Attila's Real Face

"This was the case of the ordinary people, but we can assume that the rule of pure blood was kept inside the ruling ranks. It is doubtful that a half bred bastard could have been elected as King of the Huns, like it happened along the history in many cultures."

With this, you launch a whole new article and then don't deliver it.

WHY can we "assume" that the "rule" of pure blood was kept inside the ruling ranks?

As to the LAST sentence...wha?

You didn't prove your opener: "Attila's Real Face - The Scourge of God was of Mongoloid race!" You stated the claim, followed with interesting stuff that seems to prove how impossible it would be to determine the race of the Huns, then you end by reiterating your claim about Attila, insisting he was Mongolian because you say so.

Finish your story! Explain that last sentence. It reads like an opener. As a closer, it's jibberish.

It is obvious that Huns are Turkic. They may have mongoloid face but being a Turkic or Hun is not about bloodline or anything but accepting the system or culture. I am completely diasgreeing your following comment:

"This was the case of the ordinary people, but we can assume that the rule of "pure blood" was kept inside the ruling ranks. It is doubtful that a "half bred bastard" could have been elected as "King of the Huns", like it happened along the history in many cultures."

Turks were never be racist like this. This kind of statement is a Eupean or roman statement. Turkics like to embrace the thing they like from various cultures. There is no notion of half bred or vice versa. For example: you can see that Ottomans sultans are Turk but in fact all of their mothers (except the founder Odman) are christions greek or slav. I am turkic not because my blood say so but "I" say so....

Obviously, your explanation is based on currently "accepted" historical evidence, which changes over time, as more research and archeological/linguistic discoveries will almost completely disprove all the western-hysteria that has been established to deface and smear anything, that isn't wasn't - first- Roman and -then later and now- Christian.
Since Attila was the biggest threat to the Roman Empire and later the residing Avars were pagans so were the arriving Hungarians later, they did everything possible to defame those who were neither part of the previous empire and/or not following the Christian dogma. Your "racist" idea of "pure blood" and the rest debate about who Attila was or wasn't is also based on Western ideology of racism, which did not exist in the same form in the Hunnic tribes. Attlia could not have hold such a size of army and followers simply by aggressive integration, it would have been impossible. Thank you for your article which based on half truths. And as the saying goes, Half truths are full lies.

this article is completely wrong, huns where not of mongoloid race, and turcic people never looked mongoloid, in fact the first skeletons inside mongolia are caucasoid, mongolians came from turcic people.
and the original Ugro-Finnic race was not mongoloid either, they where caucasoid, the isolated siberian tribes gained their mongoloid features by remaining in the harch snowy climate they lived in.

attila was the greatest Hun leader and this barbarian soldier first attack the total Europe .

I agree with this story. Whatever nonsense some nationalist nutcrackers may utter about Hungarians being "Turkic" (= no big honour) or "Hun" (= a blatant shame), Hungarian is definitely mostly related to Khanti and Mansi (two small languages in the Altai region).
The next closest relatives are the Finnish nations, which are the Finns, Estonians, Sami, Vepsians, Karelians, Mordvinians, Mari, Udmurts and Komi.
This proven fact is also showing itself in the fact that all three Ugro-Finnic nations, which managed to build an independent state for themselves (Hungarians, Finns and Estonians) produce a very large group of clever scientists, inventors, software experts and artists of all kinds, much more than you would expect in relation to their small numbers
The Finno-Ugric theory is not "invented", neither by Habsburgs or Germans, nor by Soviets (and, to make sure, nor by "Jews"), but discovered by true scientists, of whom many actually were Hungarians.
No serious scientists even considers the absurd and pointless theories, which try to "prove" that the Huns are the ancestors of the modern Hungarians. The misunderstanding can be traced back to the fact, that some of the Huns once settled in Pannonia, and hence that Atilla happened to die there. The Danube valley region was therefore renamed "Hun-garia" by popular European discourse at the time. Most of the Huns withdrew back east after Atilla's death, and the few remaining soon assimilated into the newcoming population. These were the Slavic tribes, who filled the vacuum which the Goths and then the Huns left behind. It wasn't until almost five centuries later, that another network of tribes, speakers of a Ugro-Finnic language, settled in the region. Due to being semi-nomadic, they exposed a higher degree of military organisation
that the Slavic settlers, hence they could impose their language and culture upon them. This does not reduce the fact that even today most Hungarians have primarily Slavic genes.
Hungarian nationalists should in fact be proud and grateful that they are related to the modern, clever and hardworking Finns and to peaceful, creative Slavs, rather than to those backward medieval Turks or (even worse) those barbaric Huns, who attacked the high civilisation of ancient China, exterminated the (highly developed) Tocharians. Alans and Scythians, practised ethnic cleansing in Eastern Europe, raped many Gothic and Slavic women and children and destroyed the Roman Empire, and hence rightfully faded into oblivion soon after their monstruous atrocities.
It might even have been more inspiring to be related to the briliant Japanese and Koreans, or the spiritual Tibetans, or the Sumerians (as some claim), but alas, this is definitely not true.

Romans who destroyed everything and everyone who dared to Roman conquest. Atilla when every Roman legion defeated and became THE King of the World, Atilla was not destroyed Rome, but stopped at the gate of Rome and sent for the Pope.He listened to the Pope's prayer, spared the city and the barbaric Romans. Later, a lot of cruel conquest occurred on the name of the Catholic Church (America, Africa, Asia). Who was the Barbarian?

p.c.: Atilla (the philosopher,the generous,the merciful,) had a mistake, responsible for the western barbarians ......

I think you should know the Codex Isfahani

Attila the Hun is known as a destroyer rather than a builder of civilizations. The Hun nation, although it spanned the greater part of eastern Europe in its day, was relatively disorganized and uncultured, even compared to its German neighbors. The Germanic tribes varied in their relationship with the Roman Empire, but many, such as the Visigoths, were relatively civilized. The Huns were a long standing enemy and threat to the German tribes, and in many cases Germanic incursions into Roman territory during previous generations had been inspired by the desire to flee from the Huns to areas of greater safety and civilization. By the mid fifth century, much of Gaul had been settled by German tribes, and although they were independent from the emperor in Rome, they had assimilated much of Latin culture and, in some cases, become Christians. They were no longer "barbarian" in the same sense that the Huns were.

half bred bastard????

Everyone healthy person is a half bred bastard. The alternative is an inbred retard!!!!!

Why did a recent movie portray Attila as a Caucasoid?

Attila was born next to the Caucasus, so he was a Caucasoid.

I'll give you a little help,but you should know also in Hungarian. The Hungarians are still preserved in the Hun-Hungarian relationship.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVG9HP0e9h4

So hes pretty much mongolian right? Sheez this is getting confusing

Pffff... Obviously the author doesn't have a clue what he's talkin about. Neither the Huns neither the Bulgarians were ever mongols or turks!!! This is filthy communist propaganda from the beginning of the 20th century which is already refuted by most of the modern historians. The Bulgarians and the Huns were (and still are) Indo-Iranian people which is 100% proven by genetical and antropological evidences. So stop brainwashing the people with this * , please!

Love the stories of the Caesars, the Huns and the Khans. History is what we make of it, we shouldn't go too much into who came from where or why, we learn from the past...i thought I was an old Saxon family from the family history, turns out i'm almost certianly norman french, bugger it I'm English I can,t stand the French!

The Huns have blonde hair and blue/green eyes. This is why they appear always north of the Roman border, where the Goths defeated them, and drove them north, into Scandinavia, Britain and Russia.

White Races of Europe do not have blonde hair. Blonds are of the Mongoloid race, they have small beady eyes, which are slanted, they're either Trollishly tall like the Trolls of Norse mythology, or fat and stouty like the Asians.

Blonde people have mongoloid moustaches. Huns were predominantly blonde, and still are now.

Blonds are not White Europeans. They even have yellow semitic skin, and many Turkish features.