 七月，匈奴五单于争立。郅支立为单于。
公元前 五六年 八月，匈奴屠营单于子右谷蠡王以相争兵败，降汉。十一月，匈奴左大将乌厉屈等降汉。
公元前 五五年 六月，汉设西河、北地属国，以处匈奴降者。
公元前 五四年 正月，匈奴单于称臣于汉，使弟右谷蠡王入侍汉。
公元前 五三年 正月，匈奴庭内就降汉与否政策争论。呼韩、郅支各遣子入侍汉。冬．匈奴单于贺汉正旦。
公元前 五二年 冬，呼韩邪请明年朝汉。
公元前 五一年 正月，呼韩邪入汉朝，汉授玺绶。二月，汉使骑送之归国，允其居汉光禄塞下。
公元前 五零年 冬，呼韩、郅支各献于汉。
公元前 四九年 正月，呼韩朝汉。 二月归国。
公元前 四八年 汉使云中、五原输谷，救呼韩邪困贫。
公元前 四四年 郅支杀汉使谷吉，徙帐康居。
公元前 四三年 呼韩邪北归庭。与汉盟誓。
公元前 三六年 秋，汉西域都护甘延寿发西域兵攻入康居，杀郅支。匈奴随郅支西迁者几尽。
公元前 三三年 正月，呼韩邪朝汉。汉以王嫱嫁之。呼韩邪为汉保塞。
公元前 三一年 呼韩邪死，雕陶莫皋立为复株累若鞮单于。
公元前 二七年 匈奴单于使朝汉。
公元前 二五年 正月，雕陶莫皋朝汉。
公元前 二零年 雕陶莫皋死，且麇胥立为搜谐若鞮单于，搜谐使子入侍。
公元前 一二年 搜谐入汉，病死汉塞下。
公元前 十一年 且莫车立为车牙若鞮单于。
公元前 八年 车牙死，囊知牙斯立为乌株留若鞮单于。汉使单子献地。
公元前 三年 匈奴单于请朝汉。
公元前 一年 正月，乌珠留入朝。
公元 二年 汉要王嫱须卜居次入侍。车师后王忤汉戊己校尉，亡入匈奴。婼羌去胡来王率妻子人民入匈奴。王莽迫匈奴允四条件；要匈奴改一字名。乌桓杀匈奴使者，拒绝纳税。
公元 九年 王莽换单于玺，授新章。
公元 十年 汉改匈奴单于为匈奴服于。备甲率三十万攻匈奴，预分其地为十五国。
公元 十一年 王莽使人诱赂呼韩邪诸子。乌株留分告诸部入汉塞、大赂。车师降匈奴。
公元 十三年 乌株留死，成立为乌累若鞮单于。匈奴单于改左贤王为护于。
公元 十四年 匈奴请和。
公元 十五年 春，汉改匈奴单于为恭奴善于。
公元 十六年 汉击匈奴、兵屯于边。
公元 十八年 咸死，舆立为呼都而尸道皋若鞮单于。单于遣使向汉奉献。汉迫匈奴大臣须卜当至长安，拜为须卜单于。匈奴入汉边。
公元 十九年 汉“猪突豨勇”击匈奴。
公元 二一年 汉转谷、帛到边郡，备击匈奴。
公元 二三年 冬，更始帝使人至匈奴。单于不再称臣。
公元 二五年 卢芳称西平王，结匈奴，匈奴立为汉皇帝。
公元 二七年 二月，汉渔阳太守彭宠自立为燕王。结匈奴。
公元 二八年 五月，匈奴助彭宠战，败。
公元 二九年 十一月，汉五原李典等结匈奴，迎卢芳都九原，据五原等郡。
公元 三零年 十二月，汉冯异破卢芳、匈奴兵。匈奴遣使向汉奉献。汉报命、通旧好。
公元 三十一年 三月，公孙述立瑰器为朔宁王。冬，卢芳所设云中、朔方太守降汉。
公元 三二年 十一月，陇西等郡附瑰嚣。
公元 三三年 汉迁雁门吏民于太原。六月，匈奴败汉兵。汉兵屯常山备匈奴。
公元 三四年 正月，汉吴汉破匈奴兵。汉省定襄郡，迁民于西河。
公元 三五年 汉省朔方牧并于并州。
公元 三六年 匈奴与乌桓助卢芳扰汉边。
公元 三七年 二月，卢芳入匈奴。五月，匈奴入汉河东。
公元 三八年 西域诸国苦匈奴重敛，请汉置都护，不许。
公元 三九年 二月，吴汉攻匈奴。汉迁雁门、代、上谷吏民于居庸、常山关以东，避匈奴。匈奴左部转居塞内。十二月，匈奴护卢芳居高柳。
公元 四零年 十二月，卢芳降汉，被封代王。
公元 四一年 匈奴、乌桓、鲜卑连兵入汉塞。
公元 四二年 五月，卢芳又入匈奴。十年后死于此。
公元 四四年 五月，匈奴掠上党等地。十二月，匈奴略天水等地。汉迁五原民于河东。
公元 四五年 四月，安定属国胡据青山。冬，匈奴入上谷。
公元 四六年 匈奴求和亲。匈奴为乌桓所破，北迁。都善、车师均附匈奴。
公元 四六年 呼都而尸死，蒲奴立。匈奴连年蝗旱；
公元 四七年 薁鞬日逐王比使人奉匈奴地图至西河，向汉求内附。
公元 四八年 正月，日逐王比与八部大人叩汉五原塞，请为汉扦边．汉许之。十月，比立为单于，是为“南”单于。 从此，匈奴被分称为南、北匈奴。
公元 四九年 正月，汉祭彤赂鲜卑攻匈奴。南单于向汉称藩。三月，使子入侍汉。
公元 五零年 正月，汉授南单于玺绶。听入居云中，设使匈奴中郎将。夏，南单于部下内讧，左贤王自立为单于，月余死。冬，北匈奴始攻南单于，汉使南单于，居西河美稷，使西河长吏以兵卫之。南单于以兵屯八郡，为汉侦侯。
公元 五一年 北匈奴至汉武威，请和亲。
公元 五二年 北匈奴使人向汉贡马裘，请和亲。
公元 五五年 北匈奴遣使向汉奉献。
公元 五六年 比死，莫立为臣浮尤鞮劳单于。一年后，汗立为何伐于虑鞮单于。
公元 五九年 正月，汉明堂大礼，南匈奴侍子助祭。汗死，适立为醯僮尸逐侯鞮单于。
公元 六二年 十一月，北匈奴扰五原。十二月，扰云中，南单于击却之。单于适死，苏立为丘徐车林鞮单于，数月死。
公元 六三年 长立为胡邪尸逐侯鞮单于。
公元 六四年 北匈奴向汉求市，许之。
公元 六五年 三月，汉郑众使北匈奴还。悉南、北匈奴交通状，屯营五原曼柏以防之。十月，北匈奴扰西河诸郡。
公元 六六年 二月，南匈奴使子入汉学。
公元 七二年 十二月，汉耿秉、窦固等屯凉州，备击匈奴。
公元 七三年 二月，汉四路击北匈奴。窦固取伊吾庐、余无功。汉斑超使西域，杀北匈奴使者。九月，北匈奴大入云中。
公元 七四年 八月，汉令诸属国囚任兵，赴军营
公元 七五年 三月，北匈奴破车师后王，围金满城。七月，北匈奴围攻汉耿恭。十一月，北匈奴围柳中城。又攻耿恭于疏勒城。
公元 七六年 汉边郡兵与南单于，共攻北匈奴。
公元 七七年 三月，北匈奴复据伊吾地。
公元 八三年 六月，北匈奴三木楼普大入请降汉。
公元 八四年 北匈奴向汉请市，许之。大且渠驱牛、羊至关市，为南单于抄掠而去。
公元 八五年 北匈奴大人降汉者七三人。西域、丁零、鲜卑共攻匈奴，单于远走。冬，北匈奴声言回击南单于，汉使南单于还所掠。单于长死，宣立为伊屠于闾鞮单于。
公元 八七年 七月，鲜卑大破北匈奴，杀尤留单于。十月，北匈奴大乱，五十八部二八万口降汉。
公元 八八年 七月，北匈奴饥乱，降南单于者岁数千人。南单于请汉兵击北匈奴。宣死，屯屠河立为休兰尸，逐侯疑单于。
公元 八九年 六月，汉窦宪破北匈奴于稽落山、勒石燕然。北单于向汉奉献。
公元 九零年 二月，汉复设西河、上郡属国都尉。五月，窦宪攻北匈奴伊吾庐地。九月，北单于向汉称臣。十月，南单于与汉兵袭北匈奴。
公元 九一年 二月，窦宪破北匈奴于金微山。单于远走。北匈奴于除鞬立为单于，至蒲类海、款汉塞请降。
公元 九二年 正月，汉授于除鞬单于玺缓，屯伊吾，以兵监护之
公元 九三年 正月，于除鞬率众北归，北匈奴残破，鲜卑据其地，匈奴余种十余万落自称鲜卑。屯屠河死，安国立为单于。
公元 九四年 正月，安国与师子不和。安国被属下杀。师子立为亭独尸逐侯鞮单于。十一月，北匈奴新降者十五部二十余万人拥逢侯为单子而起事。汉、鲜卑攻逢侯。
公元 九六年 五月，南匈奴右温禺犊王乌居战出塞。七月，汉追击。迁其余众于安定，北地。冬，逢侯左部万余人降汉。
公元 九八年 师子死，檀立为万氏尸逐鞮单于。
公元 一零四年 十一月，北匈奴称臣，愿和亲，汉不许。
公元 一零五年 北匈奴至敦煌贡献，请汉修故约，汉不许。
公元 一零九年 九月，南匈奴骨都侯与鲜卑大人、雁门乌桓连兵犯五原，败汉兵，围美稷。十一月，汉兵破南匈奴薁鞬日逐王。
公元 一一零年 正月，耿夔、梁堇兵破南单于。二月，南匈奴攻常山。三月，南单于降汉，还所掠汉男女及羌所卖入匈奴者。
公元 一一六年 汉与南单于破先零羌于灵州。
公元 一一八年 春，逢侯降汉。
公元 一一九年 北匈奴复役属西域诸国。
公元 一二零年 三月，北匈奴结车师后王，杀汉使，逐车师前王。
公元 一二三年 四月，北匈奴数扰河西，汉班勇屯柳中以遏之。十一月，鲜卑攻南单子於曼柏。
公元 一二四年 正月，班勇发西域兵攻北匈奴伊蠡王于车师前庭。五月，南匈奴大人阿族以单子征调烦累，北走，汉追之，斩获殆尽。檀死，拔被立为南单于。
公元 一二五年 七月，班勇斩匈奴在车师后庭之使者。
公元 一二六年 班勇发诸国兵击北匈奴呼衍王。呼衍王迁居枯梧河上。北单于来援，勇逐之。鲜卑数寇南匈奴，求汉复障塞。
公元 一二七年 正月，汉与南匈奴破鲜卑其至鞬。
公元 一二八年 拔死，休利立为去特若尸逐就单子。
公元 一三三年 三月，汉与南匈奴击鲜卑。
公元 一三四年 四月，车师后部击北匈奴于阊吾隆谷。
公元 一三五年 春，北匈奴呼衍王攻车师后部。
公元 一三七年 八月，汉兵攻呼衍王。
公元 一四零年 四月，南匈奴句龙大人吾斯、车纽等攻西河、围美稷、扰朔方。五月，汉破之。汉中郎将陈龟杀南单于。九月，吾斯立车纽为单于，结乌桓，羌胡，略并州、凉、幽、冀等地。汉迁西河、上郡、朔方于内地。十二月，破车纽于马邑，车纽降。
公元 一四二年 吾斯略并州。
公元 一四三年 六月，汉立守义王兜楼储为单于。十一月，汉中郎将暗杀吾斯。
公元 一四四年 四月，汉破南匈奴左部。
公元 一四七年 兜楼储死，车居儿立为伊陵尸逐就单于。
公元 一五一年 四月，呼衍王扰伊吾。
公元 一五三年 车师后王进入匈奴。
公元 一五五年 七月，南匈奴左薁鞬台耆，且渠伯德等攻美程，东羌应之。汉招诱东羌破台营，伯德等。
公元 一五六年 七月，鲜卑檀石槐尽有匈奴故地。
公元 一五八年 十二月，南匈奴诸部结乌桓、鲜卑扰沿边九郡。汉诱乌桓杀匈奴屠各部帅，引兵击南单于、破降之。
公元 一六六年 七月，鲜卑结南匈奴扰九边。十二月，南匈奴、乌桓二十万口降汉。
公元 一七四年 十二月，鲜卑扰北地，汉郡兵与屠各兵破之。
公元 一七七年 八月，汉与南匈奴兵击鲜卑，大败。车居儿死。
公元 一七八年 呼徵立为南单于。
公元 一七九年 汉中郎将杀呼徵，立羌渠。
公元 一八七年 十二月，屠各胡起事。
公元 一八八年 三月，屠各胡攻杀并州刺史。匈奴内讧，一部与屠各胡合攻杀羌渠，其子于扶罗立为持至尸逐侯单子。起义者另立须卜骨都侯为单于。九月，南单于于扶罗与白波、黄巾合攻河东。
公元 一八九年 须卜骨都侯死。南单于虚其位，以老王行国事。
公元 一九一年 七月，於夫罗附董卓。
公元 一九二年 睦固结于於夫罗略。曹操破之于内黄。
公元 一九三年 正月，黑山别部与於夫罗附袁述，屯封丘。六月，曹操击屠各兵于常山，无功。
公元 一九五年 十一月，南匈奴右贤王去卑护卫汉献帝，击退李榷、郭把兵。於夫罗死，呼厨泉立为单于。
公元 二零二年 九月，曹操击降南单于。
公元 二一六年 七月，呼厨泉朝见魏，曹操留之，使去卑监其国。分部为五，各立贵人为帅，以汉司马监之。
公元 二二零年 魏授呼厨泉魏玺绶。
公元290年，匈奴开始在阿兰国周围活动。
公元350年，匈奴灭阿兰。
公元374年，攻入第聂伯河，与东哥特人战。
公元375年，灭东哥特。
公元376年，匈奴大败西哥特，后者逃入罗马帝国境内。
公元408年，乌丁王去世，奥克塔王朝开始，奥克塔成为国王（单于）。
公元434年，布雷达和阿提拉共同成为国王（单于），攻拜占庭，后者被迫开始向匈奴付700黄金年贡。
公元445年，布雷达去世，阿提拉独掌大权。
公元447年，攻拜占庭，后者将年贡增到2100黄金。
公元451年，沙隆会战，西哥特与西罗马联军胜阿提拉。
公元452年，匈奴人兵临罗马城，教皇里奥一世出城将阿提拉劝说回去。
公元453年，阿提拉去世，匈奴帝国崩溃。
公元468年，阿提拉一儿子发动对拜占庭的战争，自己战败死去。
从此，匈奴人从历史上消失了，很可能被同化到保加利亚人中去。至于匈牙利的马扎尔人，是不可能和匈奴人有关联的。
匈奴的官职设置
匈奴的政权机构共分三个部分，一是单于庭，他直辖的地区在匈奴中部；二是左贤王庭，他直辖的地区在匈奴东部；三是右贤王庭，他直辖的地区在匈奴西部。单于总揽军政大权，单于和左右贤王各在自己的辖区内组织军队并实行统治，左右贤王是匈奴政权东西两个地区的最高行政长官，匈奴人以左为上，因此，单于之下以左贤王为贵，因此权利和地位要比右贤王高。左右贤王之下是左右谷蠡王，左右谷蠡王亦各建官僚机构于其所辖牧地，谷蠡王之下则有左右大将、左右大都尉、左右大当户、左右胥等候等二十四长，他们被称为“万骑”，二十四个万骑之下各设千长（千骑长）、百长（百骑长）、什长（什骑长），郫小王、相、封都尉等官，这些都尉、当户等也是带兵官他们各以权力优劣、部队多少分高下。
The Xiongnu (Chinese: 匈奴; pinyin: Xiōngnú; Wade–Giles: Hsiung-nu, Middle Chinese: Guangyun: [xi̯woŋ˥˩nu˩]) were a confederation of nomadic tribes from Central Asia with a ruling class of unknown origin. The bulk of information on the Xiongnu comes from Chinese sources. What little is known of their titles and names comes from Chinese transliterations of their language.
The identity of the ethnic core of Xiongnu has been a subject of varied hypotheses, because only a few words, mainly titles and personal names, were preserved in the Chinese sources. Proposals by scholars include Mongolic, Turkic, Iranian and Yeniseian. The name Xiongnu may be cognate to the name Huns, but the evidence for this is controversial.
Chinese sources from the 3rd century BC report them creating an empire under Modu Chanyu (who became supreme leader in 209 BC) stretching beyond the borders of modern day Mongolia. In the 2nd century BC, they defeated and displaced the previously dominant Yuezhi and became the predominant power on the steppes of eastern Asia. They were active in the areas now known as southern Siberia, Mongolia, western Manchuria, and the Chinese provinces of Inner Mongolia, Gansu, and Xinjiang. Relations between early Chinese dynasties and the Xiongnu were complex, with repeated periods of military conflict and intrigue alternating with exchanges of tribute, trade, and marriage treaties.
Chronology
c. 700–209 BC Pastoral Nomad society develops north of China. There are petty raids on China but no organized nomad state.
244BC: First mention of Xiongnu. 221 BC: Qin dynasty founded. 215 BC: Meng Tian drives nomads out of the Ordos Loop but they return when Qin falls.
Rise: 209 BC: Modu Chanyu becomes Xiongnu Chanyu (ruler). 208?: Modu conquers the Donghu to the east creating an empire from the Ordos to Manchuria. 202 BC: Han Dynasty founded. 200: Xiongnu defeat and almost capture the first Han emperor. c. 200–140 BC Heqin policy adopted. Chinese pay tribute to Xiongnu which is cheaper than war. Chinese hope to civilize or corrupt Xiongnu with Chinese luxuries. Raids continue because the Chanyu does not fully control his tribesmen.
176 BC: Wusun in far western Gansu annexed. They later flee westward. ?: Xiongnu expand into the Tarim Basin and gain a non-Chinese source of urban and peasant produce. 162 BC: Modu's son drives the Yuezhi out of the Gansu corridor. 158 BC: Xiongnu raid near Han capital.
Decline: Before 140 BC: Chinese begin extensive horse-breeding to support a proper cavalry. 140–87 BC: Emperor Wu of Han adopts aggressive policy. 138–126 BC: Zhang Qian travels west to Bactria and returns with first information on the Western Regions. 133 BC: Han attempt to ambush the Chanyu. 133–119 BC: Han occupy Ordos Loop. Peasant colonization and food-growing military colonies. 119 BC: Battle of Mobei, a major Xiougnu defeat, Chanyu withdraws north of Gobi. 119–104 BC: Chinese raids north to Ulan Bator area. Han expand west to the Gansu corridor between Mongolia and Tibet. Xiongnu confined to Outer Mongolia and cut off from the Quiang on the Tibetan plateau. 104–87 BC: expansion into the eastern Tarim Basin, thereby 'cutting off the Xiongnu right hand'. Thereafter major fighting dies down. In the Tarim over the next two centuries there are complex shifts of power between Han, Xiongnu and local rulers.
104–100 BC: Li Guangli conquers Dayuan in the Ferghana Valley.
Breakup: First civil war: 60 BC: two rivals for throne. 51: weaker party moves south and submits to Chinese. 43: Southern Chanyu defeats northern one and reunites the empire. Second civil war: 47 AD: One faction moves south as Chinese ally or subject. Unable to retake the north, Xiongnu permanently split between northern and southern Chanyus. In the east Wuhuan and Xianbei (former Donghu) become independent and are paid by Chinese to attack northern Chanyu. 83 AD: disorders in the north. 87 AD: Xianbei behead northern Chanyu, tribes defect to the south. 89 AD: Han, Xianbei and Southern Xiongnu defeat Northern Chanyu who flees north. Many tribesmen join the Xianbei. 155 AD: last mention of northern Chanyu. Northern regions now controlled by the Xianbei state.
After 47 AD the Southern Xiongnu lived along the frontier as allies, subjects or border guards and become mixed with Chinese. After the fall of the Han in 220 AD Xiongnu remnants created many short-lived states all over north China. The Xiongnu seem to disappear as a distinct people by the 5th century AD.
Early history
Sima Qian stated, based on preceding Chinese records (Bamboo Annals), that the Xiongnu's ruling clan were descendants of Chunwei (淳維 "Chun tribes"), possibly a son of Jie, the final ruler of the legendary Xia Dynasty (c. 2070–1600 BC).
The Xiongnu were initially a collection of small tribes residing in the barren Mongolian highlands. They were recognized as the most prominent of the nomads bordering the Han Empire. During the Eastern Zhou Dynasty (1045–256 BCE), the campaigns by Zhou's vassal states to purge other hostile "barbarians" allowed the Xiongnu the opportunity to fill a power vacuum. These newly arisen nomads became a great problem for the Chinese, as their horseback lifestyle made them ready for rapid invasion and raiding villages and townships. During the Warring States period (476–221 BCE), three out of the seven warring states shared borders with Xiongnu territory, and a series of interconnected defensive fortresses were constructed, which joined later into the Great Wall.
During the Qin Dynasty (221 to 206 BC), the Chinese army, under the command of General Meng Tian, drove the Xiongnu tribes away and recaptured the Ordos region. The presence of the powerful Donghu in the east and Yuezhi in the west also served to check the Xiongnu, forcing them to migrate further north for the next decade. With the collapse of the Qin Dynasty and the subsequent civil war (206–202 BC), the Xiongnu, under Chanyu Toumen, were able to migrate back to the border with China.
Confederation under Modu
Domain and influence of Xiongnu under Modu Chanyu around 205 BC
Asia in 200 BC, showing the early Xiongnu state and its neighbors.
In 209 BC, three years before the founding of the Han Dynasty, the Xiongnu were brought together in a powerful confederacy under a new chanyu named Modu Chanyu. This new political unity transformed them into a more formidable state by enabling formation of larger armies and the ability to exercise better strategic coordination. The reason for creating the confederation remains unclear. Suggestions include the need for a stronger state to deal with the Qin unification of China that resulted in a loss of Ordos at the hands of Meng Tian, or the political crisis that overtook the Xiongnu in 215 BC, when Qin armies evicted them from their pastures on the Yellow River;
After forging internal unity, Modu expanded the empire on all sides. To the north he conquered a number of nomadic peoples, including the Dingling of southern Siberia. He crushed the power of the Donghu of eastern Mongolia and Manchuria, as well as the Yuezhi in the Hexi Corridor of Gansu where his son Jizhu made a cup out of the skull of the Yuezhi king. Modu also reoccupied all the lands previously taken by the Qin general Meng Tian. Under Modu's leadership, the Xiongnu threatened the Han Dynasty, almost causing Liu Bang to lose his throne in 200 BCE. By the time of Modu's death in 174 BC, the Xiongnu had driven the Yuezhi from the Hexi corridor, killing the Yuezhi king in the process and asserting their presence in the Western Regions of Xinjiang.
Nature of the Xiongnu state
After Modu, later leaders formed a dualistic system of political organisation with the left and right branches of the Xiongnu divided on a regional basis. The chanyu or shan-yü — supreme ruler equivalent to the Chinese "Son of Heaven" — exercised direct authority over the central territory. Longcheng (蘢城), near Koshu-Tsaidam in Mongolia, became the annual meeting place and de facto Xiongnu capital.
Xiongnu Hierarchy
The chief of the Xiongnu was called the Chanyu. Under the him were the "Wise Kings of the Left and Right." The Wise King of the Left was normally the heir presumptive. Next lower in the hierarchy came more officials in pairs of left and right: the guli (kuli, 'kings'), the army commanders, the great governors, the dunghu (tung-hu), the gudu (ku-tu). Beneath them came the commanders of detachments of one thousand, of one hundred, and of ten men. This nation of nomads, a people on the march, was organized like an army. ("Chanyu", in Chinese Chengli Gutu Shanyü, "Majesty Son of Heaven" might be a loanword from Turko-Mongol Tängri, Heaven or God. "Wise", in Chinese 'tuqi' or 'tu-ch'i, is perhaps from Turkic 'doghri', straight, faithful.)
Yap, apparently describing the early period, places the Chanyu's main camp north of Shanxi with the Wise King of the Left holding the area north of Beijing and the Wise King of the Right holding the Ordos Loop area as far as Gansu. Grousset, probably describing the situation after the the Xiongnu had been driven north, places the Chanyu on the upper Orkhon near where Ghengis Khan would later establish his capital of Karakorum. The Wise King of the Left lived in the east, probably on the high Kherlen. The Wise King of the Right lived in the west, perhaps near present day Uliastai in the Khangai Mountains.
The marriage treaty system
In the winter of 200 BC, following a siege of Taiyuan, Emperor Gao personally led a military campaign against Modun. At the battle of Baideng, he was ambushed reputedly by 300,000 elite Xiongnu cavalry. The emperor was cut off from supplies and reinforcements for seven days, only narrowly escaping capture.
After the defeat at Pingcheng, the Han emperor abandoned a military solution to the Xiongnu threat. Instead, in 198 BC, the courtier Liu Jing (劉敬) was dispatched for negotiations. The peace settlement eventually reached between the parties included a Han princess given in marriage to the chanyu (called heqin 和親 or "harmonious kinship"); periodic gifts to the Xiongnu of silk, liquor, and rice; equal status between the states; and the Great Wall as mutual border.
This first treaty set the pattern for relations between the Han and the Xiongnu for sixty years. Up to 135 BC, the treaty was renewed no less than nine times, each time with an increase in the "gifts". In 192 BC, Modun even asked for the hand of Emperor Gao's widow Empress Lü Zhi. His son and successor, the energetic Jiyu, known as the Laoshang Chanyu, continued his father's expansionist policies. Laoshang succeeded in negotiating with Emperor Wen terms for the maintenance of a large scale government sponsored market system.
While the Xiongnu benefited handsomely, from the Chinese perspective marriage treaties were costly, humiliating, and ineffective. Laoshang showed that he did not take the peace treaty seriously. On one occasion his scouts penetrated to a point near Chang'an. In 166 BC he personally led 140,000 cavalry to invade Anding, reaching as far as the imperial retreat at Yong. In 158 BC, his successor sent 30,000 cavalry to attack the Shang commandery and another 30,000 to Yunzhong.
War with Han Dynasty
The Han Dynasty made preparations for war when the Han Emperor Wu dispatched the explorer Zhang Qian to explore the mysterious kingdoms to the west and to form an alliance with the Yuezhi people in order to combat the Xiongnu. While Zhang Qian did not succeed in this mission, his reports of the west provided even greater incentive to counter the Xiongnu hold on westward routes out of China, and the Chinese prepared to mount a large scale attack using the Northern Silk Road to move men and material.
While Han China was making preparations for a military confrontation from the reign of Emperor Wen, the break did not come until 133 BC, following an abortive trap to ambush the chanyu at Mayi. By that point the empire was consolidated politically, militarily and economically, and was led by an adventurous pro-war faction at court. In that year, Emperor Wu reversed the decision he had made the year before to renew the peace treaty.
Full scale war broke out in autumn 129 BC, when 40,000 Chinese cavalry made a surprise attack on the Xiongnu at the border markets. In 127 BC, the Han general Wei Qing retook the Ordos. In 121 BC, the Xiongnu suffered another setback when Huo Qubing led a force of light cavalry westward out of Longxi and within six days fought his way through five Xiongnu kingdoms. The Xiongnu Hunye king was forced to surrender with 40,000 men. In 119 BC both Huo and Wei, each leading 50,000 cavalrymen and 100,000 footsoldiers (in order to keep up with the mobility of the Xiongnu, many of the non-cavalry Han soldiers were mobile infantrymen who traveled on horseback but fought on foot), and advancing along different routes, forced the chanyu and his court to flee north of the Gobi Desert. Major logistical difficulties limited the duration and long-term continuation of these campaigns. According to the analysis of Yan You (嚴尤), the difficulties were twofold. Firstly there was the problem of supplying food across long distances. Secondly, the weather in the northern Xiongnu lands was difficult for Han soldiers, who could never carry enough fuel. According to official reports, the Xiongnu lost 80,000 to 90,000 men. And out of the 140,000 horses the Han forces had brought into the desert, fewer than 30,000 returned to China.
As a result of these battles, the Chinese controlled the strategic region from the Ordos and Gansu corridor to Lop Nor. They succeeded in separating the Xiongnu from the Qiang peoples to the south, and also gained direct access to the Western Regions.
Ban Chao, Protector General (都護; Duhu) of the Han Dynasty embarked with an army of 70,000 men in a campaign against the Xiongnu insurgents who were harassing the trade route we now know as the Silk Road. His successful military campaign saw the subjugation of one Xiongnu tribe after another. Ban Chao also sent an envoy named Gan Ying to Daqin (Rome). Ban Chao was created the Marquess of Dingyuan (定遠侯, i.e., "the Marquess who stabilized faraway places") for his services to the Han Empire and returned to the capital Loyang at the age of 70 years old and died there in the year 102. Following his death, the power of the Xiongnu in the Western Regions increased again, and the emperors of subsequent dynasties were never again able to reach so far to the west.
The First Xiongnu Civil War (60-53BC)
When a Chanyu died, power could pass to his younger brother if his son was not of age. This system, which can be compared to Gaelic tanistry, normally kept an adult male on the throne, but could cause trouble in later generations when there were several lineages that might claim the throne. When the 12th Chanyu died in 60BC, power was taken by Woyanqudi, a grandson of the 12th Chanyu's cousin. Being something of a usurper, he tried to put his own men in power, which only increased the number of his enemies. The 12th Chanyu's son fled east and, in 58BC, revolted. Few would support Woyanqudi and he was driven to suicide, leaving the rebel son, Huhanye, as the 14th Chanyu. The Woyanqudi faction then set up his brother, Tuqi, as Chanyu (58BC). In 57BC three more men declared themselves Chanyu. Two dropped their claims in favor of the third who was defeated by Tuqi in that year and surrendered to Huhanye the following year. In 56BC Tuqi was defeated by Huhanye and committed suicide, but two more claimants appeared: Runzhen and Huhanye's elder brother Zhizhi Chanyu. Runzhen was killed by Zhizhi in 54BC, leaving only Zhizhi and Huhanye. Zhizhi grew in power, and, in 53BC, Huhanye moved south and submitted to the Chinese. Huhanye used Chinese support to weaken Zhizhi, who gradually moved west. In 49BC a brother to Tuqi set himself up as Chanyu and was killed by Zhizhi. In 36BC Zhizhi was killed by a Chinese army while trying to establish a new kingdom in the far west near Lake Balkhash.
Tributary relations with the Han
The Han Dynasty world order in AD 2.
In 53 BC Huhanye (呼韓邪) decided to enter into tributary relations with Han China. The original terms insisted on by the Han court were that, first, the chanyu or his representatives should come to the capital to pay homage; secondly, the chanyu should send a hostage prince; and thirdly, the chanyu should present tribute to the Han emperor. The political status of the Xiongnu in the Chinese world order was reduced from that of a "brotherly state" to that of an "outer vassal" (外臣). During this period, however, the Xiongnu maintained political sovereignty and full territorial integrity. The Great Wall of China continued to serve as the line of demarcation between Han and Xiongnu.
Huhanye sent his son, the "wise king of the right" Shuloujutang, to the Han court as hostage. In 51 BC he personally visited Chang'an to pay homage to the emperor on the Lunar New Year. On the financial side, Huhanye was amply rewarded in large quantities of gold, cash, clothes, silk, horses and grain for his participation. Huhanye made two more homage trips, in 49 BC and 33 BC; with each one the imperial gifts were increased. On the last trip, Huhanye took the opportunity to ask to be allowed to become an imperial son-in-law. As a sign of the decline in the political status of the Xiongnu, Emperor Yuan refused, giving him instead five ladies-in-waiting. One of them was Wang Zhaojun, famed in Chinese folklore as one of the Four Beauties.
When Zhizhi learned of his brother's submission, he also sent a son to the Han court as hostage in 53 BC. Then twice, in 51 BC and 50 BC, he sent envoys to the Han court with tribute. But having failed to pay homage personally, he was never admitted to the tributary system. In 36 BC, a junior officer named Chen Tang, with the help of Gan Yanshou, protector-general of the Western Regions, assembled an expeditionary force that defeated him at the Battle of Zhizhi and sent his head as a trophy to Chang'an.
Tributary relations were discontinued during the reign of Huduershi (18 AD–48), corresponding to the political upheavals of the Xin Dynasty in China. The Xiongnu took the opportunity to regain control of the western regions, as well as neighbouring peoples such as the Wuhuan. In 24 AD, Hudershi even talked about reversing the tributary system.
Xiongnu and the Silk Road
The Silk Road was built because of the interaction between the Xiongnu and the Han Empire. The Hans cut their trade of weaponry with the Xiongnu. They then killed any merchant trading illegally with the Xiongnu. With this, the Hans were able to take control of Xiongnu territory. They were able to create trade routes all over India, Middle East and even the Roman empire. The main product of trade was silk. Silk became desirable by those countries and the Xiongnu were the main factor of transporting silk. They served the most important transportes and distributors of Chinese goods in Central Asia and helped establish reliable networks for the exchange of trade goods.
Cross-Cultural Encounter
While the Chinese were trying to bring the Xiongnu under control, something of high significance happened: cross-cultural encounters. A large variety of people (such as traders, ambassadors, hostages, parents in cross-cultural marriages, etc) served as helpers that passed on ideas, values, and techniques across cultural boundary lines. These encounters helped cultures learn from other cultures. Which is how the Xiongnu adopted Chinese argriculture techniques, silk, chopsticks, and houses of Chinese style.
Probably the most unexpected result of the Xiongnu and Chinese encounter was the loss of Chinese faith in themselves. Chinese military forces sometimes joined the Xiongnu en masse when they feared that their failure to defeat an enemy would get them at risk of punishment. A popular saying of the Han frontier explained their attiude: "Northward we can flee to the Hsiung-nu (that is, Xiongnu) and southward to the Yüeh."
Late history
Northern Xiongnu
Periods of Pre-Mongol Mongolia
Xiongnu Period
Xianbei Period
Nirun Period
Turkic Period
Uyghur Period
Khitan Period
The Xiongnu's new power was met with a policy of appeasement by Emperor Guangwu. At the height of his power, Huduershi even compared himself to his illustrious ancestor, Modu. Due to growing regionalism among the Xiongnu, however, Huduershi was never able to establish unquestioned authority. When he designated his son as heir apparent (in contravention of the principle of fraternal succession established by Huhanye), Bi, the Rizhu king of the right, refused to attend the annual meeting at the chanyu's court.
As the eldest son of the preceding chanyu, Bi had a legitimate claim to the succession. In 48, two years after Huduershi's son Punu ascended the throne, eight Xiongnu tribes in Bi's powerbase in the south, with a military force totalling 40,000 to 50,000 men, acclaimed Bi as their own chanyu. Throughout the Eastern Han period, these two groups were called the southern Xiongnu and the northern Xiongnu, respectively.
Hard pressed by the northern Xiongnu and plagued by natural calamities, Bi brought the southern Xiongnu into tributary relations with Han China in 50. The tributary system was considerably tightened to keep the southern Xiongnu under Han supervision. The chanyu was ordered to establish his court in the Meiji district of Xihe commandery. The southern Xiongnu were resettled in eight frontier commanderies. At the same time, large numbers of Chinese were forced to migrate to these commanderies, where mixed settlements began to appear. The northern Xiongnu were dispersed by the Xianbei in 85 and again in 89 by the Chinese during the Battle of Ikh Bayan, in which the last Northern Chanyu was defeated and fled over to the north west with his subjects.
Southern Xiongnu
Southern and Northern Xiongnu in 200 AD, before the collapse of the Han Dynasty.
Economically, the southern Xiongnu relied almost totally on Han assistance. Tensions were evident between the settled Chinese and practitioners of the nomadic way of life. Thus, in 94 Anguo Chanyu joined forces with newly subjugated Xiongnu from the north and started a large scale rebellion against the Han.
Towards the end of the Eastern Han, the southern Xiongnu were drawn into the rebellions then plaguing the Han court. In 188, the chanyu was murdered by some of his own subjects for agreeing to send troops to help the Han suppress a rebellion in Hebei – many of the Xiongnu feared that it would set a precedent for unending military service to the Han court. The murdered chanyu's son Yufuluo, entitled Chizhisizhu (持至尸逐侯), succeeded him, but was then overthrown by the same rebellious faction in 189. He travelled to Luoyang (the Han capital) to seek aid from the Han court, but at this time the Han court was in disorder from the clash between Grand General He Jin and the eunuchs, and the intervention of the warlord Dong Zhuo. The chanyu had no choice but to settle down with his followers in Pingyang, a city in Shanxi. In 195, he died and was succeeded by his brother Hucuquan.
In 216, the warlord-statesman Cao Cao detained Hucuquan in the city of Ye, and divided his followers in Shanxi into five divisions: left, right, south, north, and centre. This was aimed at preventing the exiled Xiongnu in Shanxi from engaging in rebellion, and also allowed Cao Cao to use the Xiongnu as auxiliaries in his cavalry. Eventually, the Xiongnu aristocracy in Shanxi changed their surname from Luanti to Liu for prestige reasons, claiming that they were related to the Han imperial clan through the old intermarriage policy.
After the Han Dynasty
After Hucuquan, the Xiongnu were partitioned into five local tribes. The complicated ethnic situation of the mixed frontier settlements instituted during the Eastern Han had grave consequences, not fully apprehended by the Chinese government until the end of the 3rd century. By 260, Liu Qubei had organized the Tiefu confederacy in the north east, and by 290, Liu Yuan was leading a splinter group in the south west. At that time, non-Chinese unrest reached alarming proportions along the whole of the Western Jin frontier.
Liu Yuan's Northern Han (304–318)
In 304 the sinicised Liu Yuan, a grandson of Yufuluo Chizhisizhu stirred up descendants of the southern Xiongnu in rebellion in Shanxi, taking advantage of the War of the Eight Princes then raging around the Western Jin capital Luoyang. Under Liu Yuan's leadership, they were joined by a large number of frontier Chinese and became known as Bei Han. Liu Yuan used 'Han' as the name of his state, hoping to tap into the lingering nostalgia for the glory of the Han dynasty, and established his capital in Pingyang. The Xiongnu use of large numbers of heavy cavalry with iron armour for both rider and horse gave them a decisive advantage over Jin armies already weakened and demoralised by three years of civil war. In 311, they captured Luoyang, and with it the Jin emperor Sima Chi (Emperor Huai). In 316, the next Jin emperor was captured in Chang'an, and the whole of north China came under Xiongnu rule while remnants of the Jin dynasty survived in the south (known to historians as the Eastern Jin).
Liu Yao's Former Zhao (318–329)
In 318, after suppressing a coup by a powerful minister in the Xiongnu-Han court (in which the Xiongnu-Han emperor and a large proportion of the aristocracy were massacred), the Xiongnu prince Liu Yao moved the Xiongnu-Han capital from Pingyang to Chang'an and renamed the dynasty as Zhao (Liu Yuan had declared the empire's name Han to create a linkage with Han Dynasty—to which he claimed he was a descendant, through a princess, but Liu Yao felt that it was time to end the linkage with Han and explicitly restore the linkage to the great Xiongnu chanyu Maodun, and therefore decided to change the name of the state. However, this was not a break from Liu Yuan, as he continued to honor Liu Yuan and Liu Cong posthumously.) (it is hence known to historians collectively as Han Zhao). However, the eastern part of north China came under the control of a rebel Xiongnu-Han general of Jie (probably Yeniseian) ancestry named Shi Le. Liu Yao and Shi Le fought a long war until 329, when Liu Yao was captured in battle and executed. Chang'an fell to Shi Le soon after, and the Xiongnu dynasty was wiped out. North China was ruled by Shi Le's Later Zhao dynasty for the next 20 years.
However, the "Liu" Xiongnu remained active in the north for at least another century.
Tiefu & Xia (260–431)
The northern Tiefu branch of the Xiongnu gained control of the Inner Mongolian region in the 10 years between the conquest of the Tuoba Xianbei state of Dai by the Former Qin empire in 376, and its restoration in 386 as the Northern Wei. After 386, the Tiefu were gradually destroyed by or surrendered to the Tuoba, with the submitting Tiefu becoming known as the Dugu. Liu Bobo, a surviving prince of the Tiefu fled to the Ordos Loop, where he founded a state called the Xia (thus named because of the Xiongnu's supposed ancestry from the Xia dynasty) and changed his surname to Helian (赫連). The Helian-Xia state was conquered by the Northern Wei in 428–431, and the Xiongnu thenceforth effectively ceased to play a major role in Chinese history, assimilating into the Xianbei and Han ethnicities.
Tongwancheng (meaning "Unite All Nations") was the capital of the Xia (Sixteen Kingdoms), whose rulers claimed descent from Modu Chanyu.
File:Hunmuseum.jpg
Inner-Mongolian Xiongnu Museum. Hohhot, Inner-Mongolia, China
The ruined city was discovered in 1996 and the State Council designated it as a cultural relic under top state protection. The repair of the Yong'an Platform, where Helian Bobo, emperor of the Da Xia regime, reviewed parading troops, has been finished and restoration on the 31-meter-tall turret will begin soon. There are hopes that Tongwancheng may achieve UNESCO World Heritage status.
Juqu & Northern Liang (401–460)
The Juqu were a branch of the Xiongnu. Their leader Juqu Mengxun took over the Northern Liang by overthrowing the former puppet ruler Duan Ye. By 439, the Juqu power was destroyed by the Northern Wei. Their remnants were then settled in the city of Gaochang before being destroyed by the Rouran.
Interpretation
Barfield attempted to interpret Xiongnu history as well as narrate it. He made the following points. The Xiongnu confederation was unusually long-lived for a steppe empire. The purpose of raiding China was not simply booty, but to force the Chinese to pay regular tribute. The power of the Xiongnu ruler was based on his control of Chinese tribute which he used to reward his supporters. The Han and Xiongnu empires rose at the same time because the Xiongnu state depended on Chinese tribute. A major Xiongnu weakness was the custom of lateral succession. If a dead ruler's son was not old enough to take command, power passed to the late ruler's brother. This worked in the first generation but could lead to civil war in the second generation. The first time this happened, in 60 BC, the weaker party adopted what Barfield calls the 'inner frontier strategy.' They moved south and submitted to China and then used Chinese resources to defeat the Northern Xiongnu and re-establish the empire. The second time this happened, about 47 AD, the strategy failed. The southern ruler was unable to defeat the northern ruler and the Xiongnu remained divided.
Religion
Chinese sources inform us that the Xiongnu worshipped the sun, moon, heaven, earth, and their ancestors.
Languages: origins and descendant
Turkic theories and possible relationship to Hun
Since the early 19th century, Western scholars have proposed various language families or subfamilies as the affines of the language of the Xiongnu. Proponents of the Turkic languages included E.H. Parker, Jean-Pierre Abel-Rémusat, Julius Klaproth, Kurakichi Shiratori, Gustaf John Ramstedt, Annemarie von Gabain, and Omeljan Pritsak. Some sources say the ruling class was proto-Turkic, while others suggest it was proto-Hunnic.
Just as in the 7th century Chinese History of Northern Dynasties and the Book of Zhou, an inscription in the Iranian language, Sogdian, reports the Turks to be a subgroup of the Huns. Henning (1948) also exorcised the perpetual debate about equivalency of the numerous Chinese phonetic renditions of the word Hun and the Huns known from non-Chinese sources, by demonstrating an alphabetical form of the word coded in the Chinese as Xiongnu.
The names "Xiongnu" and "Hun"
Pronunciation of 匈
Source: http://starling.rinet.ru
Preclassic Old Chinese: sŋoŋ
Classic Old Chinese: [ŋ̊oŋ]
Postclassic Old Chinese: hoŋ
Middle Chinese: xöuŋ
Modern Cantonese: [hʊ́ŋ]
Modern Mandarin: [ɕɥʊ́ŋ]
Modern Sino-Korean: [hɯŋ]
Modern Sino-Japanese: [kjoː]
Location of Xiongnu and other steppe nations in 300 AD.
The supposed sound of the first character has a clear similarity with the name "Hun" in European languages. Whether this is evidence of kinship or mere coincidence is hard to tell. It could lend credence to the theory that the Huns were in fact descendants of the Northern Xiongnu who migrated westward, or that the Huns were using a name borrowed from the Northern Xiongnu, or that these Xiongnu made up part of the Hun confederation. As in the case of the Rouran with the Avars, oversimplifications have led to the Xiongnu often being identified with the Huns, who populated the frontiers of Europe. The connection started with the writings of the 18th century French historian de Guignes, who noticed that a few of the barbarian tribes north of China associated with the Xiongnu had been named "Hun" with varying Chinese characters. This theory remains at the level of speculation, although it is accepted by some scholars, including Chinese ones. DNA testing of Hun remains has not proven conclusive in determining the origin of the Huns.
"Xiōngnú" [ɕɥʊ́ŋnǔ] is the modern Mandarin Chinese pronunciation. At the time of Hunnish contact with the western world (the 4th–6th centuries AD), the sound of the character "匈" 'chest' has been reconstructed as /hoŋ/. The second character, "奴", appears to have no parallel in Western terminology. Its contemporary pronunciation was /nhō/, and it means "slave" — usually a pejorative term, although it is possible that it has only a phonetic role in the name 匈奴. There is almost certainly no connection between the "chest" meaning of 匈 and its ethnic meaning. There might conceivably be some sort of connection with the identically pronounced word "凶", which means "fierce", "ferocious", "inauspicious", "bad", or "violent act".
Although the phonetic evidence is inconclusive, new results from Central Asia might shift the balance in favor of a political and cultural link between the Xiongnu and the Huns. The Central Asian sources of the 4th century translated in both direction Xiongnu by Huns (in the Sogdian Ancient Letters, the Xiongnu in Northern China are named xwn, while in the Buddhist translations by Dharmarakhsa Huna of the Indian text is translated Xiongnu). The Hunnic cauldrons are similar to the Ordos Xiongnu ones. Moreover, both in Hungary and in the Ordos they were found buried in river banks.
Iranic theory
Among scholars who proposed an Iranic origin for the Xiongnu are H.W. Bailey (1985) and János Harmatta (1999), who believe that the Xiongnu confederation consisted of 24 tribes, controlling a nomadic empire with a strong military organization, and that "their loyal tribes and kings (shan-yü) bore Iranian names and all the Hsiung-nu words noted by the Chinese can be explained from an Iranian language of the Saka type. . . . It is therefore clear that the majority of Hsiung-nu tribes spoke an Eastern Iranian language". Jankowski concurs.
Yeniseian theory
Lajos Ligeti was the first to suggest that the Xiongnu spoke a Yeniseian language. In the early 1960s Edwin Pulleyblank was the first to expand upon this idea with credible evidence. In 2000, Alexander Vovin reanalyzed Pulleyblank's argument and found further support for it by utilizing the most recent reconstruction of Old Chinese phonology by Starostin and Baxter and a single Chinese transcription of a sentence in the language of the Jie (a member tribe of the Xiongnu confederacy). Previous Turkic interpretations of the aforementioned sentence do not match the Chinese translation as precisely as using Yeniseian grammar. The hypothesis of Edwin Pulleyblank (1962) in favor of the Ket also seems to be favored by some scholar
Mongolic theorie
Some scholars, including Paul Pelliot and Byambyn Rinchen, insisted on a Mongolic origin. B.Rinchen and G.Sukhbaatar first used the term: "Hunnu" instead of the Chinese corruption Xiongnu. Now, Hunnu (Хүннү) is more commonly used in Mongolia. The Mongolian government will celebrate the 2220th anniversary of the Hunnu Empire in 2011.
Theories on multi-ethnicity
Albert Terrien de Lacouperie considered them to be multi-component groups. Many scholars believe the Xiongnu confederation was a mixture of different ethno-linguistic groups, and that their main language (as represented in the Chinese sources) and its relationships, have not yet been satisfactorily determined.
Language Isolate theory
The Turkologist Gerhard Doerfer has denied any possibility of a relationship between the Xiongnu language and any other known language and rejected in the strongest terms any connection with Turkish or Mongolian.
Archaeology and genetic
In the 1920s, Pyotr Kozlov's excavations of the royal tombs dated to about 1st century CE at Noin-Ula in northern Mongolia provided a glimpse into the lost world of the Xiongnu. Other archaeological sites have been unearthed in Inner Mongolia and elsewhere; they represent the Neolithic and historical periods of the Xiongnu's history. Those included the Ordos culture, many of them had been identified as the Xiongnu cultures. The region was occupied predominantly by peoples showing Mongoloid features, known from their skeletal remains and artifacts. Portraits found in the Noin-Ula excavations demonstrate other cultural evidences and influences, showing that Chinese and Xiongnu art have influenced each other mutually. Some of these embroidered portraits in the Noin-Ula kurgans also depict the Xiongnu with long braided hair with wide ribbons, which are seen to be identical with the Turkic Ashina clan hair-style.
Geographic location & Xiongnu genetic
The original geographic location of Xiongnu is generally placed at the Ordo
. A study based on mitochondrial DNA analysis of human remains interred in the Egyin Gol Valley of Mongolia concluded that the Turkic peoples originated from the same area and therefore are possibly related.
A majority (89%) of the Xiongnu mtDNA sequences can be classified as belonging to Asian haplogroups, and nearly 11% belong to European haplogroups. This finding indicates that the contacts between European and Asian populations were anterior to the Xiongnu culture, and it confirms results reported for two samples from an early 3rd century BC. Scytho-Siberian population (Clisson et al. 2002).
Another study from 2004 screened ancient samples from the Egyin Gol necropolis for the Y-DNA Tat marker. The Egyin Gol necropolis, located in northern Mongolia in the region of Lake Baikal, is ~2300 years old and belongs to the Xiongnu culture. This Tat-polymorphism is a biallelic marker what has so far been observed only in populations from Asia and northern Europe. It reaches its highest frequency in Yakuts and northern Finno-Ugric peoples. Opinions differ about whether the geographic origin of the T-C mutation lies in Asia or northern Eurasia. Zerjal et al. suggested that this mutation first arose in the populations of Central Asia; they proposed Mongolia as a candidate location for the origin of the T-C polymorphism. In contrast, for Lahermo et al. the wide distribution of the mutation in north Eurasian populations suggests that it arose in northern Eurasia. According to them, the estimated time of the C mutation is ~2400–4440 years ago. (According to some more recent researches of the Y-DNA Hg N the presence of N1c and N1b in modern Siberian and Asian populations is considered to reflect an ancient substratum, possibly speaking Uralic/Finno-Ugric languages. Haplogroup N). Concerning the Xiongnu people, two of them from the oldest section harboured the mutation, confirming that the Tat polymorphism already existed in Mongolia 2300 years ago. The next archaeogenetical occurrence of this N-Tat ancient DNA was found in Hungary among the so-called Homeconqueror Hungarians. Also three Yakuts' aDNA from the 15th century, and of two from the late 18th century were this haplogroup. Additionally two mtDNA sequence matches revealed in this work suggest that the Xiongnu tribe under study may have been composed of some of the ancestors of the present-day Yakut population.
Another study of 2006 aimed at the contacts between Siberian and steppe peoples with the analysis of a Siberian grave of Pokrovsk recently discovered near the Lena River and dated from 2,400 to 2,200 years B.P., and proved the existence of previous contacts between autochthonous hunters of Siberia and the nomadic horse breeders from the Altai-Baikal area (Mongolia and Buryatia). Indeed, the stone arrowhead and the harpoons relate this Pokrovsk man to the traditional hunters of the Taiga. Some artifacts made of horse bone and the pieces of armor, however, are related to the tribes of Mongolia and Buryatia of the Xiongnu period (3rd century BC). This affinity has been confirmed by the match of the mitochondrial haplotype of this subject with a woman of the Egyin Gol necropolis (2nd/3rd century AD). This haplotype was attributed to the mtDNA D haplogroup. The paternal lineage of the Pokrovsk subject seems to differ from the lineages found in the modern local population. The mtDNA sequence was compared with databases and the haplotype matched two Buryats from the Baikal area, two West Siberians, two Mansis, one Evenk, one older and two modern Yakuts, and one female from the Egyin Gol necropolis. This mitochondrial haplotype is not found in Koryaks, Chukchi, Itelmen, or Yukaghirs, sometimes considered "Paleo-Asiatic" ethnic groups, or in Central Asian populations. The similarity of the mitochondrial haplotype of the Pokrovsk subject with Buryats and a skeleton from the Egyin Gol necropolis, located 2,000 km to the south, confirms the occurrence of ancient contacts between the Altai-Baikal region and Oriental Siberia before the end of the Xiong Nu period (3rd century BC to 2nd century AD). Some female ancestors of this Pokrovsk hunter may originate from the First Empire of the Steppes, well known for its military expansion to the south (China) and to the west. However, the man of the Pokrovsk grave shows that these nomadic people may have also tried to explore the north by diffusion along the rivers. The match of the sequence with two Mansis from the Ural Mountains and two western Siberians could be related to an extensive gene flow along the Ienissei River (Starikovskaya et al. 2005). Considering the important frequency of Asian haplogroups present in the Mansi (Derbeneva et al. 2002), this similarity may stem from the wide expansion of the nomadic tribes from the southern steppe to the Ural Mountains. Thus the gene flow seems to have affected autochthonous populations from Oriental and Occidental Siberia during the Xiong Nu period since the 3rd century BC. The analysis of the Pokrovsk grave corroborates the great influence of the Xiongnu Empire over the Siberian populations and early admixture between populations from the southern steppe and Central Siberia aboriginals.
Another 2006 study observed genetic similarity among Mongolian samples from different periods and geographic areas including 2,300-year-old Xiongnu population of the Egyin Gol Valley. This results supports the hypothesis that the succession over time of different Turkic and Mongolian tribes in the current territory of Mongolia resulted in cultural rather than genetic exchanges. Furthermore, it appears that the Yakuts probably did not find their origin among the Xiongnu tribes as previously hypothesised.
A research study of 2006 focused on Y-DNAs of the Egyin Gol site, and besides the confirmation of the above mentioned two N3-Tats, it also identified a Q haplogroup from the middle period and a C haplogroup from the later (2nd century AD). The Q is one of the haplogroups of the indigenous peoples of the Americas (though this is not this subclade), and a minor in Siberia and Central Asia. Only two groups in the Old World are high majority Q groups. These are the Uralic Selkups and the Yeniseian Kets. They live in western and middle Siberia, together with the Ugric Khantys. The Kets originally lived in southern Siberia. The Uralic-Samoyedics were an old people of the Sayan-Baikal region, migrated northwest around the 1st/2nd century AD. According to the Uralistic literature the swift migration and disjunction of the Samoyedic peoples may be connected to a heavy warring in the region, probably due to the dissolution of the Xiongnu Empire in the period of the Battle of Ikh Bayan. The mutation defining this haplogroup C, is restrained in North and Eastern-Asia and in America (Bergen et al. 1998. 1999.) (Lell et al. 2002.). The highest frequencies of Haplogroup C3 are found among the populations of Mongolia and the Russian Far East, where it is generally the modal haplogroup. Haplogroup C3 is the only variety of Haplogroup C to be found among Native Americans, among whom it reaches its highest frequency in Na-Dené populations.
A research project of 2007 (Yi Chuan, 2007) was aimed at the genetic affinities between Tuoba Xianbei and Xiongnu populations. Some mtDNA sequences from Tuoba Xianbei remains in Dong Han period were analyzed. Comparing with the published data of Xiongnu, the results indicated that the Tuoba Xianbei presented some close affinities to the Xiongnu, which implied that there was a gene flow between Tuoba Xianbei and Xiongnu during the 2 southward migrations.
A study of 2010 analysed six human remains of a nomadic group, excavated from Pengyang, Northern China. From the mtDNA, six haplotypes were identified as three haplogroups: C, D4 and M10. The analyses revealed that these individuals were closely associated with the ancient Xiongnu and modern northern Asians. The analysis of Y chromosomes from four male samples that were typed as haplogroup Q indicated that these people had originated in Siberia.
Rock Art and Writing
The rock art of the Yinshan and Helanshan is dated from the 9th millennium BC to 19th century. It consists mainly of engraved signs (petroglyphs) and only minimally of painted images.
Excavations conducted between 1924–1925, in Noin-Ula kurgans located in Selenga River in the northern Mongolian hills north of Ulan Bator, produced objects with over twenty carved characters, which were either identical or very similar to that of to the runic letters of the Turkic Orkhon script discovered in the Orkhon Valley. From this a some scholars hold that the Xiongnu had a script similar to Eurasian runiform and this alphabet itself served as the basis for the ancient Turkic writing.
